Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
THE MATADOR is hit-man movie lite....if you can say that about a hit-man movie. The violence is never really shown but often introduced. At first I was scared I was in for another retread of mid-90s gangster-hit-man-hipster-dark comedy BUT was happily surprised when I realized this is just a sweet and humorous story about friendship. Nothing terribly exciting happens in this film but every bit of it is kept me grinning. The three leads have the best chemistry the big screen has offered in recent years and it looks like they had a great time making this film together. The writing is sharp though at times it felt as if the script had been adapted from a stage play because of the one set dialog scenes. This is a good film that I probably won't remember for too long but at the time it was a complete joy. Good film. | positive |
I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?<br /><br />I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler. <br /><br />4/10 | negative |
"Caribe" is not a masterpiece in any of its storytelling aspects. However, it delivers a perfectly enjoyable story, along with a magnificent cinematography. The narrative structure is set around two narrative axes, one of them embedding the other, each one having elements that relate and co-exist in excellent harmony. The story never loses the right pacing, and it shows a very good blending of the human figure with its natural environment (which is a character in itself). The acting is great, and for that we owe credit to the emerging director, Esteban Ramírez. Furthermore, the characters are very well written and masterfully complex; so, once you become familiarized with them, you can perceive their feelings without them even saying anything. I can't say I liked this picture because of all the hype it generated(in Costa Rica), but rather because of the way it really achieves in showing an interesting portrait of what happens when you interfere with the equilibrium of people's lives. Hopefully, Caribe will establish a reference for future projects in Costa Rica, as it is a very good example of nice movie making. | positive |
Normally, I don't like revenge films....PERIOD. But Double Impact has a little more than your typical revenge plot premise. You see, DI has action, accuracy, exotic locales(i.e. Hong Kong), awesome gun battles, and enough martial arts to satisfy your cravings for impressive unarmed combat. Like all revenge flicks, it has villains you'd love to throw out of a plate-glass window on the top floor of a 40-story building! However, Double Impact has none of the sensationalist crap that suffocates the plot and the elitist, racist, and venomous social stereotypes that invaded "Eye for an Eye" and "Death Wish 2".<br /><br />But in the plot department Double Impact is as transparent as saran wrap. Chad and Alex's parents were killed by a mob hit squad connected to a family friend with money problems or at least that's what I remembered. The explanation of why the boys were talking in French accents is a lousy one. It wasn't the watery plot that made this movie bad, but the use of clichéd lines and moves from other movies (from Lethal Weapon to The Princess Bride) really made it worse. But nonetheless Double Impact is still watchable. But why is that shitty movies like this have villains(for example,that greedy British guy that killed Chad and Alex's parents and that lethal lesbian redhead chick) you would love to hate with fiber of your being? | negative |
This movie almost has everything. The action is cool, it's funny, 2 great leading men and a truly nasty villain that I REALLY hated. Not a lot of films have BAD bad guys. Just mainly comic book villains. He really does deserve a might ass kicking.<br /><br />Jake Scott really does have his fathers talent for knowing how to make great visuals. The direction is faultless and has an irresistible lighthearted feel. I don't usually like films set in the old days but this I liked a lot because it makes a point of boring like so many other period films are (Sense and Sensibility, Age of Innocence and the absolute worst...Lady and the Duke). This will restore your faith. Thanx mostly to Craig Armstrong's amazing score. The music is both atmospheric and ethereal and in scenes of action it is very exciting.<br /><br />The DVD is in Dolby 5.1 and has a very grainy and muddy looking 2.35:1 anamorphic picture. | positive |
Quite possibly the nicest woman in show business, and the sexiest, Debbie gives another fine performance here. Although her work in American Nightmare was far superior, she is still worth watching in this film.<br /><br />The cast is filled with your typical Melrose Place types, chiseled features and seductive curves, that I had never seen before. Other than Debbie, Laura Nativo was the only actress I had seen before, in the similar Delta Delta Die.<br /><br />The plot centers around a group of California arrogants who initiate poor naive Debbie Rochon into their clique. They tell her that they have a murder club, and that she must kill someone to be accepted. Debbie wants nothing more but to be accepted by these cool people, so she quickly kills a person, and now the group must decide what to do with her, after she fell for their joke.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Plentiful! Debbie Rochon occasionally has blood splattered all over her and all of the murder scenes are done in your face. Gore hounds will surely enjoy!)<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Plentiful as well! Debbie Rochon has several nude scenes as do many of the no-name actresses and actors. The pool party seems as just an excuse to get everyone naked; man and woman alike. Julie Strain also has a topless cameo but her character is gone after the first five minutes).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Could have received a higher vote because the plot was very interesting and unique but the plot serves as filler between nude scenes. I understand that B-Rate films use nudity often, but this is borderline excessive).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (The acting is sub standard to say the least. Rochon is always a treat, easily the best B-Rate actress in the business today, but her character in American Nightmare was superior. Danny Wolske does a fine job as Debbie's object of lust but the other actors were nothing to write about). | negative |
"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers
).<br /><br />The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.<br /><br />Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.<br /><br />Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.<br /><br />"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.<br /><br />I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10 | positive |
I will confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.<br /><br />So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.<br /><br />The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's "quest" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).<br /><br />The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.<br /><br />In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.<br /><br />I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value. | negative |
a compact crime drama with a good amount of action. The unique NYC location shots adds to this tough little film.Technically well done with good direction and acting. Needless to say,the wild car chase that seems to begin in downtown, extends through the upper west side, Washington Heights, across the George Washington Bridge and into NJ has to be one of the best ever on film.All around a fine flick that for me gets better with time.8 out of 10...easy | positive |
stars: Danny Devito, Billy Crystal, Anne Ramsey, Kim Griest, Kate Mulgrew, Oprah Winfrey and Rob Reiner.<br /><br />After college class, teacher Larry (Crystal) wants his ex-wife dead and Owen (Devito) wants his momma (Ramsey) dead. When Larry brings up that he wants his wife dead, Owen knows what he must do for him, in order for a favor in return, for Larry to kill his mother. Devito is absolutely hilarious in this as the brain dead wannabe writer that has daydreams of poisoning his mom and sticking scissors through her head. He has a child like role that makes him seem more of a confused man than a killer. Ramesy was actually nominated for an Academy Award for this because of her wonderful performance as mean old Mrs. Lift. Along with having comedy, the film also has heart. One scene between Devito and Crystal starts off seemingly as a joke, but goes deeper, actually making me slightly sad. Danny Devito directed the film and did a good job getting the dark tone in to his direction. For any fan of comedies I recommend this.<br /><br />My rating: B plus. 84 mins. PG-13 for Language, Sexuality and Violence. | positive |
I find it disconcerting that in an era when satisfying and fulfilling spirituality is unknown and we are all scattered across the whole spectrum of possible beliefs, that a charlatan and fraud of Gurdjieff's caliber (as a charlatan, he is exceptional; there is no denying he had a special gift. It's a pity he misused it, though, for the aggrandizement of his wounded ego, feeding on the adulation of unwary sheep who were at his beck and call and in awe of him) can inspire such extreme adherence and credulity. This movie presents an idealized version of Gurdjieff's own largely fictional and fantastic account of his formation and "awakening" (which I would rather describe as his discovery of how much he could sway the minds and wills of certain types of sadly disoriented people). See it, if you dare to have a disagreeable eye-opening about how sadly deprived we are of true religious leaders, to the extent that a clown like Gurdjieff could inspire such devotion - and be careful to have your blood pressure medicine at hand if you are one of those who still hope for a healthy religion to emerge from the ruins of Christianity, as a supreme example of cinematography at the entire service of the premises and pretenses of a dysfunctional cult. | negative |
It's really a shame to see so many talented people involved in what's happen to be a very waste of talents. The plot is cliché. The directing is too self conscious and the characters are almost caricatures. One of the most disappointing aspect of this film is Gerard Depardieu's performance in the English version (this movie was shot in french and English at the same time). Although he is one of the best actor in the film, he gives the worst performance of them all. I must say that Bianca Gervais come very close though...<br /><br />On a more positive note I must say that the newcomer Juliette Gosselin gives an amazing performance in both version. Unfortunately that the only good thing I remember about this film...<br /><br />By the way I must apologize for my not very good English... | negative |
The only reason I give this movie 8/10 stars, and not 10, is because 1) Sinatra is awful and 2) the love interest of Kelly's character leaves much to be desired, (IMHO). Do love that Dean Stockwell, Quantum Leap - Al, is the little boy. The dance sequence with Jerry Mouse is one of the most entertaining and amazing dance sequences I have ever seen. Tom and Jerry is still a personal favorite of mine and my daughter's. I'm 28 and she's 4, so while the character is less iconic than Mickey, he is still a favorite of many children and adults today. Kelly is as always captivating, his eyes full of fun and excitement. In every movie I have ever seen him in, he always steals the show. One of the best dancers of the 20th century. It is no wonder Paula Abdul "sampled" Kelly's moves. I would also list Gene Kelly as one of the most beautiful people of the 20th century. If you were to watch only one part, don't miss Kelly's dance with Jerry Mouse. You will NOT be disappointed. | positive |
Not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not, so beware:<br /><br />Just a small but crucial thing to watch for, an intriguing possibility: the boys steal a green Citroen at one point, for a joy ride, and return it to the owner having done purposeful and vengeful hidden damage to the car, hoping that the owner will crash. Is it the very same car they steal much later from the picnicking family? We know the original owner sold it. They drive off at the end on a dangerous road, one which I understand has been closed to all but pedestrians for the last ten years. A whole new slant to the end of the film.<br /><br />On another matter, this film could have been called "Scent of a Woman". I don't recall another film, certainly not American, that treats the scent of a woman in such a frank and open manner, much like the "nose" of a fine Bordeaux. | positive |
Writer/director Henry Brommel has done a wonderful job with his film, "Panic," from the year 2000, and that includes his choice of cast: William H. Macy, Tracy Ullman, John Ritter, Neve Campbell, Donald Sutherland, Barbara Bain, David Dorfman. Brommel has cast Ullman and Ritter in decidedly un-funny roles, and the offbeat casting is a welcome change from what we normally see.<br /><br />"Panic" is the story of a hit man, Alex (Macy) who actually works for his father (Sutherland). He covers his true profession by doing mail order work; by all appearances, he and his wife (Ullman) and their son Sammy (Dorfman) are a typical suburban family. Unhappy with his life, Alex seeks the help of a psychiatrist (Ritter), telling only his mother (Bain). In the waiting room, he meets a young woman (Campbell) to whom he is immediately attracted, which complicates his situation further. His mother breaks her promise and tells his father about the psychiatrist. When Alex receives his next assignment, he discovers that he is to kill his psychiatrist.<br /><br />This is a profound story of a gentle, good man made into a killer by a monster of a father, with his mother's knowledge, who kills to please his father but also can't stand up to him and quit. His rage is so deep-seated that he has lost emotional attachment to just about everything and everyone except his son - and it's finally his son who wakes him up out of a nearly lifelong repression. When it's time for "Panic" to moves, it does - quickly.<br /><br />"Panic" doesn't seem panicked at all. In fact, it moves very slowly. But it moves slowly not because it's poorly made - the slowness is deliberate, mirroring Alex's own psyche slowly coming out of the fog. By making a decision about Sara, the Campbell character, and by seeing his mark, his own psychiatrist, as a living, breathing human being, Alex starts to make the connections between what he does and who he is -and how they don't jive. And the difference between the two could lead to the loss of another psyche, Sammy's.<br /><br />William Macy gives another brilliant performance, as a loving father, a distant husband, and a cold killer, the child of two monsters who never cared a damn for his feelings or desires, a man who realizes finally that he has to step up to the plate or have the cycle repeated.<br /><br />This is not the kind of drama that plays well in a movie theater. It's too adult, too small, too subtle, too character-driven, and too good. | positive |
Yes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off. | negative |
Ah the sci-fi channel. How often do you disappoint me? Quite often I think, do you ever show good movies? OK you have given me the great 'Heroes' and the reasonably good 'The Lost Room' but they are series, and as for the movie well there really is nothing positive to say. Bad acting, bad directing, terrible characters and a shallow story, and that is just for starters. I checked out the director Allan A Goldstien and was not surprised to find nothing of interest in his resume (in fact I am half thinking that this is a pseudo name). The premises of four motor bikers out motto-crossing in a national park when one of them has an accident that needs a park ranger to come rescue them only for them to get caught in a forrest fire is weak and predictable that you know every beat before it happens. Leading man Bryan Genesse the park ranger is so bad it is terrible. Cast as the action hero martial arts boy in the footsteps of so many others this guy makes Seagal and Van Damme look like De Nero. The supporting cast are little better and well before the end one was left hoping the fire would engulf them all then the film crew. Avoid at all costs | negative |
Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City. | positive |
A 2006 online poll of Japan's top 100 favorite animated television series of all time, conducted by TV Asahi, placed this series in fourth place. That tells you everything you need to know. So go and watch it.;) I won't comment on the story, simply because I don't want to ruin anything. I only urge you to keep watching after you saw the first episode. The Animation is really good and above TV average. The best thing about this series is, that there is finally something new. I mean it's not groundbreaking but still it offers a fresh new idea and likable characters. You won't regret entering Suzumiya Haruhi's world.<br /><br />and the best thing a movie is coming soon | positive |
Frankly I did not think there was anything humorous about this movie. It was really lame and poorly done with no plot whatsoever. Surprisingly it got some chuckles from me at the beginning with the Malcolm X terminal and that was about it. Seriously Soul Plane made even the worst movies such as Gigli look like a Emmy winner. This movie is really not worth seeing unless of course you were blind like Johnny Witherspoon who played the blind man in the movie (another sad character). I cringed at majority of the stereotypic jokes and ruining Tom Arnold and D.L Hughley by casting them in this movie. This movie could be summarized in just one sentence. Nashawn wins $100,000,000 and creates his own airline, sex, drugs, homosexuality, more sex, drugs, did i mention sex? If I could I would rate this movie in the negative integers, however, the beginning was amusing which brings this movie to a 1/10. Doing the "t bag" pfft! | negative |
If Mulder was looking for his real father here he is Darren McGavin, the first X Files, pity it was only one season long the producers of this show didn't know that they had the makings of a classic on their hands and in 1993 along came Chris Carter with what i call the follow up to the Night Stalker, The X Files. Both will go down as classics is my opinion the two shows taking the viewers to a level of experience that only comes along once in a while and who should appear in the X Files years later Darren McGavin, as Agent Arthur Dales helping our two favorite hero,s solving cases. Paying homage to the man i think so, well done Chris Carter bringing back a forgotten TV show in the form of David Duchovny as Darren McGavin if it wasn't for watching The X files and that particular show i would have never known about the Night Stalker. | positive |
I watched the first 15 minutes, thinking it was a real documentary (with an irritatingly overly dramatic "on camera" producer).<br /><br />When I realized it was all staged I thought "why would I want to waste my time watching this junk??" So I turned it off and came online to warn other people. The characters don't act in a believable way. too much immature emotion. for a guy to travel half way around the world into a war torn country, he acted like a kid. and I don't believe it was because "his character was so upset about the trade center bombings".<br /><br />very trite and stupid.<br /><br />have you seen "city of lost children"? french dark fantasy film about a guy who kidnaps kids and steals their dreams... I liked it! | negative |
This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant. | negative |
I am writing this review having watched it several months ago....the trailer looked promising enough for me to buy this lame excuse for a movie. It is a complete joke....and literally a spit in the face of real classics of the early generation of horror like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) which they even had the gall to compare itself to on the back of the cover art. The producer who played Brandon should go flip burgers and serve up greasy hamburgers....hell he might not even be good at that either! The lighting was bad bad bad and a big annoyance through out the film you couldn't even see the actor's faces sometimes. I don't even remember the rest of the cast members which is sad really, bad they never do anything to impress you to make them memorable. That's all the time I will waste on this review PLEASE stay as far away as you can from this pile of junk even if you get it for 25 cents don't do it buy s piece of gum at least IT would keep you entertained!<br /><br />If you want good quality low budget fun, far better than this... then check out a Jeff Hayes film....because it takes talent to make it in horror and the kid has it!<br /><br />I gave this 1 star just for the cover art....thats the only thing worth liking abut this so called "film"<br /><br />-Rick Blalock | negative |
This movie is hilarious, bright and insightful. Though perhaps the story would work well involving almost any ethnic group, the inherent Jewishness of the characters gives extra meaning to the bounty of wonderful dialog. There were so many social issues covered in the plot that for that reason alone it would have been worth seeing; -but the real treasure was in the warm laughter that spread throughout the appreciative audience. The medley of complex characters with their various strengths and weaknesses play out their roles with all the pathos and humor one would expect from the Shakespearean drama their lives seem to parody. This is a film about family; - about the often fragile, sometimes invisible binding together of diverse personalities and lifestyles, first among siblings and parents, and inevitably among the larger family of friends and even strangers. The technical aspects of the film have given the movie a pace and development that keep the viewer intrigued until the final scene. Peter Falk is amazing, as always, in his role as family patriarch Morris Applebaum. Strong performances by a fine cast include a surprise guest. Don't miss this movie! | positive |
it aint bad, but it aint good. it is just entertaining.<br /><br />as a comedy which it is supposed to be, it's dreadful. not many laughs at all as every joke in the movie has been done a million times before.<br /><br />it's a shame as all the actors in the film are great usually, but none of them really do much. and the ending sucks. | negative |
Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake. | positive |
Okay,. so I went into this loving RuPaul. I still love him/her but think a little less. This is one gross movie that shows a lot of male genitalia. THis is a spoof of the 1970s black exploitation films and is purposefully done badly. The only fun part about it for me is that all of the voices have been looped with those of drag queens, even the voices of real women. This is over an the top, nonstop, laugh your rear end off it is so stupid, badly made movie. I would never watch this again but I do appreciate what the film makers were trying to do. There is no rating on this but it would be R or even NC-17. RuPaul has done much better work. | negative |
Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.<br /><br />In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.<br /><br />Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).<br /><br />The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. ** | negative |
Worse than mediocre thriller about an abused wife who goes on the lam after she is linked circumstantially to the death of her husband and sister. Determined to prove that her husband is alive she follows leads across the state, her peril increasing at each stop. Chasing after her are the traditional 'good-cop' and 'bad-cop' pair of partners. One is convinced of her innocence the other more interested in closing the case and getting home. This pair is often able to corner their suspect but never quite to capture her. All the main players meet up in a remote town in the desert and the truth begins to unfold with deadly consequences for some.<br /><br />Wow! This was a bad movie. The lead acted as if she was tranquilized, The cops couldn't find a suspect if he or she is in the police station (this happens twice) and everyone else is as one-dimensional as can be. Avoid this one at all costs.<br /><br /> | negative |
I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch. <br /><br />On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the "core" team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine. <br /><br />The plot, as I said above, is your classic "underdog-makes-good" stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, "Mystery Men" shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.<br /><br />It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical ("Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?"), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.<br /><br />(7/10) | positive |
somewhere i'd read that this film is supposed to be a comedy. after seeing it, i'd call it anything but. the point of this movie eludes me. the dialogue is all extremely superficial and absurd, many of the sets seemed to be afterthoughts, and despite all the nudity and implied sexual content, there's nothing erotic about this film...all leaving me to wonder just what the heck this thing is about! the title premise could have been the basis for a fun (if politically incorrect) comedy. instead, we're treated to cheap, amateurish, unfinished sketches and depravity and weirdness for its own sake. if i want that, i'll go buy a grace jones cd. | negative |
Simply put, this is the worst movie since "Police Academy: Mission to Moscow" (if you liked that movie you will probably like this one).<br /><br />What were they thinking ? Some ideas should stay just that, an idea. The fact that this idea could itself to film should be a criminal offense.<br /><br />What was so bad about it I hear you ask. One word ... EVERYTHING.<br /><br />Cost to Hire: $4.50 Cost in Time to Watch: 89 Minutes<br /><br />I want a refund on both! | negative |
This is a great documentary and above comments make a brief summary of how great it was so I won't repeat the same compliments. But, Faith akin, being an Turkish oriented guy who probably knows about that country more than an ordinary European, falls into the trap of orientalism that other western artists usually fall. But come on man you are Turkish blooded and your movie could be deeper and could describe what's beyond "beyoglu-old town" It's a missed opportunity for Akinfor that reason. Performances by Muzeyyen Senar and Orhan Gencebay are peek of the movie and Ceza (a very talented and bad ass Turkish rapper) makes some trash talk about American gangsta rappers which I totally agree. I will recommend this movie to my American friends. | positive |
again such kind of zero-budget digital-video cam trash. and again I fell into this trap cuz the title had "zombie" in it (german title: ZOMBIE ATTACK!) the story: on halloween some people visit the "museum of the dead", it's a trap, a crazy doctor wants to kill the people, everything connected to some aztec-cult. so they fight against some zombies in there.<br /><br />ultra cheap scenery: some corridors with black tape on it. a few dilettantish drawings and a few skulls as you can find them in every fun-shop. no actors, just low-grade models waking around with absolutely no idea what to do. no effects. laughable make-up, your local hobby-make-up-zombie-fan will do it better, some time it looked as if they had not enough money for enough colour, otherwise they just could not do it like this, man, they have to realize the looks of their "zombies". some laughable martial-arts fights with the zombies, slow-motion. just, when the director wants to have it scary he uses some standard digital-video-cam effect where everything is flackering. unbelievable! 0 out of 10! | negative |
'Iphigenia' is the great achievement of Michael Cacoyannis. This masterful play is masterfully adapted for the screen and brought to life by a wonderful cast. Cacoyannis achieved the impossible. He managed to film a Greek tragedy to screen without losing its effectiveness and importance. A stellar greek cast helps him in this. Newcomer Tatiana Papamoschou is extremely impressive as Iphigenia. Equally impressive is Irene Papas ,who even though she sometimes seems over the top, it is very realistic. A wonderful Greek film, beautifully adapted and directed by Michael Cacoyannis, with an excellent music score by Mikis Theodorakis which is ideal in every scene.<br /><br />P.S. Rumours say that the film lost the best foreign language film Oscar by only 1 vote!!! | positive |
This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest. | negative |
I love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states "Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing..." Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book. | negative |
UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1/2<br /><br />WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?<br /><br />UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.<br /><br />As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).<br /><br />The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...<br /><br />In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them. | negative |
Yikes! and we all thought Joan Crawford was THE horror Mommy Dearest...well Laura Hope Crewes as Mom in this stinging 4 character film delivers (and cops) the goods in this cracker of a marital Mommy mangle.....THE SILVER CORD is a genuinely sensational pre code drama from RKO made in 1932 released in '33 from a 1929 play. So astonishing, frank and honest is each startling verbal exchange between one son's wife (IreneDunne) along with the other's fiancé as these two younger girls together go to war - gleefully angrily unwrapping the clearly incestuous hankerings of Mom towards her hunky eldest son played by virile Joel MacCrea and her younger 'beau'/son payed by delicate and beautiful 25 year old actor Eric Linden. I would think this film played to many howling appreciative audiences in huge theaters in 1933 and offers viewers even in 2005 a very fruity melodrama enlivened by crackling dialog not afraid to call Mother exactly as she is. This film would have been impossible to make after the censorship code came in after 1934. Other viewer comments on the IMDb support my reaction and you will find almost everyone lucky enough to see (and tape) THE SILVER CORD will agree it is an unforgettable and pungent script in a superbly produced film. It would have played like the VIRGINIA WOLF of 1932. Laura Hope Crewes must have kissed the sound stage at RKO for this role of a lifetime..even more than her fluffy turn in GWTW. Irene Dunne is as gorgeous and casual and believable as ever, fighting for her husband yet again, and it is well worth seeing The Divorcée made in 1929 as a companion piece to THE SILVER CORD. Joel MaCrea is certainly in the same league as Cary Grant and Randolph Scott in the handsome and lovable stakes. I had never seen Eric Linden in a real acting role before (he played the leg amputee in the hospital horror scene in GWTW) and here he is startling and youthful with an excellent role as Robert, the younger and more sensitive son. Some verbal barbs leveled at him again would not get past the Code office if made later. This is a really good film, and if the viewer forgives some of the creakiness of its time and settles in for a sparring match of unequaled pungency for a 1932 movie, you will be well rewarded. At first I thought some of the throat clutching melodrama of Mother was dated until I realized it was a set up of the excellent screenplay to make the viewer laugh at her as though she is a weak little old lady......NOT..... but nor are the other two women in this powerhouse play on film, hence the fantastic retort dialog. That ocean-liner seen in reel one is THE LEVIATHAN the monster ship the US won from the Germans in WW1 that was so huge and unwieldy that crews were nervous wrecks trying to wrestle with it upon the Atlantic. It is infamous for ploughing headfirst up a colossal wave in a storm and shot over the crest at such an angle the spine along the bottom cracked and the ship split vertically between the funnels. It limped to port with rattling steel panels and winking rivet holes...and mentally shattered crew and passengers. It was scuttled in 1935 after being cursed and plagued with horror mechanical problems all its existence. Not such a war prize after all. <br /><br />Anyway, the dialog in THE SILVER CORD is enough excitement for one night: eg: "Mother! the Doctor said there was nothing wrong with you, in fact he said it would take a stick of dynamite to kill you". Whammo! | positive |
Although it was released way back in 1967, IN COLD BLOOD still remains the benchmark by which all true-crime films are matched. Veteran writer/director Richard Brooks (ELMER GANTRY) adapted Truman Capote's non-fiction book into a chilling docudrama that retains a disturbing power even today, thirty-five years later.<br /><br />Robert Blake and Scott Wilson portray Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, two ex-cons who, on a tip from Hicock's old cellmate Floyd Wells, broke into the Holcomb, Kansas home of Herbert Clutter, looking for a wall safe supposedly containing $10,000. But no safe was ever found, and the two men instead wound up killing Mr. Clutter, his wife, and their two children, getting away with only a radio, a pair of binoculars, and a lousy forty dollars. Two months on the run, including an aimless "vacation" in northern Mexico, ended in Las Vegas when cops caught them in a stolen car. But it eventually comes out, after merciless grilling by Kansas law enforcement officials, that these two men committed that heinous crime in Holcomb. Tried and convicted on four counts of murder, they stew in jail over a five-year period of appeals and denials until both are hanged to death on April 14, 1965.<br /><br />Blake and Smith are absolutely chilling as the two dispassionate killers who show no remorse for what they've done but are concerned about getting caught. John Forsythe also does a good turn as Alvin Dewey, the chief detective investigating the crime, as does Gerald S. O'Laughlin as his assistant. In a tactic that is both faithful to Capote's book and a good artistic gambit all around, Brooks does not show the murders at the beginning; instead, he shows the two killers pulling up to the Clutter house as the last light goes out, then cuts to the next morning and the horrifying discovery of the bodies. Only during the ride back to Kansas, when Blake is questioned by Forsythe and narrates the story, do we see the true horror of what happened that night. We don't see that much blood being spilled in these scenes, but we don't need to. The shotgun blasts and the horrified look on the Clutters' faces as they know they are about to die are more than disturbing enough, so there is no need to resort to explicitly bloody slasher-film violence.<br /><br />Brooks wisely filmed IN COLD BLOOD in stark black-and-white, and the results are excellent thanks to Conrad Hall's expertise. The chilling jazz score by Quincy Jones is the capper. The end result is one of the most unsettling films of any kind ever made, devastating in its own low-key fashion. It is a 134-minute study of a crime that shook an entire state and indeed an entire nation, and should be seen, though viewer discretion is advised; the 'R' rating is there for a reason. | positive |
Henry Hathaway was daring, as well as enthusiastic, for his love of the people of the early days in US history. However, to critique historical inaccuracies of his film about Brigham Young and the Mormon people are not necessary or useful in commenting for this film. In my opinion, Hathaway did superb direction that conveys what a Mormon people were in the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during the time period beginning with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the date of film release. In often subtle filming and dialog delivery, he covered Mormon philosophies and teachings in many of the segments and scenes.<br /><br />I remember watching this movie on many Saturday mornings during my youth in the early 1950's. That was just over 10 years after the films release and before the Los Angeles Temple was completed, which I watched being constructed and instilled more curious wonder of who Mormons were. I recently purchased this film and will enjoy the following messages that Hathaway interpreted in his film.<br /><br />1. Love for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, 2. Charity to those in need or not, 3. Family is high in importance, 4. Listen respectfully and carefully, because even opposing messages have important points to consider and adopt, 5. Work hard, both individually and in community, 6. Prepare and store for future days of need, 7. Hope is a binding link to a higher being, and for our daily lives, 8. And, that there is a unique quality to any group, and appreciate those that are identified as beneficial. | positive |
I have to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. They had a pretty good storyline to go on, but than the messed it up so badly. First of all the cast is all wrong, where did that van peeble(crap actor btw) and puff daddy come from??? It looks like Carlito has come from the hood, and used to hang about with some real idiots. This film doesn't do "Carlitos Way" any justice. Im so happy that the sequel "Carlito's Way" came out first, if I had seen this rubbish first, I would have never given the pacino version a chance. And anyway, pacino is supposed to have read this story, thought it's crap and did the sequel instead. Carlito's Way: Rise to Power - 1 out of 10. Carlito's Way - 9 out of 10. | negative |
Just finished with Zombie Bloodbath part one on the amazing Zombie Bloodbath Trilogy DVD from CAMP Motion Pictures. Zombie Bloodbath 2: Rage of the Undead is next. Now this one left me a bit puzzled due to a few plot holes and some confusing twists here and there, but it is a better film on many levels. Director Todd Sheets truly shows a major leap in style and talent between the two films. Again, this is not for people who want gloss and Hollywood style Horror films, this is for people who like their zombies bloody, raw and grainy. The story as far as I could tell, was basically about two robbers who in 1945 try and steal from an elderly couple only to find that the couple are members of a cult. One guy is simply killed and the other, the one in charge, is basically turned into a scarecrow and crucified and they stand him in the nearby field, still alive but dying. Cut to present day and a van full of college kids break down near a farmhouse. At the same time a group of convicts escape from a nearby jail. Both groups end up at the same house. The house was the one the elderly coupled used to live in and when one of the convicts knocks down the scarecrow and takes it's jacket, it causes the scarecrow to wake up and he in turn brings the cult members back from the dead. Wow. And this is all in the first half hour. There is another plot also going on in town where a couple of serial killer types have taken some workers at a deli hostage. This actually works though, as the people trapped in the house finally escape and end up in the same Deli. Most of the twists work out pretty good, but it is obvious that the film was just too complex in some spots for it's own good. It all ends in a huge showdown with the remaining heroes finding a delivery truck or something full of flesh eating bacteria vials. Of course they throw it at the undead and cause some major melting and a few heads to explode and then we get an odd, thought provoking ending. First, let me say, that while it was not always easy to follow, I still had a major good time with this movie. It was fun and the acting was pretty darn good for a low budget effort. It was obvious that Todd Sheets was truly trying to bring more to the table than a typical zombie film, and in that regard, he has succeeded. It had better special effects than the first film, great pacing and some cool music and visuals, plus there is a true show-stopper of a shot from INSIDE a mouth as a knife is jammed through it. Care was taken here and it shows. The weakness lies in the scripting and in a few of the lazier performances. Again, I recommend listening to the commentary track. It was even better than the first one and I learned a lot. Like finding out that some of the scenes were shot on Super 8 film for effect and that the film came back ruined from the lab and they could nit use it. And they had already been editing the film by the time they got the film back, so some of the confusion is from a few scenes not being in the film. Also, I learned that Todd Sheets truly has a passion and love for making Horror movies. It shows. The film is a good example of no budget cinema that could have used one more rewrite, but still shines with more style than most DV films I see. Not quite as fun as the first film, though a better movie technically. I really admire Sheets as one of the true innovators and trailblazers in the area of DV cinema... and this one is a great addition to the cheapo zombie genre! | positive |
In my opinion this is the best Oliver Stone flick -- probably more because of Bogosian's influence than anything else. Riviting stuff -- full of dread from the first moment to its dark ending. | positive |
Tsui Hark's visual artistry is at its peek in this movie. Unfortunately the terrible acting by Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung (I felt the urge to strangle her while watching this, it's that bad :) made it difficult to watch at times.<br /><br />This movie is a real breakthrough in the visual department. When I first saw this, my jaw dropped repeatedly and I thought to myself that I've never seen anything remotely like it but this is how it should be done in order to do full justice to the mythical world of Chinese historical kung-fu novels! Without a doubt this is one of the best-looking Chinese historical kung-fu epic ever made.<br /><br />But alas, Tsui Hark hasn't improved much in the writing department, and the story and dialog are rather juvenile (his apparent obsession with the silly and overly-long depiction of the evil guys didn't help either). To make it worse, this movie is very badly cast. They decided to use the "hot" popular Hong Kong idols as lead characters, but unfortunately both Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung are totally unsuited for historical kung-fu dramas because they lack the nobility and mystique that such characters are supposed to embody. Adam Cheng Siu-Chow and Brigitte Lin in the 1983 version are infinitely better.<br /><br />I wish that someday Zhang Yi-Mou and Tsui Hark can join forces and produce a movie that has the visual artistry of Tsui but with the maturity and story-telling poetry of Zhang... | positive |
The late Dudley Moore had the most famous role of his too-short career in 1981's ARTHUR, a raucously funny and alternately touching tale that generates warm smiles, big belly-laughs, and an occasional tear if you're in the right mood. Moore received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance as Arthur Bach, a drunken playboy who "races cars, plays tennis, fondles women, but he has weekends off and he's his own boss." Arthur is destined to inherit 750 million dollars when he marries a snooty society girl named Susan Johnston (Jill Eikenberry)who is the spoiled daughter of an undercover gangster. Things get sticky when Arthur meets Linda Morolla (Liza Minnelli) a waitress/struggling actress from Queens who steals neckties for her father's birthday. Moore lights up the screen in one of the single funniest performances of the last 50 years. The late Sir John Gielgud won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his flawless turn as Arthur's acid-tongued butler and best friend, Hobson, whose outward disdain for Arthur's behavior covers more paternal feelings. There are other funny contributions by Barney Martin as Linda's father. Stephen Elliott as Susan's father, and Geraldine Fitzgerald as Arthur's demented grandmother. The film was directed with a keen eye for comedy by a first time director named Steve Gordon, who, sadly, died the following the year. There was also a forgettable sequel several years later, but this instant classic is not to be missed. | positive |
When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with "The Wedding Banquet" and "Eat Drink Man Woman" a few years ago and then moved on to "Sense and Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.<br /><br />This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called "bushwhackers", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.<br /><br />The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider "Jewel" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.<br /><br />Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.<br /><br />Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.<br /><br />Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the "southern gentleman" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.<br /><br />While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's "great" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.<br /><br />Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.<br /><br /> | positive |
This movie was great don't understand the disrespect it get's. I first scene this in like 87-88 and it was actually scary, If you are an 80's horror fan you should have no problem with this film it has everything that makes 80's horror great. I got to meet a few of the actor's and they were cool. What is not great about a creepy old house,demons,crazy party & horny good looking young people. The dialog and the special fx made this movie a classic. This film also took care of one of those classic rumors about horror the black guy does not alway's have to die in the end.Even though this movie was great there is one thing that remains undiscovered to me what really happened to the old couple at the end was it on purpose or not that little side story thing alway's had me puzzled. | positive |
Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover. <br /><br />Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene. <br /><br />A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic. | negative |
The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a "So Bad It's Good" movie. Jack Frost 2 is neither of these.<br /><br />It is, to put it simply, a very good movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless "Scary Movies" combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions.<br /><br />The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man; essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself, multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only former weakness...AntiFreeze.<br /><br />What's sad about this movie is that the brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2 is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre.<br /><br />Most of the entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights).<br /><br />The lack of "memorable quotes" disturbs me.<br /><br />As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A HORROR MOVIE. | positive |
I will probably always go to see a Woody Alleb movie, as one never knows when he just might make a real return to his past greatness. Just one or two great moments or lines could make it worthwhile. sadly however this film just does'nt make it on any score. Saying thar actually makes me sad and even a little guilty. I'm sure my reaction is much like a lot of other fans of Woody, but what can one say? It's probably time for him to concentrate on his Clarinett, which in my opinion, he is rather quite good. Saying all of this, I'll still probably go to any new film Woody may come out with in the future. There's always hope and I'll continue to love and respect The WOODY!! | negative |
Let me waste a moment of your time to explain how I approached this film. 1st I dismissed the trailers out of hand because the film appeared to be an uncredited remake of Aliens, which I consider to be one of the weakest films in the Alien series. Stupidly continuing to dismiss the film after I heard positive things about it from people whose opinions I trust, I missed the theatrical run completely. I then became hooked on Farscape, in its 3rd or 4th season at the time, and found Pitch Black on cable one night around bed time - so I said "oh why not, at least it has Claudia Black in it." Soon, I recognized Keith David, and began to realize that Vin Diesel, Radha Mitchell and Cole Hauser could all act (why this should surprise me, I do not know). I was captivated. I have now remained captivated for four years. I just watched the film for the 3rd or 4th time, and I still love it.<br /><br />This is not an art film, not an independent, and its not entirely original, but where it fails to break a lot of new ground, it utterly succeeds in providing interesting, realistic characters, hard-driving action in the medium of a compelling but simple plot, and non-stop entertainment; an absolutely beautiful environment with tastefully rendered special effects. Sound to good to be true? Don't take my word for it... see it for yourself.<br /><br />The film also highlighted the charisma of the now somewhat iconoclastic Vin Diesel, introducing the character of Richard Riddick. Diesel would go on to star in the somewhat Riddick-ulous Chronicles thereof (which I also enjoyed, though recognizing its rather huge flaws) and is now something of a legend. Diesel is so charismatic, so big, and so interesting to watch that it is easy to ignore the fact that he is not only a talented actor, but a smart one too. Checking out the DVD version of Pitch Black, with the audio comments on might just blow you away.<br /><br />The film is about the crew of an inter-system transport ship stranded on an unknown planet after a crash-landing in which their captain was killed. The new commander is inexperienced but bright and heroic (Mitchell), but she is caught between two dominant and dangerous personalities - a bounty hunter with secrets (Hauser) and a dangerous criminal who has been surgically altered to see in the dark (Diesel). Is that all? Of course not - the planet is inhabited, and the inhabitants are hungry.<br /><br />As unoriginal and improbable as some of this may be, Pitch Black is beautifully filmed, well told, and very nicely performed. Don't expect to learn anything, and don't expect to have to think a whole lot, but do expect to have fun with this modern sci-fi action classic. | positive |
Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003... <br /><br />To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.<br /><br />No stars. | negative |
Drivel. Utter junk. The writers must not have read the book, or seen David Lynch's film. Not worth wasting your time.<br /><br />Longer does not make better. While more in-depth then Lynch's film, it has gross in-accuracies, and down-play's key parts of the story.<br /><br />"A Night at the Roxbury" is more worth your time. | negative |
One of the last classics of the French New Wave. For direction, cineaste Jean Eustache drew from the simplicity of early-century cinema; for story, Eustache drew on the torments of his own complicated love life. So many things can be said of this film - observationally brilliant; self indulgently overlong; occasionally hilarious; emotionally draining...etc. etc. In my mind, whatever complaints that can be leveled against this film are easily overshadowed by its numerous strengths. Every film student, writer, or simply anyone willing to handle a 3 hour film with no abrupt cuts, no music video overstyling, no soap opera-like plot twists, and no banal dialogue should make it a point to see this movie. Everything is to be admired: the writing (concise, clever, surprisingly funny), acting (everyone, quite simply, is perfect in their respective roles), and, simple direction (the viewer feels like a casual observer within the film) make this film unforgettable. This is undoubtedly a film that stays with you. | positive |
As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.<br /><br />Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.<br /><br />On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.<br /><br />The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.<br /><br />The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.<br /><br />Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.<br /><br />I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions
I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us tetanus.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
I am a huge horror fan, particularly Spanish horror. This film had so many possibilities to be good. It's a marvelous idea, a vigilante ghost nun, as most of what has come out of Jaume Balangueró's mind. Both visual and sound effects were also pretty good. But everything was shamefully spoiled by bad direction, awful casting and a painfully bad (exposition, exposition!) script. Too bad. Maybe Balangueró should write and direct himself a remake...<br /><br />Moreover, I don't really understand why this had to be spoken in English by actors who can't really speak English (and when they do, they do it so bad it just makes their performances even more fake). If you look at contemporary Spanish horror films like El Orfanato or Rec, the performances are totally in tune with this type of stylish ghost story - and that is being realistic, being believable as someone like ourselves, like real people, because that is the only way horror achieves it's goal. Unfortunately, everything failed in La Monja. | negative |
A bad rip-off attempt on "Seven", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them "sex offenders", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.<br /><br />No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.<br /><br />The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.<br /><br />Unlike "Seven", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about "sex offenders" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.<br /><br />There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.<br /><br />Don't waste time on this one. | negative |
I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one ! | negative |
The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase "guaranteed to offend" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.<br /><br />This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.<br /><br />Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it! | negative |
I had the pleasure of seeing Saltimbanco live before seeing the video version of the show. While nothing can compare to actually being there, the people behind the video did an amazing job of capturing the flavor, the feel, the sensation and so much more. The wonderful performances of Saltimbanco's stunningly amazing troupe are beautifully captured throughout. The video flows as smoothly and artfully as the production itself. A wonderful experience. | positive |
This movie was made for people who found Gremlins too serious and Critters to hardcore. Like many of the critters/trolls/gremlins movies of the 80's this movie is bad. The sad part is that there's no punchline to that comment. It's just bad and not in a funny way.<br /><br />The problem with this miniature monster movie is that it actually tries to be funny and ends up being as successful in doing that as Howie Mandell was in Walk Like A Man. What made the other 80's horror movies into classics was that they were genuinely trying to be scary, but were hilarious because they failed so miserably. Someone must have told Bettina Hirsch (yes THE Bettina Hirsch)she had a knack for comedy before she started directing this movie. Unfortunately they were wrong.<br /><br />Sure seeing a weird little mutated cross between a ferret and a tumor wearing a brown trenchcoat and throwing pool balls at an outcast from the Lost Boys is amusing, but not enough to save the movie.<br /><br />By far the most annoying part of the movie is the Paul character. His Paul Reiser wannabe schtick is enough to make you start fast forwarding from the time of his first scene until the ending credits only stopping once to see a scene where a munchie throws pool balls at a guy...not that I did that.<br /><br />So the bottom line is run, don't walk, to your nearest Blockbuster and shake hands with the manager and thank him for not having the grapes to stock this pile of garbage on the shelves. | negative |
i liked this movie a lot.I rented this expecting something not too bad to spend an evening.It turned out a particularly satisfying experience. Some scenes were hilarious and managed to be so in a movie not intended to be just a stupid slapstick comedy but with some meaning and moral values.It manages on both counts.The leads are all good but especially the guy who stars,also wrote and produced the movie.I've never seen any of these actors before, but they were likable and made me care about what happens to them in the end which is saying a lot.The script is clever and involving and has a refreshing feel to it. I think you wont be disappointed to watch this. | positive |
I watched the movie with tears and smiles alternatively. Anger surged in me to see the ruin of Hanoi after the 12-day bombard. And by living in the country right now with my parents, who's been living in Saigon for 50 years, I understand that we're much better off now, and would have been better if the American didn't bring war here. Watching the movie, I learned more of the different kinds of wars that the America planned in Vietnam, and what disasters they caused.<br /><br />The series seems to do well with the interviews with the real people. But I don't like it that some people only give generic opinions, like the analyst near the end of the series, I forgot his name.<br /><br />There should also be more documentary images, like the life in the army camp of the South Vietnam, and those of the North (if possible). There's also a sudden change from the year of 1972 to 1975 (I'm not sure if the in-between was censored, because I watched this series on TV). | positive |
This film is like marmite. You either love it or you hate it. If you go into this film expecting a proper film with decent production values, a good plot and great characters you'll hate it. If you go into this film expecting a low budget slasher you'll probably hate it.<br /><br />If you go into this film expecting to see one of the most deranged characters ever put to film in the form of Harry Russo you will love it. John Giancaspro is absolutely brilliant in his over the top portrayal of the insane, murderous coke fiend.<br /><br />The special effects are abysmal at best but really, who cares? If you're the kind of person who's prepared to watch a film Schizophreniac: The Whore Mangler you've undoubtedly seen scores of horror films filled with gore. With the budget this film was made for even if they had tried it probably would've mediocre at best. I'd much rather be able to laugh at something abysmal than be unaffected by the mediocre.<br /><br />To sum it up, you'll probably hate this film but if you're one of the few who decide to see it anyway it'll become the best thing since sliced bread #2 I hate marmite. | positive |
James J. Corbett's autobiography "The Roar of the Crowd" was the starting point of this lively and well-remembered fictionalized biography. The author was heavyweight champion of the world, succeeding John L. Sullivan, before the turn of the century. The events of the narrative depict Corbett as a brash but likable and intelligent young man whose conquest of the world of boxing and social prejudice in his time, when he was considered merely the son of Irish immigrants, a lowly bank teller and a nobody surprised everyone. It took him several hours of exciting and often amusing screen-time to prove his compeers were wrong. He is an bank teller when the film opens, but he somehow wangles an invitation to a sporting club for the well-to-do. He falls in love with a beautiful but snobbish girl, with whom he always seems to be quarreling, and he lives at home with a brawling clan of Corbetts who seem to fight with one another as often as with others. When he defeats the club's best and a professional fighter borough in to embarrass him, he finally decides to become famous by fighting. he sets out on the road with his friend, who acts as manager and trainer, and despite a few near setbacks, he wins all his bouts and attracts attention. Coming home to pursue his girl again, he contrives to annoy the Boston Strongboy, mighty John L. Sullivan, who enters bars and claims he can "lick any man in the world". Few believe he can win a bout against Sullivan, but Corbett, dubbed "Gentleman Jim" for his gracious manners and patrician appearance surprises everyone by moving, dancing out of range, and negating the furious Sullivan's power. The film's finest scene perhaps comes when a beaten Sullivan comes to congratulate Corbett. The new champion rises to the moment, tells Sullivan a few years before it might have been different, and shows him nothing but admiration and respect. He gets his girl as a result of his two performances, but by the end of the film, as they visit his s parents, his manager is able to tell the world, "The Corbetts are at it again". The films is attractive and has a consistent style without being flashy. The script was written by veteran Horace McCoy and Vincent Lawrence from the Corbett novel. Sidney Hickox did the cinematography, with period set decorations by Clarence Steensen and art direction by Ted Smith. Heinz Roemheld did the music and Milo Anderson the gowns. The film was ably directed by action-film specialist Raoul Walsh. Flynn also liked working with Walsh but did not care for the other director he worked for most often, Michael Curtiz. Among the cast,were Ward Bond as John L. Sullivan, in one of his best performances lovely Alexis Smith a bit spotty but intelligent as the girl Corbett loves and a very able Errol Flynn as Corbett, a young man he seemed to relish playing--he later said it was his favorite role from the period...Jack Carson was his manager, Alan Hale his charismatic father, John Loder a rich foe, with William Frawley, Minor Watson, Madeleine LeBeau, Rhys Williams, Arthur Shields, Dorothy Vaughn and Mike Mazurki along for the enjoyable proceedings. It is hard to say enough about the logic and light-hearted fun this movie's makers have generated; it is one of the best-liked of all sports biography films, and by my standards one of the most enjoyable as well. | positive |
Growing up with the Beast Wars transformers, I wasn't very familiar with the original Transformers, and now that I have seen the awesome movie, and now that I have seen the older cartoon on which it's based, I have to say I like the original cartoon and the live action movie more than Beast Wars.<br /><br />Not that I don't like the BW characters, I just think that characters like Optimus Prime are better than Optimus Primal.<br /><br />I mean, "AUTOBOTS TRANSFORM AND ROLL OUT!" sounds a lot better than "MAXIMALS MAXIMIZE!" The voice of the original Optimus Prime still makes me a strong believer that he's a real commander, more so than Optimus Primal.<br /><br />Besides, Powermaster Optimus Prime is a lot more powerful than Optimal Optimus. Just look on the web! <br /><br />Megatron in the BW character seemed more like a humorous version of the more evil version of him in the original series.<br /><br />Besides what's cooler, robots changing into animals or robots changing into vehicles and spaceships? Gimme the original Transformers any day over Beast Wars! | negative |
I don't mean to sound pretentious here, but to call this the next cult classic is yet another example of the lowering standards filmmakers have for themselves. This movie is an offense to everything we hold sacred, and not in the good "artsy " way of offending. This film becomes the archetype for PAINFUL dialogue, delivered by even more pathetic actors. | negative |
Why does everyone feel they have to constantly put this movie down? It is cute and funny (exactly what it is meant to be). Madonna wasn't out to prove herself as an Oscar calliber artist with this movie anyhow! She was just doing what the character called for, and she did it well. I loved her in this movie; it is my second favorite Madonna movie after Evita. The soundtrack is excellent too. It is no better or no worse than any cheesy 80's flick. To all the critics, just don't take it so seriously and you might have fun watching it. Madonna is a goddess!!! | positive |
I pulled down a VHS box from my vast collection - many unseen - and picked out a movie, based on the box art, I thought would be fun, and yes, bad. Prison had that 80s cheesy look all over that box. I sat down and watched, and lo! and behold!, found that sometimes we do indeed sit down to a movie with preconceived expectations in mind. Fortunately, I reversed mine quickly and soon realized I was sitting down not just to an okay film but a rather good movie in total. Prison tells the story of an old, dilapidated prison being reopened to save on budgetary concerns. It looks creepy as all empty and filled with prisoners. The prison used as a set is incredibly atmospheric and easily the most important character in the film. The story using the prison as its central setting tells in a prologue of a man being killed via the electric chair. We see Lane Smith as a guard - tearing away a Crucifix before sending the man to his Maker. We then go to present day, first with a government board at a meeting deciding to open the prison and send a beautiful doctor in to make sure that conditions are acceptable as she campaigned vigorously against re-opening the old prison. Then we see the new warden, Lane Smith, haunted by a nightmare in bed - and given the new job of opening a prison he has not been to in years. Well, the rest follows suit: prisoners and guards arrive with plenty of stereotypes abounding. We are given some character depth and several of the prisoners are interesting characters. The acting is better than one might expect with Lane Smith doing as always a workmanlike job. Viggo Mortenson as a very different prisoner being solid. Tom Everett, Tiny Lister, and Ivan Kane really exploring the boundaries of their stereotypical characters. Chelsea Field is okay as the female lead. The best performance is by Lincoln Kilpatrick, an underrated character actor, as Cresus - a prisoner who had been in that very same prison years ago when the "man" had been executed" with some kind of terrible secret. Prison is not the next best thing to sliced bread or anything like that, but it is definitely worth a look and definitely better than most would expect from it. I was pleasantly surprised at the way director Renny Harlin created a story so visually atmospheric. The film has a tense, taut pace and Harlin knows how to build his scenes. There are a few excessively shot gore scenes - the one with the barbed wire was a bit much as was the one with all the pipes. But these scenes are visually creative and interesting. The acting is uniformly decent. The script actually much more cohesive than one usually gets from films like these. That may in part be credited to Irwin Yablans who wrote the story. You may remember he came up with the idea of making Halloween scary as a holiday. Here he makes incarceration a hell of a lot more scarier than it already is. Give Prison a break(get it). | positive |
...than you easily spot the biggest fault of the movie. What was the motive? The details of the murders were used, but never explained. I guess the team got too much into the atmosphere, which is great, but the story is definitely lacking. There is no thread to follow. I guess if that was done properly, the movie would've lasted a bit longer, but it would've been worth it, at least for me.<br /><br />Casting is very good, I loved Wilson as the vulnerable Vicky.<br /><br />Not much more to say, really. But I really wish they've concentrated a bit more on the less obvious.<br /><br /> | negative |
I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear. | negative |
I bought this a while ago but somehow neglected to watch it until last night. I do like Juliette Lewis although I'm indifferent to Brad Pitt. After this viewing I have to admit he's a perfectly fine actor - his character was entirely believable, and I didn't think "Brad Pitt" at all.<br /><br />Unfortunately I can't say the same for David Duchovny. I'm an X-Files fan and I had to look twice to confirm the date of this movie, as I'd thought it was made a few years later. I like Duchovny but found his character a little two-dimensional here, except where he's doing voice-overs. That part was strong, seemed in character, good intonation, etc. Otherwise I kept thinking "Agent Mulder", which is a pity.<br /><br />Michelle Forbes was a treat. Why haven't I noticed her before? (I'll be looking up to see what other roles she's done and seeing those asap) I am slightly concerned about stereotyping re Lewis, this film, and "Natural Born Killers" (a firm favourite). Interesting though to see a contrast of characters - in NBK she's a willing accomplice, whereas here she abhors the violence and tries very hard not to acknowledge Early's dark side until it's thrust in her face.<br /><br />I enjoyed this film almost unreservedly. Apart from Duchovny's character not seeming fully-formed (and perhaps being "washed out" somewhat by Pitt's), it was perfect. I was also pleased with the ending - glad that the innocent heroes did not die, yet they had to suffer first. It was realistic, tense, disturbing.<br /><br />If you like NBK you may well like this movie, and vice-versa. | positive |
If I had to decide which was the best Ernest movie, and don't act like that sort of thing doesn't happen all time, it would be this one.<br /><br />All of the Ernest movies are entertaining, but the best ones are the ones that have Jim Varney doing a number of different characters. Additionally, I am known to enjoy the comedy stylings of Bill Byrge and Gailard Sartain as brothers Chuck and Bobby Tulip. "Ernest Goes to Jail" contains all of those elements as well as a funny script and a supporting cast that features several beloved character actors.<br /><br />And that is why I have chosen "Ernest Goes to Jail" as the king of all Ernest movies. Disagree with me if you must, but deep down you know I am right. | positive |
This is absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I hope the REAL family and other portrayed characters have lawyers suing the hell out of VH1 for there portrayal. The acting is horrible, the writing is worse and the portrayal of characters is scary. Its supposed to be a drama, but it was a comedy to me, you have no choice but to laugh at the bad acting. I usually like Flex Alexanders acting but this time he has completely missed the mark.<br /><br />You could argue he took this role for a couple of laughs himself, because it was so horrible. If you really want a dramatic movie for the night, DO NOT CHOOSE THIS ONE. But if you are in for some laughs over bad acting and stupid writing, Tune in. Other than that, don't waste your time. | negative |
I have waited a long time for someone to film a faithful version of H.G. Wells' classic novel, "War Of The Worlds". Timothy Hines has finally done it! I just couldn't believe how good it was! From the acting, to the costuming, the out-of-this world special effects, I just can't say enough!It was wonderful! Dramatic, intense, full of first-rate performances by a top-notch cast! It's got to be seen to be believed. I sure didn't. And I've read all those negative comments by the others, and can't believe what they were saying. We must've been watching a different movie, huh? And those real bad comments by that vepsaian guy, guy whoever he is, well, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.<br /><br />Keep up the good work, mr. Hines. | positive |
In many ways DIRTY WORK is a predictable L&H short on the surface with the boys going to sweep someone`s chimney . Guess what happens next ? That`s right slapstick at its most sucessful ensues .<br /><br />But there`s one or two things that seem untypical . Ollie for example is very unlikable , he`s arrogant , he`s rude , and not only to Stan look at the way he addresses the servant with " HEY YOU " and takes a childish huff very easily with his catchphrase being " I have nothing to say " . In short Ollie plays a bully in a very unlikable way and I much prefer to see him to play the arrogant coward where he`s always at his funniest<br /><br />DIRTY WORK also lacks the reportary regulars of the other L&H shorts like Finlayson , Long , Busch and Housman which means when we switch to the mad scientist plotline there`s a slightly creepy atmosphere that jars with the rest of the movie <br /><br />Having said that this is still a good short mainly down to Stan . Also watch out for a scene featuring a fish . Many jokes/plots from L&H feature fish and this is another one | positive |
What is wrong with American movies these days? Hollyweird keeps making movies that have men acting like women and women acting like men. The idiotic male director and writer of this movie need to have their heads examined. The main problems with this film are its overt extreme feminist portrayals of the sexes.<br /><br />In the scenes of the bar, Eva Mendez and her friend are swigging from the beer bottles like you may find sailors on an oil tanker doing so at a bar in Iceland. Mendez continually kisses every girl she sees after that. She also dresses provocatively in every scene, yet curses like a guy. She gets very emotional when she fights with Will Smith for a while, while trying to 'defend' all women from bad guys everywhere.<br /><br />The men are no better in this movie. What we see is a bunch of idiots trying to do anything they can to win a date. The males in this movie are concerned with getting either sexual favours or unable to speak clearly when face to face with a woman. Men in real life do not behave this way.<br /><br />What we see in this movie is a product of culture gone awry. Everything is flip-flopped. Guys act like girls, girls act like guys. All this is done while keeping the extreme predilections of the sexes very much a part of the story. Men are shown as soft and stupid but only interested in sex most of the time, while women are shown as macho and overbearing but only as a veneer for their emotional insecurities.<br /><br />This movie would be good if it wasn't presented obnoxiously to the audience. The content is not the culprit. It is the manner in which the content is presented. | negative |
I ordered this extremely rare and highly overrated movie on ebay with very high expectations. I think I paid about 50$ for this movie. As an eternal fan of horror, from cheesy 80s American slashers to European zombie films, I told myself this was going to be great! I can't tell you how wrong I was. First of all, I thought it was gonna be pretty much gorier than it actually is. After all I've had heard about this film, I was almost scared to watch it. The murders are boring. The acting... forget it, there's no acting! The story, even if we don't care, is incredibly bad. It seems they tried to get your attention with some weird sexual scenes and naked girls, but unfortunately in this case it doesn't help the movie. Why? There's no atmosphere, and this is the worst thing about this flick. It's just bad film-making from point A to B. Though it's extremely funny and amusing to watch with your friends and a lot of beers, don't make any effort to get your hands on it. There are so many movies in this world, don't waste your time watching Necro Files! | negative |
I can understand how fans of filmmaker Roman Polanski could love this movie- and I could understand how some could totally hate it (Ebert was one of the few who couldn't understand why people weren't running out of the theater). After a first viewing, I'm not sure I could fall into either category, however as someone who can't get enough of Kafka and bizarre dark comedies of paranoia The Tenant is effective enough for its running time. Or maybe not- this is one of those cases where it might have been more of a masterwork if it were a half-hour Twilight Zone episode, with Serling delivering the coda as Terkovsky (or whomever it might be(?)) writhes in his bed in bandages. It's very similar in the treatment of the doomed protagonist as Repulsion was, however it could be argued that there was more ambiguity, more of a sense of the surreal coming out through a sustained disintegration of character and location (and, quite frankly, a better lead performance) than the Tenant.<br /><br />As it stands, The Tenant does have an intriguing premise, the kind that one doesn't tire telling about to other people: Polanski is a Polish émigré to Paris who takes an apartment that was most recently acquired by Simone Choule, who jumped to her near death out of the window and died soon after. But the other tenants are conservative to the max in terms of noise; after a Saturday night at Terkovsky's with a few friends, there are complaints of too much noise. It won't happen again, Polanski's good-natured but slightly nervous tenant says, but there is no peace even in moving a cabinet or a chair. Soon complaints get registered against another tenant, but from him? Can he register complaints? This is a case of not so much mistaken identity but of there being a lack of peace of mind with oneself and the surrounding people. As the downward spiral goes on, Polanski ratchets up tension (and, dare I say, black-comedic laughs) by showing Terkovsky in the midst of a horrible dream- one of Polanski's strongest scenes from the period- and in finding teeth in the wall, not to mention the bathroom across the way (which, I might add, is always a cinematic lynch-pin of horror and surreal madness).<br /><br />But somehow, the film never really feels all that significant aside from its excessive design as a would-be mind-f*** machine, with Terkovsky's tenants only seeming to not be what they seem for a little while: there's not as much suspense when finding out that they really aren't out to get him, which makes the paranoia more self-fulfilling. At least once or twice I thought to myself as well 'why did Polanski take the title role for himself?' It's not that he's at all a bad actor, and he has appeared in several films and plays that aren't of his own direction. But aside from being great at looking awkward and tense, like in the church, or in his moments of sort of flipping out when thinking that they really are out to get him to kill himself, his transformation is less creepy than tongue-in-cheek, a test of himself to see if he can pull it off, which he doesn't entirely do. Despite Polanski working at it well to look like the meek and frazzled Terkovsky, I could see at least a few other actors who could pull it off with more subtlety and affecting personality. By the time one sees him in drag, it goes between cringe-worthy and true camp, particularly when he goes for the double-climax at the end (which, of course, is of little surprise).<br /><br />And yet there is pleasure for the film-buff and Polanski fan to see the supporting cast try and dig into the much more ambiguous characters (Winters and Douglas do this the best, even as they have to strain through limited characters), and the unexpected moments like Polanski and Adjani getting hot and heavy during a Bruce Lee movie, or when he gets really drunk, or in one almost random scene where he slaps a kid near a fountain, are rather brilliant in and of themselves. It's a very good film, and one that could maybe stick my attention up when on too many coffees after midnight. But an essential film? Not exactly. | positive |
There have been very few great comedy films in the history of Hindi Cinema. Andaz Apna Apna happens to be one of them. The film is based on a very simple story of two poor young men (Aamir and Salman) who dream of becoming rich by marrying a millionaire's daughter (Raveena). Aamir and Salman Khan try their best to outwit each other and woo Raveena. The plot thickens when Paresh Rawal & Co. plan to take over all the wealth. The movie is well paced and very funny. Rarely does one come across a Hindi comedy which is both funny and intelligent. This is one of the few films with Aamir and Salman together (probably the only film!). Unfortunately it did not succeed at the box-office, and we might never see a film of this calibre again. Aamir Khan is brilliant in the film and has proved his versatility as an actor in this film. Salman Khan gives a very good performance as a dim-wit. Raveena plays a convincing role as a confused rich girl, and Karishma who is Raveena's assistant/friend is also funny. Paresh Rawal, Junior Ajith, Shakti Kapoor, Deven Verma, Jagdeep and Tiku Talsania just add to the flavour of the film! All in all, the best Hindi comedy ever made and I wish they make more quality films like this one. You will want to watch this film time and again.<br /><br />P.S - For those of you who have watched this film, I also suggest Gol Maal, Chupke Chupke, Chhoti Si Baat, Naram Garam, Hera Pheri (old and new), etc. | positive |
......in a horror movie that is. Alright first off , lets start with Kate. Her main goals include getting laid by George Clooney, looking good and last but not least screwing everyone over. Gotta love her. She had about 3 amazingly good chances to finish off this sicko but ..... instead she ran. I mean she didn't wanna bring Guy out for 10 minutes and when she did it was too late. I mean the guy tried to rape her. I cant get into these movies where the main character is a sad idiot. I mean who honestly would have any sympathy for a guy who finishes off everyone she has meet in a night. The movie kept going on. And as a result lost all its credibility. | negative |
If you seen Rodney Dangerfield's previous movies and performances, you'll recognise several of the jokes made in this odd piece of dreck. Written like a sitcom, this movie fails to strike any sort of likeable chord throughout, from the self-help doctor played by the aways sexy-as-chopped liver Molly Shannon to the 'I'm fat, and therefore funny' John Linette. The 5 wives themselves are likeable enough, and if this had been done as a pilot for an action-adventure series, it might have worked. Instead, it comes off like a male fantasy that's trying hard not to be politically incorrect. | negative |
Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.<br /><br />The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.<br /><br />The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.<br /><br />The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.<br /><br /> | negative |
Nothing to watch here. It's all been done (and better) before. Who cares about this woman - deficient in every way - as a mother as a wife and as a friend? In one instant when she could have taken the high road - she jumped into re-addiction with both feet and held her breath - for no better a reason than "me, too!" If she wasn't the pretty and young person she portrays on screen - but looked more like the real human wreckage that is represented by our family members, neighbors and friends who really suffer from additions we'd change channels in a nanosecond.<br /><br />This movie starts out at the bottom and goes downhill. Nothing redeeming, no lessons taught - nothing uplifting in any way. None of the main characters even evoke sympathy, let alone empathy. (Well, maybe the snake.) I would have had more fun if I'd shut a door on my hand. Who needs drivel like this? | negative |
Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.<br /><br />Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.<br /><br />As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film. | negative |
Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this. | negative |
VERY BAD MOVIE........and I mean VERY BAD...THe plot is predictable, and it's EALLY cheesy, the creativeness of the battle and the dance scenes for the time are the only reason I didn't give the movie a one, other than that...this is def a movie one can def afford not to watch.....I feel while watching the movie, the idea behind the movie was an interesting one tho kind of cliché....bringing country bumpkins to the city blah blah blah, but I feel it might have been at least a little better if it just wasn't so cheesy, very poorly portrayed from idea to screen, i think. The Plot is somewhat predictable at times, tho the dancing I can say AT TIMES, is pretty good, The break dance battle twist was good.....IF u just pop the movie and watch the dance scenes and make up your own dialog maybe it can be a 5...lol | negative |
Actually, the movie is neither horror nor Sci-Fi. With a very strong Christian religious theme, this movie delivers minimal content and no suspense. Second-tier actors do half-decent jobs of reading their boring roles. The only good performance is by Sydney Penny who plays a role of a mother of ... I won't spoil the movie, it's either Christ or Anti-Christ. Avoid watching this movie unless you a Christian religious fanatic obsessed with apocalypse.<br /><br />Being a non-Christian, I had to force myself to watch this movie just because I wanted to write this review. It's a pity that Sci-Fi channel had to air this movie at the peak evening time. | negative |
I had never read Shakespeare's Hamlet before watching it but I did have a Shakespeare book with me and could follow the dialogue through it. My view on the movie may be partially biased since I had never read the play before, but I got pulled into this movie's grasp. Shakespeare is undoubtedly one of the best writers ever to have lived and the story of Hamlet is definitely one of his best achievements.<br /><br />But now on to the movie...<br /><br />I found that all the actors in the movie had a firm grasp of what they were saying and thus, were able to articulate it quite well. Leonardo in Romeo and Juliet is nothing compared to Kenneth Branagh and the King. The thing I liked about this was that it worked very well as a "MOVIE" and not as a play you are studying. You don't need to be affluent with Shakespeare to relate to all the Misery hamlet has to go through. I would recommend this movie to a wide audience.<br /><br />That's my two cents. | positive |
This movie was talked about in Fangoria where I heard about this, it was interesting to me mostly becuase it was direct-to-video and I recognized two of the stars on the cover, James Marsden of Disturbing Behavior and Christine Taylor from The Craft. And to my surprise on Valentine's Day when I was searching through the horror aisle to find it on the shelf! I immediately had to grab it. Me and my brother and our girlfriends watched it and to my surprise it was pretty good, the tales were interesting and for once they were actually SCARY, unlike a lot of other horror movies being made recently. Some of the plot I do not understand but once I watch it again I bet I'll get it. And to even more of my surprise there were other stars I recognized including one of the girls from the TV show My So-Called Life and Jacinda from The Real World, I'm not sure why this movie was only direct-to-video, with a little advertising this movie could have at least made up for how much money was spent on making it. The only problem I have is that since it wasn't released in theatres I guess I'll never be able to view it in widescreen. You should definitely take a chance and rent this one.<br /><br /> | positive |
A bizarre and brilliant combination of talents between the director, Robert Siodmak and Ella Raines as a secretary trying to save her boss from the electric chair by tracking down a mysterious "phantom" woman, and Franchot Tone as a crazed and murderous sculptor. As well there are some fascinating smaller parts played by Elisha Cook Jr as a drugged out trap drummer, as well as the other characters who make up parts of the conspiracy. If you're used to seeing Raines in more wholesome parts, she's allowed to go overboard here, especially in her scenes with Cook. Franchot Tone also plays someone very different, and though it isn't a convincing part, he acts phenomenally. While the conspiracy is too contrived, the film has real atmosphere and is very interesting. | positive |
One of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show is impressive.<br /><br />Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, "Rose" and "The End of the World," this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police call box.<br /><br />She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk.<br /><br />Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit choppy, "Doctor Who" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the same success here. | positive |
This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.<br /><br />The plot of "Genova" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by "Genova" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. "Genova" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed. | negative |
Let me start by saying that "War, Inc" is not everyone's cup of tea. It is, however, very enjoyable (and gets you thinking - "Oh, crap"). The comedy involved the film isn't obvious at all - it's quite subtle (Tamerlane tanks, dry-cleaning service etc), and it changes with the twists & turns in the plot.<br /><br />I may be the only one, but I won't compare this with "Grosse Point Blank", because, it's different. John Cusack - I wouldn't say he was "amazing" or "brilliant" - but he was good. On the other hand, his sister (Joan Cusack) was incredible in her delivery of lines & comedic timing - even though she was hardly in the film (I'd say the same about Ben Kingsley).<br /><br />Marisa Tomei plays a convincing reporter, and manages to pull it off. Hilary Duff is very commendable for her role as central Asian pop star Yonica Babyyeah. Duff's development as an actress is very noticeable in the film, and she does a very good job (even though her accent is a tad unreal).<br /><br />Overall, the film is what I would call "entertaining". It doesn't have a particular storyline, and it's quite silly at times, but it does have a subtle message. I'd say it's worth a watch. | positive |
This is a Black and White film from France,<br /><br />Simple plot, gangster on the run seeking & getting help etc. We have seen this type film many times over the years. What makes this film different are mainly its acting & style. All the actors perform quietly,No one yells & hardly anyone loses his temper. There are quite a few deaths, some surprising. There are beautiful women as well, but no sex scenes. No car chases either.<br /><br />JUST talking/ It is so refreshing to listen to people talk, & here we must read subtitles as well.<br /><br />The acting is near perfect by all. especially the lead played by <br /><br />Lino Ventura & in a smaller BUT vital role Jean Paul Belmondo. These 2 actors were among the best.<br /><br />I said above the film is flawed, There are a few script deficiencies in few spots, They are minor,The acting is the thing in this movie. Production is first rate as well.<br /><br />Ratings: *** (out of 4) 88 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10) | positive |
This would have been my number one movie of the year for 1991, except it got beat out by the brilliant JFK. This is such a wonderful movie! I loved it. I love stories where different characters' lives intersect with others and how deal with their lives. Kevin Kline is good here, but is outshined by Danny Glover and, especially, Steve Martin. I've never much like Martin or his style, but here he is great. I loved the whole speech he gave to Kline near the end about the Grand Canyon. The writing was excellent. Larry Kasdan is, IMO, a great dialogue writer, along the ways of Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino. Here, he has formed several three-dimensional characters and well thought out storylines, and messages that give a positive feel to our lives. A truly excellent film. 4 out of 4 stars | positive |
Newly-pregnant Knight bolts from husband for non-specific reasons which are apparently self-related. On the road, she becomes entangled with Caan, brain-damaged former football star, and Duvall, wacky but abusive cop. The type of movie that could only have been spawned in the 60's. Worth a look for its non-formula plot and for early performances by future stars.<br /><br />Disappointing resolution does not take away too much from rest of flick, which shows an interesting slice of life. | positive |
This place in England during 1940. Three orphans (Carrie, Charles and Paul) are sent to live with Miss Price (Angela Lansbury). She doesn't want them but reluctantly takes them in. It seems she is studying to be a witch through a correspondence course with the College of Witchcraft. (OK--I realize this is a family film but--College of Witchcraft??? Come ON!!) Before she can finish the course though the college is closed because of the war (???) and she seeks down the head Professor Browne (David Tomlinson). And her and the kids travel around on a bed with the help of a magical bedknob.<br /><br />I first saw this when I was 9 and vaguely remember loving it. It sure doesn't hold up as an adult! The story is silly (even for a fantasy), the kids are terrible actors and one of them (Charles) is incredibly obnoxious. Also Roddy McDowall is third billed and only appears in two short scenes! There's also a trip to the Isle of Naboombu which is run by animated animals. I thought that might be fun but the animation is poor (for Disney) and it has a very violent and far too long soccer game between the animals. There are a few saving graces here: Lansbury and Tomlinson are just great; the songs (while forgettable) are pleasant; the long dance sequence on Portobello Road is very colorful and full of energy and the Oscar-winning special effects are still pretty impressive at the end. But the weak story line, poor animation and unlikable kids really pull this one down. I heard the extended version is even worse! I can only give this a 7. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.