Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
It has been 16 years since it's original run, I would have hoped by now some "marketing wizard" would have promoted a live actor version of this classic by now, or at least sought to re-release the original 65 episodes. I can't fathom why the sci-fi or cartoon network haven't snapped this up. Galaxy Rangers actually had well thought out plots, and even better scripts.The animation was above average quality for it's time, and excellent when compared to the talking slide show Japanese animation of today. It predated the heavy toon-toy tie in market, this may have sealed it's doom too. I would willingly spend cash on a DVD of GR if available. | positive |
I'm an animator myself and an all around buff of the medium so when I saw this movie in a $5 bin I figured it was worth a shot to add to my collection. While I never regret having a new addition to my animation library this film was definitely disappointing.<br /><br />The premise has enough potential. A penguin named Hubie finds the perfect pebble to give to the girl he loves as the penguin equivalent to an engagement ring but before he can give it to her, he's cast out by an evil rival and lost at sea. He then befriends another penguin who helps him find his way home. That set up isn't great but it's enough to set up what could be a fun adventure. Unfortunately the duo's exploits never really amount to much and it all gets pretty repetitive. Most of the situations they find themselves in are really uninspired and lacking in creativity...and the bonding the two of them under go is cheesy and forced.<br /><br />Animation is good but not up to Don Bluth's usual standards. This is the guy that gave us The Secret of Nimh, Land Before Time and An American Tale, all of which had an attention to detail that often surpassed Disney, the granddaddy of feature animation. This one doesn't amount to much beyond high end TV fair.<br /><br />The music is alright but pretty forgettable and the voice actors are all wasted talent...Martin Short is particularly wasted here as the lead character who in spite of being spoken of as a bumbler is practically a straight man through the whole film.<br /><br />In short the movie will probably appeal to very small kids but a good family film should appeal to all ages and unfortunately it doesn't got what it takes. | negative |
The movie had no excitement and does not have anything to hold your interest. The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! How can a movie be romantic if the girl never gets a the right guy until the last seen in the movie, than the movie ends??? Maybe part II will be romantic, but somebody else will have to risk wasting their money! I have nothing else to say other than do not waste your time!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! | negative |
i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow! | positive |
This is definitely the biggest surprise of the festival so far and without a doubt the best the festival has had to offer. I went into this film with little to no expectations after learning that the director was responsible for the awful vampire flick The Forsaken. and I left pleasantly surprised. The film stars Lori heuring of In Crowd fame as a young mother whose husband has just passed. She moves into an old family home in the mountains with her two daughters next to a mine that is a gravesite to overworked children back in the day. Unlucky for them the children return with a vengeance killing and eating everyone in their path. The film works on many levels. It's well done, suspenseful, it has spots of good cinematography and capable performances by Compton especially. The atmosphere is spooky yet slightly underwhelming, the score is decent and the makeup effects are gruesome and simplistic. The film keeps up a creepy and unsettling tone and the kids themselves with pale skin, torn up lips and hollow eyes are pretty scary and unrelenting. The film is original and inventive without being to artsy or complicated. I can't see this film making it into a wide release without some trimming and slight fine tuning. But they definitely have a good product on there hands and should pursue some type of theatrical distribution. However the theatre in which i saw it in was horrible. The sound was dreadfully messed up which i felt took away from the film majorly and it stopped in the middle because they couldn't center it on the screen which killed the mood a bit. All in all though it was the most satisfying of horrorfests entries maybe because it had the least expectations but nonetheless was a welcome addition to genre films. | positive |
The First Power (1990) was a terrible film that came out during the late 80's/ early 90's era of cheaply made horror films. I found this movie very boring but extremely hilarious in some parts. This movie lacks so much sense and credibility that it ain't even funny. The swift justice system in this film makes Texas look weak by comparison. Lou Diamond Phillips is in way over his head with this role (he plays a hard-boiled cop) and Tracey Griffith (Melanie's more attractive sister) plays a psychic. Don't waste your time with this one because it's bad. What a minute, I take it back. This movie makes a great party film. Check out the switchblade crucifix packing nun, she has the nicest legs I've ever seen on a Nun that wasn't in a Jesus Franco nunsploitation flick. Yeow!<br /><br />This marked an end of an era for L.D.P. His star was tarnished and he couldn't draw flies to a dung heap. It was D.T.V. for him until his "ressurection" a few years later.<br /><br />Not recommended unless you're desperate. | negative |
I've always believed that David and Bathsheba was a film originally intended for Tyrone Power at 20th Century Fox, although Gregory Peck does give a good account of himself as King David, the monarch with a wandering eye.<br /><br />A whole lot of biblical subjects get covered in this film, adultery, redemption, sin, punishment and generally what God expects from his followers.<br /><br />When you're a king, even king in a biblically prophesied kingdom you certainly do have a lot perogatives not open to the rest of us. King David has many wives, including one really vicious one in Jayne Meadows who was the daughter of Saul, David's predecessor. But his eyes catch sight of Bathsheba out in her garden one evening. Turns out she's as unhappily married to Uriah the Hittite as David is to quite a few women. Uriah is one of David's army captains. David sends for Bathsheba and him being the King, she comes a runnin' because she's had her eye on him too.<br /><br />What happens, an affair, a pregnancy, and a carefully arranged death for Uriah in a battle. But an all seeing and knowing Deity has caught all of this and is not only punishing David and Bathsheba, but the entire Kingdom of Israel is being punished with drought, disease, and pestilence.<br /><br />The sexist law of the day calls for Bathsheba to have a stoning death. David shows weakness in his previous actions, but here he steps up to the plate and asks that the whole thing be put on him. He even lays hands on the Ark of the Covenant which was an instant death as seen in the film.<br /><br />My interpretation of it is that God admires guts even if you're wrong and he lets up on David and forgives them both. Bathsheba becomes the mother of Solomon and she and David are the ancestors of several successors in the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah until they're both conquered.<br /><br />Susan Hayward is a fetching Bathsheba caught in a loveless marriage with Uriah played by Kieron Moore. The only thing that gets Moore aroused is a good battle. I liked Kieron Moore's performance as a brave and rather stupid horse's rear. <br /><br />No one can lay the law down like Raymond Massey. His Nathan the Prophet is in keeping with the John Brown character he played in two films, same intensity. <br /><br />So when His own law called for death, why did God spare Bathsheba and keep David on the throne. Maybe it was the fact He just didn't want to train a third guy for the job. He'd replaced Saul with David already. <br /><br />But I think the Christian interpretation might be that this was a hint of the New Testament forthcoming, that one might sin and receive mercy if one asks for it penitently. I'll leave it to the biblical scholars to submit interpretations.<br /><br />Watch the film and you might come up with an entirely new theory. | positive |
I have recently gone to the movie theatres to see the new (2007) version of Bridge to Teribithia. After, I went to the library to rent the older version to see it again without paying again. I must say that I was extremely disappointed! I found the older version to have horrible acting as well as corny lines including Jessie saying, "I know Daddy, but I hurt so much inside" after Leslie dies. It was quite horribly done and the casting was not much better in my opinion. I watched in amazement all the while saying no wonder they remade it. The story is great but trust me spend the money and see the new version, if you just see the old one you may never experience the true magic of Teribithia. | negative |
Rose Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?<br /><br />The End of the World A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clichés.<br /><br />The Unquiet Dead Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.<br /><br />Aliens of London/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour/satire.<br /><br />Dalek Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.<br /><br />The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clichéd 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.<br /><br />Father's Day The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.<br /><br />The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing. <br /><br />Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.<br /><br />Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.<br /><br />The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.<br /><br />So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?<br /><br />Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.<br /><br />Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre. | negative |
No spoiler needed to steer you clear of this...well, bizarre film. Canada becomes part of the USA. OK. So, I guess I'm unusual, but I expected something about the implications of Canada becoming part of the USA. Silly me. Continue with this movie and you are off to cloud coocoo land. The opening premise has nothing to do with the rest of the film in which you will (trust me) not care a squat for any of the characters. Slings and Arrows and Due South have to be among the most imaginative series ever. But in this case, Paul Gross, I'm so very sorry to say, didn't have a clue about making a coherent film and wasted a lot of talented actors in the process. A real disappointment. | negative |
I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed. | negative |
As I am from Hungary I have heard many people saying better and better things about Üvegtigris so far, but actually I don't understand the reason of all the fuss.<br /><br />I liked many points of the movie, some of the quotes really cheered me up, but the stereotyped characters are present again, like in every Hungarian film, and the story is also pretty dull. I liked the first half, but then I started to get bored, and then I found the whole film just BORING.<br /><br />Rudolf Péter is good as always, Reviczky is brilliant also, but the others are just there... doing nothing.<br /><br />How many years still have to pass for a GOOD Hungarian film??? | negative |
Movies just don't get worse than this. Horrible plot, terribly timed, pathetic characters and effects and yes this is using "B" standards.<br /><br />And for the guys: nothing, this movie is a terrible let down, couple scenes that could have been great but you get nothing but build up with no delivery.<br /><br />This movie appeals to no one, horrible movie,it had bad; plot, acting, "B" flavor, special effects and everything else. Plus no nudity or erotics for guys or the girls. | negative |
A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.<br /><br />A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".<br /><br />Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.<br /><br />For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.<br /><br />Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.<br /><br />Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.<br /><br /> | negative |
Predictable Unmotivated Pointless Caricatures Contrived Actors did what they could Actors clearly indicated they were embarrassed to do this Not one emotional connection REAL SEQUENCE FROM FILM "Who you callin?" (sic) "The police"(sic) "You can't do that, Stevie. Hang up the phone"(sic) "Jesse got a sh-t load o' drug money, you can't go involving the cops"(sic) "I'm not so sure stealing money from criminals is a crime. Even if they arrest him at least he'll be alive"(sic) "Listen to me, Stevie, this ain't handled right, Jesse's gonna end up dead. Now hang up that f-in phone." (sic) Best Friend starts to load up guns Brother, "Hey, what're you doin'?" No answer. "Hey, I got a family to worry about." (Keep in mind his child is sitting right there watching-ish all of this) Then more and more and more exposition<br /><br />Notice how in the above sequence, at no time do the police on the other line say, "Hello? Hello? Uh, we can hear everything you're saying. We're sending someone over there right now." <br /><br />Embarrassment for all. Oops. | negative |
An interesting period picec showing us what was amazing in 1938. Gosh, Ma, a fake accident ring suing for $25,000!!! I guess projected into the 21st century it would amount to a lot of money. The acting would amount to pure 21st century ham. Nice to see the president as a hard-working newcomer. | negative |
This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.<br /><br />As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.<br /><br />Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as "Michael J Fox" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.<br /><br />What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.<br /><br />The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same. | positive |
I laughed a lot while watching this. It's an amusing short with a fun musical act and a lot of wackiness. The characters are simple, but their simplicity adds to the humor stylization. The dialog is funny and often unexpected, and from the first line to the last everything just seems to flow wonderfully. There's Max, who has apparently led a horrible life. And there's Edward, who isn't sure what life he wants to lead. My favorite character was Tom, Edward's insane boss. Tom has a short role but a memorable one. Highly recommended for anyone who likes silly humor. And you can find it online now, which is a bonus! I am a fan of all of Jason's cartoons and can't wait to see what he comes out with next. | positive |
I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack. | negative |
The week before I saw Iowa, I saw Art School Confidential, in which a pretentious student makes a film and can't decide whether he wants it to be art or violent exploitation. Iowa could be the film that he made. I can see elements of much better movies in Iowa - Spun and Natural Born Killers. However, in addition to artiness, both those movies had good character development and coherent story lines. Iowa. This movie stumbles to a preposterous end. I have to admit that it had consistency. This movie is bad from beginning to end and not particularly worse or better in any part. The actors all did what they could. Roseanna Arquette deserves better. She demonstrates that she is very talented, very funny, and very sexy. But why does she have to demonstrate it in this turd ball. | negative |
If you want to see intelligent, philosophical discussion of human possibility and potential, watch "Waking Life," which is brilliant. "What the #$*! Do We Know" is all over the place in its focus, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted, utterly devoid of any art direction and completely annoying. It wasn't thought-provoking or entertaining in the slightest. The inclusion of that rambling freak "Ramtha" in this film is reason enough to avoid it. Isn't it strange how the filmmakers choose to look over the fact that this woman worships some 2,000 year old Atlantian god or something? What a flake that old chick is, and what a total waste of my time and money this movie was. The people responsible for this film should not be allowed to make another movie ever again. | negative |
There were so many things wrong with this movie i have trouble keeping them all straight. But one thing that really bothers me is that if Jigsaw was the one laying on the ground in the bathroom, what happens if Zep never shows up? What if Zep was killed by Danny Gloover before he made it to the bathroom? Does Jigsaw simply just get up and walk out? Could the guy in the middle of the bathroom not be jigsaw, but another part of Jigsaw's game? What if Zep killed the wife and kid, how does Jigsaw get him the antidote for the poison if he's lying in the middle of the bathroom? Why does the doctor wait till the last minute to finally cut off his foot? It was too late, it was after six and as far as he knew his wife and child were already shot dead, it wasn't the best time for heroics. These are just a few questions i had about the film, but i may be missing something or everything as i have only seen the movie once. Please Help! | negative |
I am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.<br /><br />What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.<br /><br />What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs. | negative |
Yul Brynner was a symbol of villein in the tine of 50,s , he play a role of Russian leader in Hungary at the time of revolution in this country in 1956 that made it against the Marxism.<br /><br />The script of this film made it by good taste from the writer that mixing love and adventure with showing different characters in the journey from Hungary to England.<br /><br />The best point in this film was the symbol of challenge from the Hungarian Resistance to kill the Russian major(Yul Brynner) in the hall time of the film that made a meaning about the disadvantages of this major from his bad works , but at the end he made a good work to help Deborah Kerr for escaping her and her darling to London to write in his book a good working to gain at the end people,s agreement and trustment after his assassination by the Hungarian Resistance. | positive |
"Boogie Nights" is a masterpiece it tells a great story with flair an great direction from a very talented director. This film features a cast which turn in outstanding performances. Though the subject matter is very controversial but it is handled with great care by very talented people. This movie has an unexpected emotional impact also, you will remember it long after it is over. | positive |
A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.<br /><br />My Grade: D- | negative |
Most critics seem to have dismissed this film, like so many other Charles Bronson vehicles, as just another patchwork of mindless violence. And while there is a fair amount of mayhem, DEATH WISH 3 is not that awful of an effort, particularly for fans of the series and its star.<br /><br />This time out, aging Charlie's Paul Kersey is let loose by a police chief desperate to clean up a rough part of New York City. The trigger-happy vigilante moves into the heart of gang territory, where he once again becomes a one-man army in an urban war of good versus evil. Bronson, at least the "older" version, is truly at his best.<br /><br />I'm not saying DEATH WISH 3 is a classic. Indeed to the discriminating eye it has a plethora of imperfections. The characters are generally made of cardboard. The violence is over the top. A man well into his 60s outruns and outspooks dozens of young punks. But in the tradition of the original DEATH WISH and later films such as FALLING DOWN with Michael Douglas, it has a definite crowd-pleasing charm. Who doesn't want to see gangbangers get their due? There are also some great cheesy moments and one-liners so common in 1980s films. When a tenant of his apartment building sees Kersey setting up a booby trap, for instance, the vigilante lightheartedly says he's "thinning the herd." A line only Bronson can truly make work.<br /><br />So you see, the key to enjoying DEATH WISH 3 is to accept it for what it is. It ain't Spielberg and it ain't art. So throw the popcorn in the microwave and have fun with it. | positive |
I can't believe I watched this whole movie. Another "Ishtar" in that I kept waiting for it to get better, which never happened. The sound is terrible, going from too low to hear the conversations, to blaring sound in seconds. The plot is absolutely implausible, the acting is mediocre, although Keaton does his usual good job as a mental case, although being typecast in that role could certainly be considered a negative. The director knows absolutely nothing about hospitals, medications, science or anything of a technical nature. "Sociopath"???? I wonder how they came up with that diagnosis? There are so many errors, goofs and things wrong with this movie that if one were to list them all it would possibly set some kind of record. Demerol as a general anestetic? A motorcyclist on the freeway wearing a non DOT/Snell off-road helmet. San Francisco??? Paper walls move when tapped, helmets just appear out of thin air, guns point one direction but hit things in another, lighting appears and disappears and there is barely a scene in the move that doesn't contain some kind of error. My wife, who is an RN in an Oncology unit finally left the room before the end of the movie so upset over all the medical errors. I gave it a 2 only because of Keaton's acting, else it certainly would have gotten a 1. | negative |
As most of you, I've watch a lot of great movies; In between those we often either voluntarily or mistakenly also find those movies that are so pointless that we think of reasons as to why anyone would make it. This is exactly what I can say for Dead man's bounty....<br /><br />The very least I can do is try to "warn" some of you. If you enjoy being entertained by a motion picture because of the story, acting and intensity than you might want to chose something else. Now, it's not all bad.....In fact, if all you want is creative film editing, and unique angles along with original music ambient than you might think it's OK. As someone that values movie plots, acting and being entertained by a film, the truth is I thought this movie was so terrible beyond words. I could easily find a spot for it on my list of worst movies seen in a while. <br /><br />As for having Val Kilmer in this, the truth is he was casted probably as a favor to the director; As a fan of some of Kilmer's films, I can't understand what his motive for this was. The movie seems part western part romance.........In the end, I'm sure most of you can agree with me that it simply is a rude waste of our time. In case you haven't seen this movie, my recommendation would be to avoid it completely. | negative |
Living just down the Hwy from Georgetown, Co...I remember this movie well and thought it was great! The story seems like something John would do even in real life, but there is something that I will always remember most about the movie. For those of you who don't live in Denver...every Christmas, the city of Denver, Co puts up a fabulous display of lights and decorations at the Civic Center in downtown Denver. Well...as it so happened, during the filming of this movie, a Nativity scene was needed. So...it was borrowed from the Civic Center display...with permission, by the way! Someone had forgotten to advice the powers that be, and it was reported stolen! A frantic search began with law enforcement for a few days. Finally, someone spoke up and remembered loaning it to the film crew in Georgetown! It was returned and put back where it belonged! As it turns out...it wasn't featured all that much in the movie...you can barely see it during the Christmas show with the children. It did create quit a disturbance though... | positive |
***Possible Plot Spoilers***<br /><br />I adore Dennis Hopper. I question why he accepted the role of a police detective in 2000's The Spreading Ground. This movie flat out sucks and I'm about to tell you why.<br /><br />This is about a small town which is about to get a contract for a sports arena. One hitch: there's a killer on the loose and that is bad for business. The Mayor makes a deal with the Irish Mob to find the killer and make sure he never makes it to court. Det. Ed Delongpre has other plans. He wants this guy caught too, but he's on the level and believes in the system. He wants to see the system do it's job.<br /><br />That could have been pretty good. It could have been riveting. It was horrible. First, they label this guy a Serial Killer. Err no. There are specific criteria and none of it fits here. The bad guy has killed 5 kids the first day, and I think it was 2 the second day. This entire movie spans like a 48 hour time period.... Hardly Serial Killer action. I don't care what warped motives they give him in the end, Serial Killers do their deed over a long time span. They do not just all of a sudden kill 7 kids in two days. That's a Spree.<br /><br />Ok that irritant aside, the acting was atrocious. The only name here was Hopper, and he's the only one who came even close to pulling off his part. Unfortunately, he's kinda type-cast to me and I think he does psycho parts much, much better. This just wasn't a good vehicle for Hopper. It didn't allow him to do what he does best, which is to act all creepy. It's not that he did bad, it's that I've seen him do so much better.<br /><br />The Irish Mob guy, Johnny Gault (Tom McCamus - Long Day's Journey Into Night), who is in charge of their investigation is just over the top stiff. Contradiction? Not really. He is trying to play the cold, hard kinda guy and he does that to the point that the character is just wooden. Boring to the max. He didn't scare me. He didn't inspire any emotion at all except boredom. I cannot tell you how many times I checked to see how much longer it was til the end of this movie.<br /><br />The other thing about this is that it had the feel of a made-for-TV movie. You know what I mean. The poor production values, low budget, re-use of scenes to save costs. Just eh. Yanno? But, I feel like comparing this to those is an insult to those.<br /><br />Derek Vanlint was both the Director and Cinematographer on this project. He bit off more than he could chew. I can't help feeling that Hopper must have took this role as a personal favor to a friend. That's the only rational I can come up with. This was Vanlint's first job as Director, third as cinematographer. Hopefully this was a learning experience for him.<br /><br />I won't ruin the ending in case you do decide to torture yourself with this one, but I do want to say that they all dropped the ball here...even Hopper. In a scene that should have been emotionally gut-wrenching for the detective, it was just..well.. blah. I didn't see any of the angst at all that would accompany the total gear-change this guy made. Very disappointing.<br /><br />This 100 grueling minutes long and Rated R for violence and language. No kid under 13 is going to have any interest whatsoever in watching this, so no worries there. It's not suitable for anyone anyway. heh.<br /><br />Skip this one. You'll thank me later. | negative |
The silent film masterpiece Battleship Potemkin (1925) was commissioned by the Soviet government to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905 and to establish the event as an heroic foreshadowing of the October Revolution of 1917. Ironically the film's director, Sergei Eisenstein, was one of the earliest and most influential advocates of a formalistic approach to film art. Subsequently, Eisenstein's formalism and suspect politics would cause innumerable conflicts with government agencies insisting on "socialist realism." Influenced by the Russian film theoretician, Lev Kuleshov, and through him by D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (smuggled into Russia in 1919), Eisenstein constructed his films from a "collision" of rapidly edited images, a montage of shots varied in length, motion, content, lighting, and camera angle. Without question the most memorable illustration of Eisenstein's stylistic approach - and probably the single most cited and studied sequence in world cinema history - is the "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin.<br /><br />In structure Potemkin is a "five reeler" divided into five narrative parts, an organization clearly derived from the five-act arrangement of Western drama. In "Men and Maggots," Eisenstein dramatizes the pre-revolutionary oppression and discontent of the battleship's working class sailors as the situation inevitably builds to mutiny. Even before the sailors and their upper class officers/masters are visually introduced, Eisenstein establishes revolutionary conditions symbolically by the collision editing of waves breaking violently and ominously at sea. Onboard ship we witness crowded, unsanitary conditions. Eisenstein emphasizes the sailors' dehumanization with shots of arbitrary lashings, harsh labor, and - most memorably - the maggot infested meat intended for the evening's meal. The ship's nearsighted physician is brought forward by the other officers to declare the meat perfectly suitable to be served with the dark soup, boiling like the sailors' rage. In accordance with Marxist maxims, the church also fails the men, and we see one of them smashing a plate inscribed with words from The Lord's Prayer from two different camera angles (in perhaps the first deliberate "jump cut" in cinema history).<br /><br />Identified by inter-titles as "Drama on the Quarterdeck" and "An Appeal from the Dead," Potemkin's second and third parts depict the actual mutiny and the onshore funeral of its leader and first hero of the revolution, Vakulinchuk. United by Vakulinchuk's appeals to brotherhood, the initial mutineers are joined by the entire crew in an attack on the officers. A chaotic scene ensues whose violent passion is served well by Eisenstein's editing techniques. The officers' quarters are trampled and symbols of their privilege are destroyed. The ship's doctor is thrown overboard, accompanied by dramatic crosscuts to the maggot-ridden meat and his eyeglasses metonymically dangling in the rigging. Tragically, Vakolinchuk's death is the price paid for the revolt (no omelet without breaking eggs) and he is laid out with dignity on an Odessa pier. Hundreds of ordinary Odessa citizens gather with the sailors to honor him and to pledge "Death to the oppressors." Shots of fists clenching and unclenching signal the birth of revolutionary consciousness.<br /><br />The complex and unforgettable Odessa Steps sequence constitutes the film's fourth act. It begins with uplifting music and a series of close-ups and medium shots on the elated faces of diverse people on the shore and selected objects (parasol, eyeglasses, baby carriage). Suddenly (as exclaims a title card in huge letters) the music stops and lines of soldiers with drawn rifles and fixed bayonets appear at the top of the steps. Here Eisenstein releases the full force of collision editing as nearly a hundred shots are pieced together to contrast the panicked mayhem and victimization of the citizenry with the relentless assault of the soldiers driving the citizens down to the trampling horses and flying sabers of the waiting Cossacks below. The mise-en-scene is framed by a statue of Caesar at the top of the stairs and a church at the bottom, symbolic metonyms for Russia's oppressive institutions: tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Christian church.<br /><br />Punctuating the sequence are two scenes involving mothers and children. In the first, a mother and young boy who had been introduced among the joyous faces in the crowd are among the slaughter's first victims. The boy is shot, but the mother continues running until close-ups of her face convey her horrified gaze at the son's fallen body being trampled by the crowd. With a much slowed editing pace, the camera follows the mother as she carries the lifeless body of her child up the stairs to confront the soldiers (shown only in a diagonal shadow line). They summarily shoot her dead. After this lull, the carnage continues for another several dozen cuts until a second mother is shot through the stomach (the womb of Mother Russia?) as she tries to shield her baby in its carriage. In a scene famously imitated in The Untouchables, the carriage incongruously slips down the staircase. Horrified faces of huddled citizens watch the slow progress to its doom. When the carriage reaches the bottom there is a cut to a Cossack wielding a sword and a classic Kuleshov effect suggests what we do not actually see: the slaughtering of this pure and symbolic innocent. The final series of shots in the Odessa sequence is of three stone lions, one in repose, one sitting up, and one roaring. The editing animates them into a visual metaphor of the people's awakened rage.<br /><br />Somewhat anticlimactically, the fifth act returns us to the battleship as the mutinous sailors flee on the high seas and await an encounter with other ships from the fleet. They and the viewer expect retribution, but when the meeting occurs no shots are fired and instead all the sailors wave and throw their hats in the air in a symbol of comradeship. Eisenstein was rewriting history at this point since the revolution was not successfully launched for another twelve years. But that quibble aside, Battleship Potemkin stands as one of the seminal works of the silent film era, and it retains extraordinary cinematic power. | positive |
After missing out on this innumerable times on TCM UK, I decided to check it out given its sci-fi/adventure/camp pedigree: I knew I’d be in for a thoroughly silly ride – but it was also astoundingly bad! Anyway, perhaps appropriately given the characters involved, the script rips off many sci-fi titles then of recent vintage – SOYLENT GREEN (1973), ZARDOZ (1974), LOGAN’S RUN (1976; to the extent that it was filmed on some of the self-same sets!), STAR WARS (1977), ALIEN (1979) and MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981)! <br /><br />The plot is simple but not exactly engaging: from the title one can deduce that water has become scarce on the planet where all of this takes place – so our ragtag buccaneer heroes take it upon themselves to steal ice blocks from the tyrannical Templar(!) rulers. Also involved is a beautiful princess (Mary Crosby, daughter of Bing!) in search of her father, the deposed king; by the way, the cast includes another famous offspring: Anjelica Huston (daughter of John) as one of the pirate band – thankfully, the actress’ mistake in accepting such a role would soon be forgotten in the wake of her winning an Oscar (under her father’s guidance, no less) for PRIZZI’S HONOR (1985). Since STAR WARS had Peter Cushing as the “Supreme Commander”, the film-makers opted to have a screen legend of their own – 78-year old John Carradine (who’s seen strapped to a sort of operating table during his one brief scene!).<br /><br />The most notable bits (for all the wrong reasons) are: the alien using the toilet; the castration machine; the clumsy antics (including karate-style combat!) of the inevitable robot companions; the goofy slave/eunuch make-up worn at one point by the heroes; the recurring attacks by the “space herpies” (whatever that is); the climax in which the characters are made to age when going through a time-warp (Crosby becomes pregnant, gives birth, and sees her son grow up in the space of 30 seconds, while leading man Robert Urich himself is replaced by John Ford stalwart Hank Worden for this scene!) – incidentally, the jump-cuts adopted here (intending to denote the rapid passage of time) are not only unsuccessful but downright irritating. | negative |
I did not think Haggard was the funniest movie of all time I like CKY and Viva La Bam a lot more. I think a lot of it was just really stupid and had no plot for being a movie. I highly recommend not paying a lot of money for this movie but anyone who likes viva la bam, CKY, or Jack Ass should see it. I loved many parts of the movie and then there were parts that should have been cut out. I think that Jonny Knoxville should have played in the movie because he is a much better actor then most of the people from Haggard and probably could have made this movie allot more funnier. I think Ryan Dunn was probably the best actor and it should have had bam skating more. | negative |
I saw this film (it's English title is "Who's Singing Over There?") at the 1980 Montreal International Film Festival. It won raves then... and disappeared. A terrible shame. It is brilliant. Sublime, ridiculous, sad, and extremely funny. The script is a work of art. It's been 19 years and I've seen only a handful of comedies (or any other genre, for that matter) that can match its originality. | positive |
I'm kinda torn on DARK ANGEL. The film appears to be a "loving" tribute to the greatest pin-up to ever live - but there is so little actual "content" that the film itself is virtually pointless. I can't really see what the motivation or "point" of this film is - as there is very little biographical information provided in the narrative - so those who don't know much about Bettie aren't gonna know much more after watching DARK ANGEL either...<br /><br />The film basically chronicles the last few years of Bettie's career in bondage modeling. Almost the entire film is comprised of "re-enactments" of some of Bettie's more "famous" photo-shoots and loops. These re-enactments take up literally 75% of the films run-time, and give virtually no insight into Bettie as a person. The film touches briefly on her short-lived legitimate acting pursuits, and her subsequent decision to leave the "business" and become religious - but all of this is pretty much glossed-over in favor of showing long and drawn-out re-enactment scenes...<br /><br />DARK ANGEL isn't a horrible film - there's just no substance to it. The other problem is that the actress that plays Bettie only really resembles her in farther away shots - up-close it's a no-go. The other thing that irritated me, is that although Bettie did several topless modeling shoots - the only nudity in the film was a short segment shot in a zoo during the end credits. The film itself is obviously extremely low-budget, but does what it can set and costume-wise within it's limitations - so no gripes from me there. The acting is pretty wooden and unmemorable from everyone involved. In fact - the most memorable thing about the whole film for me, was noticing during the end credits that the actor who played Irving Klaw's real name is Dukey Flyswatter. No joke - check the cast list. Can't say that I recommend this one too highly unless you are a true Bettiefile completist and must own anything relating to her. And if you are that bad off - then you need to seek treatment anyway...4/10 | negative |
The only reason I didn't fall asleep during this movie is because the seats were not that comfortable. Hannibal is BORING>BORING> BORING and BORING!!! This film is just dreadful, not because of any violence or graphic mutilations. It's actually quite tame in that regard. The story moves at the speed of a lazy snail. I have the feeling that director Ridley Scott just phoned this one in. The actors are all fine they just needed some direction. The music score is also very annoying. It's especially noticeable since so little is going on in the film. It does look good but that's not enough reason to see it. By the way did I mention that it's BORING?<br /><br /> | negative |
After the turning point of NIGHT MUST FALL, Robert Montgomery (for the most time) came into his finest films and performances: HERE COMES MR. JORDAN, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, THE SAXON CHARM, JUNE BRIDE. Even some of the failures he was in were interesting enough to be still watchable (RAGE IN HEAVEN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH). But Montgomery wanted to do more and more production and directing work. In 1949 he made what would be his last movie performance - he played Collier Lang, an egotistical movie star, who is dragged into helping the authorities do an investigation about a young girl's boyfriend.<br /><br />Apparently my view of this film is a minority view. Most of the views given are favorable about it. I thought it was a dull, witless script, with Ann Blyth's groupie heroine not very appealing as a character. She admires Montgomery as a star, and this "helps" when he is called in to assist the authorities, but after awhile I found there was no chemistry between them. The script was also devoid of much fun, although Montgomery and Roland Winters did try. The only thing I recall to this day as a joke point was that Taylor Holmes is the wealthy father of Blyth, and he is an admirer of Winston Churchill. So he always dresses up as Churchill, and we see him wearing a floppy broad brimmed hat, smoking a large cigar, and painting (Holmes' bald head helps in the disguise). That was the most memorable joke from this film - not much of a real memory.<br /><br />Montgomery went into early television, and finally won the attention and respect he always had deserved in motion pictures. His last contact with the movies was his direction of THE GALLANT HOURS about Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, starring his friend Jimmy Cagney. It is a far better film than this. For his overall film and television career, I will give this mediocre film a "4". That strikes me as generous. | negative |
Mr. Bean has shaped the face of British TV comedy. He has proved that you do not need wicked words or wit, a massive budget, a great deal of intelligence or even any intelligence to make something brilliant. And Mr. Bean is one of those characters who you just can't forget. Some of these episodes had me in stitches - yes, they're not realistic at all and they're all pretty stupid, but to be honest, realism is one of the barriers Bean has broken on its way to greatness. Rowan Atkinson and co. always manage to cook up interesting new ideas - and hilarious new gags - remember when Mr. Bean drove his green Mini whilst sitting on a sofa on the roof? Mr. Bean is one of those things that never gets weak - the movie wasn't as good as this, but Bean has introduced a distinct new sense of humour to the world, and kids and adults alike will marvel at its immense fun factor. "Extras" and "Little Britain" can be damned - this is British comedy at its best and most original. These escapades never get old! 10/10 | positive |
I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. Not this one. It's just a genuinely nice movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.<br /><br />All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)<br /><br />Quaid is believable in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he knows how to throw a baseball. He looks like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is true, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.<br /><br />So, if you're looking for a nice, inspirational true life sports film, you can't wrong with this one. | positive |
Too Much of Something Borrowed Grade B-<br /><br />Super Bowl Sunday is one of the slowest days at movie theaters every year. Because of this, movie studios tend to avoid releasing bigger budgeted films that weekend. Every few years a studio releases a counter-programming female skewing movie (2001's "The Wedding Planner") to compete with the big game. This Super Bowl weekend similarly titled "The Wedding Date" will try to find success and attract viewers not watching the game. <br /><br />Sick of people feeling sorry for her, single-woman, Kat Ellis (Debra Messing, TV's "Will and Grace") hires male escort Nick ( Dermot Mulrony, "About Schmidt") to pose as her boyfriend for her sister's wedding in London. Her family has been giving her a hard time about her not being married, and her ex- fiancé of seven years, who dumped her without a reason, is the best man. To make him jealous Kat parades Nick around her ex to make him see what he is missing. But ultimately Nick helps Kat realize that she can open up, and let someone love her.<br /><br />The film borrows too much from similar wedding movies. It is almost a carbon copy of 1999's "Picture Perfect" and mixes in scenes similar to "The Wedding Planner" and "My Best Friends Wedding". The movie also has a reverse "Pretty Women" theme going for it, and knowing her audience, the director makes clever references to that and other films.<br /><br />"The Wedding Date" has all the clichéd elements of a typical wedding movie, there is the stereotypical overbearing mother (Holland Taylor, "Legally Blonde"), and practically plagiarized wedding speeches by the family and friends at the wedding and rehearsal dinner. The twist at the ending has been done before, but it was something that wasn't completely expected. The real reason why Kat was dumped comes as a surprise and changes the direction of the film for the last half hour.<br /><br />Even though "The Wedding Date" is predictable, it is able to stand on its own. Debra Messing, in her first lead role, proves she can be charming and funny. Dermot Mulrony has great chemistry with Debra Messing, but most of his dialogue was too corny and unrealistic. He is able to make best of what he is given, and be able to salvage the character. <br /><br />By the use of many clever puns (often sexual), the film is actually funny. Although primarily a chick-flick the film has components everyone can enjoy. The feel good story, and humor make it the best date movie released in a long time. | negative |
"Film noir" is an overused expression when it comes to describing films. Every crime drama seems to be a "noir". But "Where the Sidewalk Ends" really is a good example of what the genre is all about.<br /><br />Very briefly, an overzealous detective (Andrews) accidentally kills a no-goodnik who works for the mobsters. The killing is blamed on the father (Tom Tully) of a woman Andrews meets and falls for (Tierney). To save Dad from Old Sparky, Andrews captures the rest of the mob and turns himself in.<br /><br />The morally guilty cop is driven by impulses from the past. His father was a thief who was killed trying to shoot his way out of jail. But that doesn't excuse his actions after he accidentally offs the no-goodnik in self defense. He immediately goes to the phone to report the incident but he hesitates. He's already in hot water with the department and this could finish his career. Then, at just the wrong moment, the phone rings. It's Andrews' partner and Andrews tells him the suspect they're trailing isn't at home. He hides the body and later disposes of it by slugging a watchman and dumping the body in the river.<br /><br />What motivates a guy to do something so dumb? Okay. His job was at risk. But now he's committed multiple felonies. At least I think they must be multiple. I counted obstruction of justice, assault, disposing of a body without a permit, littering, first-degree mopery, and bearing false witness against his neighbor.<br /><br />In the end, we don't know whether to root for Andrews or not. The suspect didn't deserve to die, true, but it was after all an accident because Andrews didn't know he was a war hero and "had a silver plate in his head." Maybe it's that kind of ambiguity that made noir what it was, among other things such as characteristic lighting. If noir involved nothing more than black-and-white photography, murder, criminals, mystery, and suspicious women, then we'd have to include all the Charlie Chan movies under that rubric.<br /><br />Andrews is pretty good. He's a kind of Mark MacPherson (from "Laura") gone bitter. He never laughs, and rarely smiles, even when seated across a restaurant table from Gene Tierney, a situation likely to prompt smiles in many men. He has no sense of humor at all. His few wisecracks are put-downs. When he shoves a stoolie into a cab and the stoolie says, "Careful. I almost hit my head," Andrews' riposte is, "That's okay. The cab's insured." Andrews could seem kind of wooden at times but this is a role that calls for stubborn and humorless determination and he handles it well. His underplaying is perfect for the part. Little twitches or blinks project his thoughts and emotional states. And I guess the director, Otto Preminger, stopped him from pronouncing bullet as "BOO-let" and police as "POE-lice." Never could make up my mind about Gene Tierney. She does alright in the role of Tom Tully's daughter, a model, but she's like Marilyn Monroe in that you can't separate the adopted mannerisms from the real personality traits. Did Tierney actually have such an innocent, almost saintly persona? When she answered the phone at home, did her voice have the same sing-along quality that it has on screen? Poor Tierney went through some bad psychiatric stuff, before there were any effective meds for bipolar disorder. And Andrews too, nice guy though he appears to have been, slipped into alcoholism before finally recovering and making public service announcements.<br /><br />The DVD commentary by Peter Muller is unpretentious, informed, and sometimes amusing.<br /><br />Anyway, this is a good film as well as a good example of film noir. The good guys aren't all good, although the bad guys are all bad. Maybe that ambiguity is what makes it an adult picture instead of a popcorn movie. For the kiddies, only one shot is fired on screen and nobody's head explodes. Sorry. | positive |
With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.<br /><br />Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.<br /><br />The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a new life". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.<br /><br />I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way. | negative |
.......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.<br /><br />He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.<br /><br />Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.<br /><br />Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot. | positive |
The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version. <br /><br />Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton. <br /><br />It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists. <br /><br />The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.<br /><br />This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy. | positive |
OK. First said, I just wanted to check whether this movie has an average rating below or exactly -1. But 5,9. This is sicker than any of the killers' proceedings -,- . That made me curious what people wrote here.. which in the end made me set up an account to give my 2cents of truth into this "well of delusion" i find here.<br /><br />How dare you guys even MENTION this movie in the same sentences as e.g. Seven? The only thing they got in common is that they show various crime-scenes. That-is-it. And "Best thriller of 1999!" ? have you even watched another movie form that year? Or any other movie in your life at all? 1999 is not a year which people are reminded of by RESURRECTION... what's with actual MOVIES like 8mm, Eyes wide shut, Arlington Road, Double Jeopardy? (Theyre actually more a "thriller" than this one could ever be..). Resurrection does not even deserve to be dedicated to A SECOND of 1999.<br /><br />Really, you guys can't be serious. I watched that movie yesterday with my girlfriend, highly recommended by a friend of her. A "great film with Christopher Lambert"! ...which I had not yet seen? Hmm.. <br /><br />Well, first look on the Covers: OK, nothing special. At second glimpse you don't need to have supernatural powers to be aware that they simply mirrored Lambert's head, clipped his nose 'n this&that, then made a fancy negative pattern on top of it, to get the killers image on the COVER. You could even think they had some apprentice eat a gallon of marshmallows just to caption that creepy (booooh! -.- ) mouth.. whatever. Turned it around and the plot starts with.. "it's raining in Chicago... blabber blabber". Come on, a six year old could have made that snippet sound more exciting. Now, with this enormous excitement coming from the movies terrific presentation -.- , you absolutely wanna start watching it. Because it can't be that bad, it still is Christopher Lambert. That assumption of mine was proved wrong. WIth "proven wrong" i mean it was brutally executed by a deadly mix of the worst imaginable acting ever known to mankind (every actor, but the tops are the "i can do 1-Liners!" police chief, Prudhommes Wife __ actually a better detective than Prudhomme when she recombines several incidents to a yet ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN hint in the case!!!! -.- __ and .. yes.. Prudhomme himself) featuring a squadron of inhuman fake feelings, logic errors in a 1-minute-cycle, light-years far-fetched conclusions which in my point-of-view represent an insult to any thinking human being and last but not least a camera-man who obviously was a hyperventilating kangaroo. Oh well, and if you do not completely shut down your brains (these aren't premises to watch it) then you should know who is who and what is what after max. 30minutes, simply because you know ANY scene after the first. That is thrilling. Thrilling because this movie almost makes you think you can tell the future. <br /><br />The bottom line: This is BY FAR the worst movie I can remember. Trust me, I've seen many horrible movies which in some way were at least only bad attempts or bad copies of another movie. Resurrection however, is the best example on how to fail in every aspect possible. It was so bad that after being shocked by its unimaginably low quality in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, I laughed more often than in any recent comedy, simply because I was fascinated by the crew's brazenness to publish such an -extraordinary- film strip. Good thing for Lambert he was in Highlander:Endgame a year later, thus he can be pardoned. ;^O<br /><br />Anyhow, I DO recommend watching this movie to EVERYONE. In the end, we had great fun watching it :^D. I guarantee you, after you completely watched Resurrection (be brave, you can do it!) , you will worship the level of acting in any given daily soap. <br /><br />Or just go 'n watch highlander one more time... that's what I'm gonna do. | negative |
Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.<br /><br />First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.<br /><br />The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.<br /><br />The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.<br /><br />I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! <br /><br />So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.<br /><br />0/5 stars | negative |
Young Warriors (1983) <br /><br />While this is a deeply flawed (and in some ways idiotic) movie, the way it continually defies expectations makes it decent viewing for the adventurous sleaze fan.<br /><br />Meet yuppie college student Kevin and his gang of lovable frat boy buddies. In what starts out as a particularly egregious teen sex comedy, we follow this bunch of jerk-offs and their antics, which involve, among other things, making pledges tie bricks to their genitals. The movie abruptly shifts gears when Kevin's high school freshman sister is brutally raped and beaten into a coma by a gang of bikers who apparently have nothing better to do. When she dies in the hospital, Kevin vows revenge, much to the chagrin of his detective father.<br /><br />So far, we've gone from Porky's-lite, through Last House On The Left territory, into what is apparently shaping up to be your typical urban vigilante revenge flick. However, Kevin and his gang's portrayal goes from vaguely sympathetic until they become kill-crazed lunatics. It's to the film's credit that it doesn't glamorize the fascist anti-crime rhetoric that Kevin continually spouts, while still making it understandable that he would feel the way he does.<br /><br />The mood goes from lighthearted to grimy and downbeat very quickly, and by the end it's so over the top and exploitative that it'll leave you incredulous. And that's the strength of this film. You never know what to expect next.<br /><br />At over 100 minutes, it's a little lengthy for this kind of fare, but you won't get bored. Poorly acted for the most part, with cardboard cutouts for characters and some particularly ludicrous situations and rather stupid dialogue, this won't be topping anyone's list of forgotten classics anytime soon. I got a kick out of it though, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows if they're up for it. | positive |
Ladies and gentlemen, allow us to introduce to you
. The Toltecs! This ancient Latin American tribe, even preceding the Aztecs, supposedly had the most malevolent and bloodthirsty sorcerers, yet they get their asses whooped by a couple of college floozies and a one-hundred-and-seven-year old lawman with a whip! But before you get to see this, however, you have to struggle through more than 40 minutes of sheer boredom, infantile pranks and sleazy sequences that don't contain any actual sleaze. In case I haven't made myself entirely clear yet: "The Dark Power" is an indescribably cheesy and inept piece of 80's horror crap that still manages to be amusing because of its sheer and somewhat charming stupidity factor. Writer/director Phil Smoot's intentions were obviously admirable, but he as well as the rest of the cast & crew lacked the talent and financial means to deliver something even half-decent. Smoot carefully watched "The Evil Dead" and other similar demonic-themed movies, and somehow must have thought he could pull this off as well. The movie opens with an old Indian guy dying in his isolated countryside house; barely speaking out his last word above a whisper
Toltecs. His grandson promptly rents out house to a bunch of college chicks, including a typically 80's aerobics babe, a cute black girl and a racist redneck gal. Soon they will discover why exactly the old Indian lived like a hermit, as he was actually the guardian of an ancient Toltec burial ground. Toltec sorcerers buried themselves alive, only to emerge again thousands of years later and feed on the flesh of the living. And, honestly, is there any better tasting flesh than that of bimbos? As hinted at before already, the first half of "The Dark Power" is terribly lame and sleep-inducing. The clichéd pranks, the retarded dialogs and the ridiculously overlong footage of Lash LaRue swinging around his whip seem to go on forever. Then, the movie loses its last smidgen of credibility when the Toltec sorcerers emerge from the ground. Instead of menacing, they look like drugged out hard rock stars with imbecile masks and drunken gestures. Exactly ONE gory moment is worth mentioning, when a guy's lips are stretched out over his entire skull, but overall even the carnage aspect of this movie is disappointing. The only remotely worthwhile moments are utterly senseless, like when a 9-year-old kid (named Cletus!) goes joyriding with his uncle's truck or when the vulgar naked chick sips beer in the bathtub after working out. Seriously, unless you get turned on by the sight of a 1940's western veteran swinging around his whip at nothing, I'd advise to skip this film. | negative |
gone in 60 seconds is a very good action comedy film that made over $100 million but got blasted by most critics. I personally thought this was a great film. The story was believable and has probobly the greatest cast ever for this type of movie including 3 academy award winners nicolas cage, robert duvall and the very hot anjolina jolie. other than the lame stunt at the end this is a perfect blend of action comedy and drama. my score is **** (out of ****) | positive |
This is fantastic! Everything from the Score - to when the final credits role. This movie is a Masterpiece. It's genuinely creepy and its effectively hysterical setting is enough to give anyone the creeps. It is apparent that the movie was NOT rushed, and that David Schmoeller (Who would later work with Fullmoon on the Puppet Master Series) had a clear and concise image of what he is trying to direct. The professional aspect of the movie is astonishing considering it's relatively low budget. It relies on scares without effects (Mainly due to budget restrictions) but still creates a tension filled atmosphere.<br /><br />Stephen King stated that this was one of his favorite movies and I seriously cannot blame him! It's one of my favorite horror movies and always will be. This is my favorite Fullmoon Movie and has been ever since I first purchased a good few years ago.<br /><br />Money Well Spent! I own both VHS and DVD versions.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.<br /><br /> Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well. | negative |
OK..this movie could have been soooo good! All generations have been exposed to Thunderbirds and have come to love it and this film had some of the features one would look for in a good thunderbirds movie. The craft themselves and Tracey Island were realistically transferred to the big screen, whilst still keeping to the designs we fell in love with. Sophia Miles was, simply, fantastic, as Lady P and Bill Paxton, whilst not exactly who I envisaged Jeff Tracey being, was solid enough...but then the adults were taken out of the equation and we were asked to believe 8 year olds could fly 200 tonne machines.<br /><br />It's not so much the fact that the movie was centred around the children that made me feel like Jonathon Frakes was slapping me with a wet fish and laughing at my hard earned money spent on the film, it was the fact that Alan Tracey was so obnoxious in the film and that he seemed to be as able to fly the machines as well as his brothers...who were at least 19/20. Seriously, these are some pretty damn simple machines to use if this is the case.<br /><br />The film didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be serious or farcical. It tried to pay homage whilst satirising and it just generally fell flat on its face. 3/10 (2 for the machines, 1 for Lady P) | negative |
When you typically watch a short film your always afraid that the person creating the film tries to throw too much into it. That's not the case with this one. A great story about a young girl who's had enough and other worldly forces trying to help make things right.<br /><br />Eric Etebari does a wonderful job of representing the spirit of twisted justice and helps to convey the complexities of the blurred line of right and wrong.<br /><br />Both the young girl and the father give great performances in this wonderful short film, but Eric's performance is definitely the show stealer in this story.<br /><br />I definitely recommend this film for it's complexity, performance, and great over all story. | positive |
I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.<br /><br />John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.<br /><br />Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84" diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera. | negative |
Kind of a guilty indulgence nowadays, this used to be required watching when i was in high school. It really is a great illumination of the burgeoning punk scene in LA in 1980. As the bands play, Spheeris prints the lyrics in subtitles, which is of course necessary if one really wants to know what the guy is screaming into the microphone. But also it turns the camera's POV into that of tourist, passing through this alien world. The band interviews reveal an honest approach to the music that really doesn't exist anymore. Then again, it's not as easy to come by $16/month former-church closets like Chavez of Black Flag does. How many unheard of bands do you know that aren't trying like the dickens to get a record deal? These guys just didn't care. And who can't love the commentary of the little French dude who used to be the "singer" for Catholic Discipline (of which Phranc was a member). His gritty voice delivers one of the best soliloquies ever captured on film: "I have excellent news for the world ... there's no such thing as New Wave." Whew! What a relief! | positive |
As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.<br /><br />Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.<br /><br />Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.<br /><br />The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rüdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.<br /><br />The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.<br /><br />Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.<br /><br />Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed. | positive |
This film is a powerful commentary on family life in North America today. The story is so well constructed, it almost feels like its happening across the street, right now! If you are connected with your family and community in any way, this film will grab you and transport you to the Travis' home and not allow you to leave until the credits are done.<br /><br />Our imaginary heroes, through a myriad of innocent circumstances, often unwittingly, lead us down a path of sorrow, confusion and isolation. The Travis family, after a terrible tragedy, invite each of us; father, mother, brother and sister, into their respective lives to share their experience in a dynamic set of circumstances that just doesn't quit. We see all of the above and eventually the joy, in powerful performances by the major players and the rest of the cast, making this film a movie-goers absolute treasure.<br /><br />In a film so well done as this, it is usually difficult to to find something special, but Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Sandy Travis was outstanding. I would be surprised if others didn't recognize it as such.<br /><br />Clearly a 10. Well done! | positive |
This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.<br /><br />We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.<br /><br />There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.<br /><br />Watch something else. | negative |
"You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all" I am sure the fans of great classic remember this phrase that belongs to Vin... one of the TRULY magnificent seven (from the first movie)...<br /><br />Now I'd want to re-phrase him here. You know - I've seen some movies where the plot isn't all that good. In fact I've seen some movies where the plot is terrible, but that's first time in my life that I saw the film where there isn't any plot at all.<br /><br />OK. Maybe my above statement is little bit over the top, but honestly... how one can call the plot a crap that is going on in this movie. The bad guy (oh, don't ask me to give you his name, because I don't remember and his not even somehow close to Calvera who's name and character is unforgettable...) is trying to build the church in the name of his late sons, that were killed in some battle, and this bad guy is kidnapping poor villagers to force them to build the church...<br /><br />first of all how big must be church to have to force hundreds of villagers to build it... is it some Egyptian pyramid or something? but OK, let's stop here about the plot and absolutely forgettable character of a bad guy and let's say few words about The Seven itself...<br /><br />Yul brynner's good old Chris, always calm, always silent, talking less but talking wise is gone (unfortunately). Oh no... he's as calm as he was... but now, he's calmness are so fake that you just don't buy it. (imagine, he meets a good old friend Chico, who he must rescue after so many years and there is just a few "hi, Hello" and not even handshake (as far as I remember))... honestly, it looks more like meeting of two strangers in some internet chat, rather then meeting of Chris and Chico. That makes "new Chris" more look like robocop or terminator rather then our beloved wise quickgun...<br /><br />I won't stop here talking about other characters. There simply aren't ANY... (imagine if strong actor like Yul Brynner is so much fake forgettable, then what will be other characters look like)...<br /><br />There still are some attempts to give us a background story for each one of them... for example one is women favorite guy, second is a man with dark past who's wife was raped and killed by indians and he since then is killing everyone and everything that is moving... but non of these characters are making any sense or non of them can take your heart.<br /><br />I remember I was a little child and when O'reilly (Charles Bronson's character) died in the first movie I was crying. Here, I just didn't care about each one of them... even if whole of them with all the crew of the film would die, it seems I wouldn't care more...<br /><br />So, please, go and SEE THIS MOVIE... I recommend it, because you won't have the other chance to see something worse then it. | negative |
The movie has a good story line, the action is good in some parts, but not all of them. Some of the parts, I just felt like the bad guys wouldn't have dosed off yet, from my experience from taking Martial arts. Some are the actions are long, like always mostly for the boss, but for the least important ones, they were killed or dosed off with a few hits, but some where quite unrealistic or could have done a better job at.<br /><br />The least important actors or stunt people were the right picks for the movie, my girlfriend started to have a crush on them that she started to watch the movie more than she spends her time with me.<br /><br />The movie is good, that is all I can say. | negative |
The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel! | positive |
I love Zombie-Movies and I love amateur-productions. And Meat Market 2 starts really promising with a nice homage to Fulci´s Classic "Zombi".<br /><br />So I leaned back and waited to be impressed. Okay, some of the makeups are great for such a no budget movie and some actors (the vampirelady and the cook) really stand out, but else there´s nothing.<br /><br />I didn´t expect a new Romero here but there is not one sequence in the whole movie which has even a little bit of suspense or shock value. The director sure knows how to stage body rippings and interesting eating habits, but now (after two parts) it´s time to learn something more.<br /><br />In MeatMarket2 Gore rhymes with bore - for me that´s not enough - sorry.<br /><br />** out of ***** | negative |
I blubbered like a little girl during the ending of this movie and I dare anyone else to hold it together without a sob. Absolutely heart-wrenching stuff, yet uplifting at it's core.<br /><br />A great effort on the part of Ann Margaret who plays a terminally ill mother of ten who, knowing her arthritic steel-working husband won't be able to support the family when she is gone, arranges the adoptions of her children before she shuffles off. The role really deserved an Oscar.<br /><br />You truly feel for this poor family as the dying mother gives her all to ensure that her kids don't end up in a poorly administered state orphanage system. <br /><br />If you haven't seen it - get it if you can. | positive |
I was skeptical before going to this because of the horribly assembled trailer which made it look like an equally horrible movie. I was nicely surprised by how much i did not waste my money. I believe the films success comes from how creepy it really is and how the environment of the house is. Little things like the sensor lights create a true uneasy feeling. The shadows and ominously cold feeling of the house make it easy to tell that no matter how much you know horror films, anything could happen in the film. The acting is by no means perfect, nor were they bad. The main character is convincing even given the annoying teen dramas that surround her. In the end, I was thoroughly impressed with the film in most aspects.<br /><br />It is definitely a film i would recommend. | positive |
Wha-BAM! Someone surely had fun devouring a whole truckload of acid-mushrooms and then subsequently scripting this crazy excuse for a motion picture! Writer Howard Cohen expands the "Sword & Sorcery" concept with a couple of extra S's, like Sex, Silliness, (more) Sex and Sheer Stupidity! This isn't just a movie, this is every juvenile pervert's dreams & fantasies come true! "Deathstalker" has it all: blood, violence, trolls, female mud-wrestling, attempted rape, successful rape, life-sized pigs (!), awful hairstyles, hideously oiled muscular bodies, multi-sexual orgies, gay warriors, tournaments-to-the-death, delirious witches, dismemberment, laughable villains and boobs, boobs, BOOOOOOOOOBIES!! "Deathstalker" literally wipes the floor with its obvious role-model "Conan: The Barbarian" when it comes to terms of cheesiness and sheer flamboyance. The story is, evidently, of minor importance. Lone and gay (only he doesn't know it yet) warrior Deathstalker goes on a mission, as commanded by an annoying witch, to gather the three notorious elements of creation
or something like that. On his journey he combines forces with a troll-turned-human, a fighter who's even gayer than he is and - last but not least - a luscious lady who doesn't really seem to be a big support of the concept of bras. Together they head for the kingdom of the ultimately evil Munkar where they'll participate in a warriors' tournament and conquer no less than two out of three elements. Munkar is bald guy with half a spider's web tattooed on his skull and an impressive harem that would even make the wealthiest oil sheik jealous. Okay, granted, "Deathstalker" is a pretty damn awful and at some times even unendurable movie. The fight sequences are lame and the costumes and make-up effects are downright pitiable. For a moment, when beholding the opening sequence, I actually feared I was watching "Troll; the Prequel". The monsters look incredibly cheesy and the complete opposite as menacing, but it's undeniable entertainment if you're in an undemanding mood. I presume this isn't a favorite amongst feminists, as the overall portrayal of women is somewhat
um
discriminating. Most of the gals exclusively serve as eye-candy in the harem. They're allowed crawl over the floor naked and play around in the mud, but strictly forbidden to open their mouths. The two "leading" ladies (Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson) are ravishing but - in all honesty - if it wouldn't be for their continuously exposed racks, they would hardly be worth mentioning, either. | negative |
Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.<br /><br />The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it. | negative |
Thank the Lord for Martin Scorsese, and his love of the movies.<br /><br />This is the perfect introduction into the mind of the most talented American artist working in cinema today, and I couldn't recommend it more. I was enthralled through the whole thing and you will be too. Just relax and let him take you on a ride through his world, you'll love it. | positive |
Kirsten Dunst is terribly overrated as an actress. You can tell always she's just "acting". I like Izzard though. Plot is awfully boring. The viewer has no real connections to the characters, never knowing who to really sympathize with, or even care about. Slow, dull movie, with some laughs, but few and not very funny anyway. Plot is not engaging or suspenseful in the least. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. What is this movie supposed to be? Comedy? Drama? Who cares? You won't by the end of this film. | negative |
I caught this during a brief run in a Philadelphia theater. Despite its local provenance (and its relation to a hometown tragedy, namely the beating death of Eddie Polec in 1994), I really have to come down hard on this movie. The director, for reasons best known to himself, decided to shoot the entire film guerilla-style, with nonstop handheld cameras and rapidfire cuts. Such technique might work for the scenes of jarring violence, but is utterly inappropriate for the rest of the material, which makes up the majority of the film. A stroll down the sidewalk, a brother-to-brother discussion on a sofa, hell, even a kiss on a first-date are all shot cusinart-style, distracting this viewer from ever being able to enter into the drama. Martin also undercuts his narrative by packing in far too many topics: besides the birth of mob violence, we get anorexia, alcoholism, divorce, racism, parental abuse...did I miss anything? No doubt a better cast (and a better-focused direction) would have knit these threads together, as Martin surely intended, to demonstrate how one moral flaw leads into and sustains a host of others...but good intentions do not necessarily a great film make. Just a sprawling mess. Martin, I know you're from my town, and I'm down with you man, I really am...just do a better job next time, like you did in Two Plus One. | negative |
So far after week two of "The lone of Beauty" I am a little disappointed.<br /><br />Some of the acting is good, as long as we except that it is only drama.<br /><br />I am unsure how people can feel that this FICTIONAL DRAMA is "factual" coverage of the "Thatcher" years - it is okay as drama, but I feel the award winning book is still much better.<br /><br />I Wonder if the BBC will ever give us the follow up and the next part of the drama and the years that follow with "Things Can Only Get Better" finishing with 2006 and the Fact that we are still waiting! with that promise from a Government that is full of sleaze. | negative |
Spider-Man is in my opinion the best superhero ever, and this game is the best superhero game ever. While it may be somewhat easy, you have to play it several times to get all the costumes and comic book covers, which makes up for how easy it is to get through the game. It may seem hard to control at first, but once you get the hang of it, you will be web-slinging like Spider-Man himself.<br /><br />The bosses, while like the levels are somewhat easy, are fun. The first boss, Scorpion, is incredibly easy to beat, which shouldn't be so because as fans of the comic books know, Scorpion is one of Spider-Man's most deadly villains. The second boss, Rhino, is also very easy. The 3rd boss is Venom, who is in my opinion the easiest boss in the game, which definately shouldn't be. The 4th boss is Venom again. This time, he is a little bit more difficult to beat but still easy. The 5th boss is Mysterio, who I think is the funnest boss to battle in the game. He is also one of the harder bosses, but once again, still fairly easy. Next boss is Carnage, who is, you guessed it, easy to beat. But Carnage is actually kind of fun to fight. 7th boss is Doctor Octopus, who is like all the other bosses easy, but not as easy as the other ones because he has a shield. The 8th and final boss is exclusive to the game, never in a comic book or cartoon. I won't spoil it for you for those of you who haven't played the game, but the boss is the only boss in the game that isn't too easy. Took me 4 or 5 tries to beat while the others I beat on the first or second tries.<br /><br />All in all, a very good game. I gave it an 8 out of 10. The reasons why I didn't give it a 9 or 10 are that once you get all the costumes and comic book covers it gets kind of boring (getting all that stuff will take a while though), it is not very accurate according to the comic books or cartoon show, the bosses are too easy, and they should have used Hobgoblin and/or Green Goblin as a boss, I think it would be fun to battle someone flying around in the air! They didn't use them in the sequel to this game either! Well the Green Goblin is the villain in the upcoming Spider-Man movie, so hopefully they will make a video game based on the movie. | positive |
I noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable. | negative |
Frank McCarthy who produced the Academy Award winning biographical film Patton follows it up with a strong tribute to another of America's fighting generals, Douglas MacArthur. Gregory Peck gives a strong characterization of the man, his genius as well as his egotism. With MacArthur you never knew quite where one began and the other left off and too many times they blended.<br /><br />The whole story of Douglas MacArthur would be a six hour film or a TV mini-series. It would cover him from his days on frontier posts with his family to his time at West Point where he still has the highest scholastic average ever achieved by a cadet. It would talk about his service in the Phillipines as a young officer, his legend building bravery on the battlefields of World War I in France. It would also have to tell about him firing on the Bonus Marchers of World War I veterans in 1932, probably putting the final kabosh on any chances President Herbert Hoover had of getting re-elected. During MacArthur's last years he and Hoover had penthouse suites at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City. That must have been a subject they avoided.<br /><br />This film concentrates on the years 1941 to 1952 and it is told in flashback. The film opens with MacArthur addressing the student body in 1962. As he speaks the words of the famous Duty Honor Country speech, MacArthur's mind goes back to World War II and his desperate struggle against the advancing Japanese on the island of Corregidor and the fields of Bataan on Luzon. The film takes him through his struggle to win back the Phillipines, the occupation of Japan and the first 18 months culminating in his relief of command by President Truman.<br /><br />MacArthur as a film would not work at all if it wasn't for the portrayals of Dan O'Herlihy and Ed Flanders as Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman respectively. It's the part of the film I enjoyed the best, seeing MacArthur and his relations with both these men.<br /><br />FDR by O'Herlihy captures the aristocratic squire and exceptionally devious man that was our 32nd President. Roosevelt was a man who got his points across with unusual subtlety and cleverness. Sometimes he liked scheming a little too much for its own sake, but he was the master politician of the last century. Note how he deals with MacArthur both as a battlefield commander and potential rival at the same time.<br /><br />Truman by Flanders is as people remember him, a blunt spoken man of the people who disliked MacArthur's haughtiness from the gitgo. Of course it's in the history books how Truman relieved MacArthur in 1951 for insubordination. MacArthur was insubordinate, no doubt about it.<br /><br />Yet I could write a whole thesis on the Truman-MacArthur relations. Along the way it need not have ever come to a crisis. I've always felt that FDR would have dealt with the whole matter in a far better way had he still been president then.<br /><br />MacArthur was also grandly eloquent and Gregory Peck captures some of that eloquence in some of the orations that made him as much a legend as victories on the battlefield. Listen to Peck at the Japanese surrender, at MacArthur's farewell to the nation before the joint session of Congress, and of course his speech to the cadets in 1962. Watch the newsreels and see if you don't agree. | positive |
Everyone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, "Is this something that people would actually say?" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film. | negative |
There is great detail in A Bug's Life. Everything is covered. The film looks great and the animation is sometimes jaw-dropping. The film isn't too terribly orignal, it's basically a modern take on Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, only with bugs. I enjoyed the character interaction however and the bad guys in this film actually seemed bad. It seems that Disney usually makes their bad guys carbon copy cut-outs. The grasshoppers are menacing and Hopper, the lead bad guy, was a brillant creation. Check this one out. | positive |
I saw the film yesterday and really enjoyed it.Although there were several clues which I could realize after second time watching ,I was not able to awake the Dow-Dawn case. Maybe this was my carelessness.The subconsciousness of a woman was became concrete with personalization.'Let me go out'the key sentence of the film.Let me go out from deep deep inside of your brain and we will both be free.A discrete film that forcing the limits of human conscious and brain.Anybody who have seen the 'Machinist' would realize the similarities with breaking dawn.A man that could not escape from his conscience (again a psychological and an abstract concept)meets it in an human body.And he will just be free of accepting and realizing there is no way of escape.Also I want to mention about the performances of 'breking dawn's stuffs.In spite of having not many experiences, from actors and actresses to director all exhibited separately reasonable performance that have created a synergy which would increase the quality of the movie | positive |
It's proof that movie makers and their financiers treating their audience with contempt isn't a new phenomena as it was done as early as the 1940s and HOUSE OF Dracula is a great example . You'd think having a film with Dracula , the wolf man and Frankenstein's monster the producer would dictate to the screenwriter to have all three appear in a scene . They had a chance with HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN then when they had a second bite of the cherry they blew it again with HOUSE OF Dracula . To lose one chance is a misfortune , to lose two smacks of cynical money making <br /><br />It's obvious the producers are beyond caring . Larry Talbot turns up again even though he was shown to die in the previous film which sums up the cynicism of the franchise . It also shows what a poor screenplay it is and we're mistreated to some awful plot turns like Talbot's condition being cured by a special type of plant which will soften his skull . I'm thinking screenwriter Edward T Lowe might have had his skull softened if this is the type of stuff he comes up with <br /><br />Director Erie C Kenton can't improve on the script and throws in a few spanners of his own . For example Talbot is startled to see Dr Edelmann snatch a lift on a cart but nonchalantly watches Edelmann climb a wall and jump in to the château courtyard . One can't help thinking Talbot's reaction shots were mistakenly switched round at the editing stage <br /><br />Lon Chaney Jnr is famous for his roles in horror movies but didn't have much of a career outside them . Perhaps that's down to the fact he's not a good actor and here he commits the worst type of acting - being very wooden . It's not entirely his fault though because all the characters spout rather awful dialogue and are all rather wooden due in part to Kenton's lackluster directing <br /><br />HOUSE OF Dracula feels a million miles away from James Whale 1931 film and its sequel from 1935 and would have been a very sad note to end on . But ironically Universal decided to make one more movie to wrap up their franchise with a horror comedy starring Abbot and Costello | negative |
It is such a shame when actors and actresses of high quality get involved with pure crap, probably because they were offered a great deal of money. Not one of Helen Mirren's better career moves. The acting of the "teens" is simply appalling, not helped by a script that is in parts simply inept.<br /><br />Most of Kevin Williamson's work is above average box office dross, but this is really below par. <br /><br />This is the sort of movie that you watch on TV when there is nothing better on and you have had half a bottle of wine to drink and are waiting for the Pizza to be delivered so you can drink the other half. | negative |
It's rare that I sit down in front of the TV specifically to watch a particular programme. It's even rarer when I actually enjoy the programme in the end, but Last of the Blonde Bombshells was one of the best movies I think I've seen.<br /><br />A remarkable cast, led by Dame Judi Dench and Ian Holm, and an excellent, witty and poignant script combined to make it a truly rewarding experience. I can't really express how good I thought it was, so I won't try, I'll just say, if you get the opportunity, PLEASE SEE IT!!!! I only hope it comes out on video. | positive |
Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the "untold story", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.<br /><br />Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.<br /><br />So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.<br /><br />Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.<br /><br />All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works. | negative |
Having broken into a secret database file for matching DNA serums,federal agent Frank Poo (Andy Garcia)discovers the only person who can save his son's life is a psychopath,played by Michael Keaton . However,when a serum transfer at the local hospital goes terribly wrong,a certain Mr.Poo has to do everything in his power to ensure the madman stays alive in order to make the inevitable transfer possible. By the way,his name is'nt really Poo,I just feel like calling it him. Despite the original concept at hand,this is an implausible and turgidly unexciting action thriller.I've never been a big fan of Andy Garcia,and granted his charecter here is'nt that attachable,this movie winds up all the worse.The action sequences are handled pretty disappointingly,and the ending sucks pretty bad. Having done a great villain in Pacific Heights,Keaton's psychopathic bad guy here is a let down,providing a madman too funny and charismatic to be deplored.Brian Cox is also wasted as Garcia's firm and frank superior. | negative |
In the beginning, with the careful, remote location and sweeking metal sound, I thought of the opening scene in "Once upon a Time in the West". When it gets to the city, then it begins to feels like "Kitchen Stories", or "Drifting Clouds", even possibly "Grimm".<br /><br />Then it turns out that this is more similar to "Joe Versus the Volcano" in theme (not style). And the movie executes from beginning to end the same, understated style. Letting you observe, take in the steel, blue-grayish tone of the suites, dresses, wall color, furniture, bedsheets, mirrors, cars, music, background sounds and even people's expression. Then near the end, there is one shot of a completely different tone - warm orangeish-yellow with soft music and ocean splashing, children and laughter.<br /><br />But maybe the observation is too long for me, I would much rather to see the alternative side or what happens to the character after the ending shot. Still beautifully done. | positive |
This is a strange, little, forgotten movie from the late eighties. It's one of those "Large-cast kitchen sink" movies that delivers some good gags. If you like the people in this one, give it a shot. | positive |
This has no relationship to Virtual Encounters 1, so it's not really a sequel. The two videos just share the general concept of people having simulated sex through a virtual reality machine. So if you were really blown away by the story and dialog in VC 1 (yeah, right), and expecting a continuation in VC 2, just be warned. All the actors and actresses are new, but it has the same excellent director, Sybil Richards.<br /><br />But like VC 1, you get lots of beautiful women and a lot of great sex scenes that push the envelope of soft core just about as far as it can go.<br /><br />If you have VC 1 and you liked it, you'll like VC 2. If you don't have either, but like really good softcore sex, get both. | positive |
I've seen this film at least 4 times since '84 and it's still great every time I see it. It's a very compelling version of the opera Carmen, with amazing Flamenco dancing, bare bones sets, and, of course, wonderful music.<br /><br />This telling of Carmen is a story within a story, with each paralleling the other, until the doubly tragic ending. Obviously a low budget Spanish production, the film contains dancing by some of Spain's premier Flamenco dancers. The combination of the soaring opera music and the sound of the dancers boots on the wooden stage, makes the telling of the story even more powerful.<br /><br />It's independent movie making at it's best and probably my all time favorite foreign film. | positive |
This is the only film I've seen that is made by Uwe Boll, I knew that he is probably the worst director ever who always makes films based on video games also that "House of the Dead" is one of IMDb bottom 100. But I still wanted to watch it because I'm a huge fan of the game and I wanted to see what doe's the film have that makes it so bad. After watching it I do agree that it is crap, the movie had no story. In the first 15-20 minutes there was nothing but topless teenage girls with no brains running about (for a moment there I was wondering are the zombies brain-dead? or the girls are?) then at night time the zombies popped out of nowhere & started attacking people later a woman started shooting them I mean it takes you one place then the other every 5 minutes. Is it supposed to be a comedy?, or horror? or both? Before I knew it I fell asleep at the second half & woke up during the end credits so I did not manage to watch all of it, which is a good thing! The film is a true insult to the classic game, Uwe Boll please do not make any more films. Thank you! | negative |
its great i loved it ha cause i love dinosaurs they r the greatest animals but i loved the show cause it wasn't copied from another show and it was a originals ha it has a good storyline and great for little kids (if they like dinosaurs that is) i have a few downs too its not all that great cause of the dinosaurs look a little mutated so i should have had but a 7 but right now is a little late for that yay 4 more lines to go it is great for a fantasy show though warning this might spoil a part for u so if u don't want it to be spoiled don't read on plz near the end is kinda weird cause all they need to do is get dang i forgot what it was so nvm guess its not a spoiler so never mind i loved it and its my opinion and sorry for any missed spelled words if any | positive |
First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done. <br /><br />Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together. <br /><br />The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this. <br /><br />i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment | positive |
Came across this film recently after so long hearing about it. It is an excellent not pretentious movie for people who loves film noir literature and films. Not "camp" but humorous. <br /><br />GREAT CAST! From the magnificent Carla Gugino and Emma Thompson to German superstar Til Schweiger, this movie is a feast for the eyes. Alan Rickman is very funny as the antagonist of gang. Would love to see spin off movie with this character and Emma Thompson solving cases and arguments between them all the time (much like Tracy and Hepburn, etc.)<br /><br />Intelligent story, nice twists and scope photography (don't watch unless it is scope because compositions are very rich).<br /><br />Sexy sexy sexy and very fun time.<br /><br />Best use of Just Like Heaven by The Cure ever (must see to believe!)<br /><br />******** | positive |
No, this is not no Alice fairy tale my friends! This `Wonderland' fable is based on the true story of the gruesome bloody Wonderland murders that occurred back in 80's California. At the center of this bloodbath was no other than `Johnny Wad' himself. Yes, John Holmes! Daddy ding-dong used other shotguns than his infamous 13-inch milk machine. Besides being a legendary adult film actor, Holmes was as also a hardcore drug addict who befriended various Hollywood junkies. Val Kilmer was occasionally majestic as Holmes, but for once this Holmes character did not milk it through completely. The film possesses a `who's who' of supporting players: Josh Lucas & Dylan Mcdermott as Hollywood riffraffs , Kate Bosworth & Lisa Kudrow as the women in Holmes life, and Eric Bogosian as a menacing Tinsletown entrepreneur. These characters do play integral parts, directly or indirectly, in the `Wonderland' murders. Out of this support group, it was Josh Lucas who was the most fierce & impressive as the ardent Ron Launius. Lucas is gradually escalating into a major Hollywood player with such charismatic turns in `A Beautiful Mind' & `Sweet Home Alabama'. Director James Cox sometime proved to be a bit of a coxsucker by displaying a vast amount of overextended scenes, just like Holmes' famous organ. Holmes was eventually acquitted of the `Wonderland' murders. He died of complications from the Aids virus. `Wonderland' will keep you wondering what really happened that bloody night, and if Holmes really laid out his weapon. Oops! Wrong Holmes movie! Ok! That is enough before I get `penislized' I mean penalized. Bye Holmies! *** Average | positive |
Years after the fall of the last of the great corporations, the world has fallen into a new dark age where cyborgs are harvested for their parts. Cash, a female cyborg, travels to a wasteland doctor to receive news that she is pregnant. On the run from Recyclers (bounty hunters who hunt cyborgs), Cash tries to find her way to Cytown, the mythical refuge for cyborgs.<br /><br />"Cyborg 3: The Recycler" is the third (& last so far) entry in the CYBORG trilogy. The first film was originally planned to be a sequel to MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, but was quickly rewritten into a standard post-apocalyptic martial-arts fest that became something of a cult classic due to its cheesy action scenes. CYBORG 2: GLASS SHADOW was a sequel that actually improved upon its predecessor but was not widely seen (& was dismissed by those few who saw it as cheap fodder).<br /><br />This film, for one thing, tries to be a meld of the first two films (the first was a cheesy action film while the second was a smart Cyberpunk story) but unfortunately falls short on both counts. The budget was obviously lower than CYBORG 2, with the film being set in the desert wastelands (like so many post-apocalyptic action films of the 90s were), shot around old industrial buildings to conserve costs.<br /><br />The film's story centres on a plot device, that of a pregnant cyborg, that is as interesting as it is absurd (this film is not the first to try that idea; the anime OVA series ARMITAGE III uses it to a greater extent). But the film falls into the same trap that so many low-budget sci-fi action films fall victim to, in the fact that the snags (synthetic organisms) featured are nothing more than androids. The visual effects amount to nothing more than prosthetic arms & makeup effects.<br /><br />The acting is pretty standard for this kind of film, with the lead actress (Khrystyne Haje) being the single worst performer on display. Instead of being joyed at the news she is pregnant, she acts all whiny & sullen. Her co-stars are much better, Malcolm McDowell being the usual gangster type who enlivens the scenes he appears in & Richard Lynch has a lot of fun as the chief villain. Of particular note is Andrew Byniarski, playing Lynch's right hand man, who would later appear in THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake & its prequel. | negative |
Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout. | negative |
It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst. | negative |
Strummer's hippie past was a revelation, but overall this felt like crashing a wake. Campfire stories work best around the intimacy of a campfire. There were just too many semi-boring old friends anecdotes and too much filler stock footage. I love The Clash and Joe for not reuniting and selling their songs until now (FU Mick Jones), but this doc left me wanting..to relate more. Using campfire storytellers without proper explanation of who is telling the anecdote alienates the viewer to some extent. They should have been interviewed on their own. Even using Strummer's 'radio DJ voice' did little to glue the film together. And can someone explain all the flags flying behind the campfire scenes? After the awesome "Filth And The Fury" I hoped Temple could deliver. A Joe Strummer doc deserves better. | negative |
I was very willing to give Rendition the benefit of the doubt when it came to all the negative press I had read concerning it. Even about three-quarters of the way through, I still thought it was jumbled and a bit incoherent, but otherwise a solid tale reaching its conclusion. And then the bottom fell out. Not wanting to necessarily ruin the film for anyone, but the conclusion flips everything you held to be fact about what and when things have been happening on its headfor no particular reason whatsoever except to maybe tell the world, yeah I'm cool, and I know it. I love a good twist, I love a good ah-ha moment, but only when it is relevant to the story at hand. The complete misguidance on the part of the filmmakers serves no purpose on the overall tale, timelines didn't need to be parallel and they didn't need to be separated by a week. All the revelation did was destroy any merit I was about to give director Gavin Hood and screenwriter Kelley Sane, which may be a good thing, because looking back, it wasn't really as solid a movie as I initially was going to blindly give it credit for.<br /><br />It is an admirable thing to try and get the term rendition out into the film-going public's consciousness, but it needed a story that delved deeper into the connotations and politics involved, rather than gloss over those issues for a tale of a woman in distress over her husband's disappearance and the angst-filled rebellion of a daughter against her "interrogator" father. I understand that the bottom-line film attendee needs a human quality to grasp onto and for that reason I don't fault it for going that route. My only qualm is that we don't get enough of what the title says we should be getting. Instead we are shown numerous plot lines, all confusingly brought to the forefront before being sent back into the nether regions of our consciousness, never to be returned to. So much is going on that you forget what you are supposed to be caring for, the wife? the interrogator? the CIA agent? the victim? the senator? the Middle Eastern daughter and her zealot boyfriend? At the end I really just gave up and let the film take me where it would, which ended up being someone totally different than what it first laid out.<br /><br />Everything that occurs happens as the result of a bomb explosion. This bomb is at the center of every story thread and finally ends up being so innocuous that you can't believe how huge the waves it spread were. The old butterfly wings flapping quote is in full effect, because one boy's mission for revenge ends up destroying the lives of so many. Whether by death, destruction, physical and emotional abuse, or career suicide; no one really escapes unscathed. However, at the end of the day, only the story about the man who has been excised to Egypt for torture is really interesting. We are led to believe he is unequivocally innocent from the start, yet he is waterboarded, electrocuted, etc. in order to extract any information he might have. When those in power include a man with no compassion or reason to stop until something is spilled, (whether true or not), and an observer without the guts to partake or stop it, the situation lends itself some intrigue as to how it could possibly end. The three actors involved all are the best parts of the film and prove once more that the movie should have concerned itself with them for the entirety.<br /><br />I don't want to belittle people like Reese Witherspoon, (the victim's wife), or her Senate employed ex, played by Peter Sarsgaard, because they actual do a good job with what they are given. Even Meryl Streep, her kooky accent, and Alan Arkin don't detract too much. However, it is the trio of Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA agent, Yigal Naor's interrogator, and Omar Metwally's victim that truly shine. Naor is brilliant as the Egyptian trying to stay sharp as a razor during working hours yet compassionate and worry-filled as a father attempting to locate his daughter. This man is brutal, but he is because that is what his occupation calls for and why he is relied upon to find answers. Metwally never gives a false second during the pain and suffering inflicted upon him. Whether he is lying or truly knows nothing about the terrorist who has been calling his cell phone, we totally buy into his plight and desperately wait to see how the situation turns out. As for Gyllenhaal, someone who seems to have one performance recycled throughout his career with varying degrees of success, he finds a part that suits him. The demons entering his soul throughout the ordeal he is forced to be a part of wear on his body and mind, causing both ambivalence and a need to intervene. The two feelings wrestle with each other until he makes a final decision, and his stoic, boyish demeanor suit that battle perfectly.<br /><br />It is just too bad that the one plot line working never finds itself as the main focal point, despite being the namesake of the film. With all the clutter around the edges, we as an audience get bounced around too much, lulled into a sense of time and sequence, and then slapped in the face as it all unravels in more of a laugh on us then a, "bet you didn't see that coming." I felt cheated and unfortunately that is the lasting effect I have taken from the movie. Had it been more straightforward I might have enjoyed myself more, but as is, one can still take some positives from the severely flawed whole. | negative |
ZP is deeply related to that youth dream represented by the hippie movement.The college debate in the beginning of the movie states the cultural situation that gives birth to that movement. The explosion that Daria imagines, represents the fall of all social structures and therefore the development of all that huge transformation that society is suffering through and finally Mark's death anticipates the end that A sees for the movement itself. The film will be more easily understood if we go back to that time in life. During the 60 ' and 70' , young people were the driving force for the profound explorations for change. One of the more significant changes intended was to bring sexuality out of the closet , and i think the scenes in the desert do not represent an orgy but the sexual relationship that men and women in absolute freedom would perform in the hipotetic situation where there would be nobody to hide from. I watched the scene where the couples would throw sand to each other and appreciated the magnificent way in which A depicted the impossibility to continue hiding this basic human instinct. Repression was the way to 'control' social outbursts at that time and that is the method , police applies to stop the students. This society suffers from hipocresy, and that comes clear when the students gain access to weapons skipping all fake controls. The dialogue between the policeman with the college professor, who's detained for no reason shows part of society interested for this youth feeling and part completely uninterested. Presenting flying as the more accurate symbol for freedom, the stealing of the plane represents Mark 's inner wish for it but , his (going back or coming back or returning (segun)) shows the difficulties to come free from these bonds and as i ' ve said, A depicts the death of the dream by these difficulties winning the game. In my point of view a film to remember. | positive |
What should i say? I only saw this flick for curiosity, and this is truly a shame... I grew up in Brittany with stories of celtic legends, and spent 5 years in Rennes, the town in which this film is said to take place... Shame that not any actor nor camera from this flick ever arrived in Rennes. They could at least have chosen a likely town, or a likely forest, but nothing even SEEM like Brittany nor Rennes... And calling it a film about celtic legends is really making a fool of the audience. Besides those details, it could have been a good film, but it's crap. Silly scenario, silly characters and no originality. Definitely to avoid. | negative |
It worked! Director Christian Duguay created a very clever action/spy thriller. The actors Donald Sutherland and especially Aidan Quinn gave a top performance. What a pity that we couldn´t see Aidan Quinn in others movies like this one till now. He was simply the best in the role as Ramirez/Carlos for what he should have earned the Oscar. The picture was very nice. The scenes are fast paced from beginning to the end and the story doesn´t let you a chance to get bored. The movie is too underrated and I recommend it to anyone otherwise you will miss something great. Believe me you will not be disappointed. That´s why i give it 9/10. | positive |
Robot Holocaust is about the lamest, most pathetic attempt at making a post-apocalyptic movie that I've seen. And I thought the Italians were the masters of wretched Mad Max wannabes. Some of those movies like Escape 2000 are positively brilliant in comparison with this piece of poo. The plot is nonsensical even with a narrator setting up every scene. And boy does it drag. Scene after scene with nothing of any interest happening. The special effects (and I use the word "special" loosely) consist of sock puppets. Yes, that's right sock puppets! The acting is abysmal. Angelika Jager is in the running for worst performance I've ever seen. Sure, she's French or German or whatever but man is she bad. I cannot think of a single positive thing to say about the movie. So I'll stop there because ten sentences on this junk is about ten too many.<br /><br />However, and fortunately for me, I saw the MST3K version of Robot Holocaust. Some of the things that made the movie so bad helped make this MST3K episode a winner. For a season one episode, the riffs come fast and furious and hit their mark just about every time. On my MST3K rating scale, I give this episode a 4/5 seek it out. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.