Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I did enjoy watching Squire Trelane jerk around the crew in this episode, though after a while the whole thing just seemed a little too long. Sure, the histrionics were kind of funny for a while, and the ending was a pretty good way to wrap the whole thing together. I think the problem was that I enjoyed seeing Trelane when he was full of bravado and fun, the fun seemed to vanish when Trelane became vindictive and nasty. Talk about a mood killer--going from the obnoxious but affable host to the guy sentencing Kirk to death! But, despite this, the episode was enjoyable and worth my time. For die-hard Trekkies, this is a must-see, for others it's just a pretty run of the mill one. | positive |
Wow. When I went to this film at the Toronto film festival I had no idea what I was in for. This movie takes you on an emotional roller-coaster in the best sense of the term. Sigourney Weaver was better than I've seen from her in years; Emile Hirsch was great and Jeff Daniels broke my heart. I can see how this won't be every person's cup of tea, as at times it deals with some pretty harsh things that can happen to a family. Don't get me wrong -- it's really funny too -- at my screening the audience burst out in applause after laughing over and over again. I just think if you're open to examining your own life, Imaginary Heroes will sincerely touch you. I can't wait until it comes out in theaters. | positive |
I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough. | negative |
Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.<br /><br /> There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time. | negative |
...you know the rest. If you want a good zombie movie, DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE. If you want a documentary-esquire look at "hood life" you're at the wrong place as well. If you're looking for a laughable piece of film, this is a real winner! The acting is as flat as a piece of paper. The best example of this is definitely the officer investigating the drive-by. I can tell that he did the voice for the 911 operator as well by the flat tone of his voice. If I could hear a cardboard box talk, it'd probably sound like this guy. Oh yea, and the "zombies" did their best snake impression which is on par with their FANTASTIC acting overall (note sarcasm...HOW DID THIS NOT WIN AN Oscar FOR BEST MAKE-UP) The Quiroz......did not do any sort of directing. I felt like I was watching an improvisational period piece (the period is more like 1990's LA) The direction is however one-uped by the worst script I think to ever grace a movie. I haven't heard such lovely lines, like the epic one word beginning to the movie "F**k!", since Ice Grill which was another "urban" thriller. This only works of course in conjunction with the also-epic hip-hop soundtrack! All 3 or so songs of it! All in all, what the hell did you expect from a movie entitled "Hood of the Living Dead"? I rented this movie with full intention to laugh at its every scene, and boy it delivered and MORE! I would definitely recommend this to anyone who wants to get together with a bunch of guys and laugh at a low budget horror (yea right...) movie for the night. A memorable experience for sure! | negative |
I always look forward to this movie when its on TV. Have to get the DVD I guess. The range of different types of people is great. It says to me that anyone can be a dancer if they try hard enough. My favorite character must be Mr.Aoki. He is so quirky but so full of emotions. It is a perfect movie with wonderful dancing. Unfortunately we never get the chance to see them go to Blackpool. Would make for the perfect sequel if they had. But I guess it leaves it to your imagination to what could of happened.<br /><br />A very simple and innocent story. He stays loyal to his wife and daughter.<br /><br />I haven't seen the Hollywood remake. Not sure if I want to. I don't really enjoy Jennifer Lopez. I think Richard Gere more matches the original than Lopez. I have a feeling that the remake is not as simple and innocent. | positive |
I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor. | negative |
I had watched several days film shooting of this movie that summer,the end result was just two scenes in the movie. The location was Sylvan Lake in the Black Hills. Bring the wagon,stop the wagon etc . So this Dakota youth looked forward to seeing the movie and was not disappointed. The local buffalo herd was being culled so the shooting scenes were for real. (yes Doris, animals were hurt during filming) I think the ending was copied by Jack Nicholson in the Shining? A great western/social comment from the 50's. This should be in the same class as High Noon for real western drama or used as a social statement like Blackboard Jungle or Rebel Without A Cause was for 50's youth. | positive |
Regardless of whether the predominant social message of this film - that vigilante justice is acceptable - is justifiable, I was more insulted by McConaughey's closing statement. In a courtroom drama, the closing statement of the defence attorney is pretty much the crux of the film, and when the issue is as difficult to resolve as this one, the statement is really being delivered to the audience as well as the jury. This basically implies that the audience consider the rape of a white girl to be a more horrific crime than the rape of a black girl. I for one find this very insulting. As for the rest, I found the acting reasonable, with the exception of Sandra Bullock, who seems to be playing her usual bubbly self (doesn't really work in a courtroom drama), but what's the point when the film's message is as poor as this one. It tells you that vigilante justice is fine, and accuses you of racism if you disagree. | negative |
First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash the Sci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a good film, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be a lot better. The flaws of the film come from character design, character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, the music, and for the most part: the acting.<br /><br />When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way our heroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem like ridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- that helmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks like the Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.<br /><br />The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end, however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality, due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion as well, as he becomes less conceited.<br /><br />Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make it its own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow that is gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn't walk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as the underlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as the consequences of lying.<br /><br />The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag are poorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less than believable.<br /><br />The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.<br /><br />All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actually one of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash, making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is the dialogue, which is still wooden here and there.<br /><br />I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' take on the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) is only half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie a three-star review. | negative |
As it is in Heaven {SPOILER WARNING)<br /><br />This was a great human drama that stimulated my emotions and my imagination. <br /><br />This is a parable revisiting the life and death of Christ. Daniel is a superior gifted musician ,who is physically and mentally exhausted by his career , and has to give it up. When he joins a church choir as its cantor, he brings about a transformation in the lives of the choristers , just as Jesus did to the society in first century Palestine. They laugh, they begin to speak openly and truthfully to each other , their faults are exposed,they accept each other, come to love each other, become a vital community.They include the mentally disabled young man (?Tore), such is their inclusiveness.<br /><br />The pastor, Stig enjoyed authority through imposing a stifling morality on the congregation, and that is gradually rejected by the choristers . When Stig dismisses Daniel , there is a revolt, and Stig is crushed. Stig represents the Jewish authorities of Jesus' day, whose insistence on obedience to the Jewish law,provided a stark contrast to the new life by "the golden rule" brought by Jesus.<br /><br />In one dramatic scene, someone declares "the church invented sin". All through the film, there is this contrast between moral-ism and vital living (being).<br /><br />True to the Christ story, Daniel is killed by Conny , when he beats him up, leaves him to drown in the river. Next scene , we can hardly believe it when Daniel's (resurrected!) body is dragged into his room (the tomb) draped in a white linen sheet (the shroud!), by three women (three women kept vigil at the foot of the cross in the gospel).<br /><br />Daniel is drawn closely to Lena, a warm beautiful young woman who has been betrayed by a man she loved, and who is now promiscuous (Jesus developed a close relationship with Mary Magdalene- Lena- who was probably a high class courtesan/prostitute). Through Lena, Daniel learns to love , something he has longed for, and now finds fulfillment .<br /><br />The solo sung by Gabriella , composed by Daniel, is all about living a full life , in contrast to moral correctness that leads to concern about sin , and what's right and wrong. <br /><br />The final scene shows the choir all singing/humming in harmony , like a mantra, drawing in the large audience, exemplifying the harmony and inter-connectedness that is our true human destiny. | positive |
First thing first . In this genre movie the first thing you need is a good music , and thats where Mr. shankar and his party fails.<br /><br />music is completely pale and uneffective. On other hand there is AJAY DEVGAN , WHO HAS REMOVED A LETTER 'A' from his spelling , done good job but was of no use to a bad casted movies like this.<br /><br />ASIN is like a doll which is used to amuse public, even though she is good to look at but her role in movie is to dance, actually she is dancing member of a rock band and i don't think any rock band have there dancer as a member of band.<br /><br />in nut shell this movie is a piece of crap a piece of ***t. watch it if you wanna get fooled. | negative |
I saw the movie after checking its rating on IMDb. Back then, it was at 8.0 and I thought, "wow! That must be a good one". I thought wrong. The beginning of the movie actually keeps what the plot promises, but then it goes exponentially down underneath its basement. I think without the character of Richie Nix, it might have been alright - although he is the reason the story line takes the course it does. The character is just too extreme for my liking, and hard to endure. Also, the journey the main character takes from the beginning of the story till its "climax" at the end is partly irrelevant and could easily have been omitted - the alternative is, I just did not understand the movie.<br /><br />Although I must admit that it is "easy watching", and I had no problems sitting through the whole movie, when it had finished I was somewhat unimpressed by the ending. All in all, rather mediocre. | negative |
I live in Missouri, so the direct effects of terrorism are largely unknown to me, this brought it home. That two men would put themselves on the line in the way that those members of FDNY and NYPD did, just to document the horror that unfolded on that day. This film is a testament to those who lost their lives and the true evil that terror brings. | positive |
carrot top in a full length movie, enough said. only reason this doesn't get a one is through my personal voting system of only one 1 and one 10, and this is no extreme ops. horrible god awful. there are some movies that are so bad they are unintentionally funny, then there are movies that make you physically unwell and then there are those that lead to serious contemplation of suicide. burn all copies of the movie, shoot anyone who had non creative input on this movie, torture anyone with any creative input and as for the star, there are only so many things that can be said online, but he should be begging for the final ten seconds of existence with a severed head by the time the work is done. | negative |
Wow...what can I say...First off IMDb says this is in the late 60s...which means Carlito would be very close to going to prison, He got out in 75 and said he was in for 5 years. They used a bunch of nobody actors, and a story that didn't even make sense. They bring back only one actor, Guzman, and hes playing a totally different guy. Why did it end with him and this Puerto Rican chick? Wheres Gale? He said he was in love with her before. Wheres Kleinfeld? He said he knew him forever...You'd think he'd have been in this one. And if this made sense, where are Rocco and the black dude in the first one? It was all just stupid...This is an insult to Pacino and the first film. | negative |
This is Not a Love Song.<br /><br />My one word summary of this film would be `Excellent'.<br /><br />It probably won't appeal to the mass movie watching public it's a<br /><br />film that forces you to participate. You observe, think, and question.<br /><br />Comparisons could be made with Deliverance (Topic/Theme) and<br /><br />perhaps with The Blair Witch Project for overall filming style.<br /><br />However this film stands unique against both.<br /><br />The cinematography effects (solarisation, freeze frame, blur etc)<br /><br />have been seen before but they are used most effectively in this<br /><br />film to underpin the natural tension of the story.<br /><br />Acting is raw, menacing and utterly believable.<br /><br />The real theme of the film is about friendship; the title really gives<br /><br />the game away. It's probably not the kind of friendship that most of<br /><br />us have experienced or indeed would want to.<br /><br />It is a love song. | positive |
The SF premise isn't unique (although it pretty much was back then), but the focus is a completely different one than in other artificial reality films. Especially during the first part it is an elaborate crime picture, that uses the SF premise to tell an unusual crime story in which the forced detective tries to solve a mystery with the obstacle of vanishing characters and unhelpful witnesses who don't have to lie to be unhelpful. Instead of an unreliable narrator we have an unreliable world.<br /><br />In part two we follow the main character's struggle for sanity and it turns more into a psychological examination of a character in an extreme situation. He knows his very existence is nothing more than electrical impulses, how does he deal with this knowledge? He knows that there is a world that is more real than his, but he is trapped in an artificial world, a world where nobody can understand him. The problem of thinking of knowing something essential about the world that nobody else knows or wants to believe is a very real one that many of us can identify with. For me the film transports this hopelessness very well, with its dreary, artificial atmosphere which also supports the factual artificiality of the film's world.<br /><br />Other than 'The Matrix' or 'The Thirteenth Floor' it's little concerned with evoking a sense of awe for its artificial reality plot, instead it very much focuses on the psychological aspects. Philosophy is only in so far interesting in that certain philosophical concepts are essential in how they shape and alter the character's perception of the world.<br /><br />Arguably it is longer than it has to be (which isn't a problem if you are as captivated by it as I was) and part 2 runs pretty low on steam. | positive |
In this film, the astronauts sent to explore a newly-discovered planet must deal with several dilemmas, and they do so intelligently. The film approaches it's main plot theme in a unique way, and unfolds it gradually, though it can be guessed beforehand.<br /><br />The acting is very good, though sometimes stiff, as some late-60s acting can be. It can also be somewhat wordy and even melodramatic, especially after the plot theme reveals itself. Visually, it has a scene that resembles one in the previous year's "2001: A Space Odyssey", and that tends to date the movie. Some of the actors went on to star in the 1970 TV show "UFO," which is delightfully campy and worth checking out on DVD.<br /><br />Despite these small points, the space flight itself is realistic, and considering this was 1969, the scenes inside the cockpit of the spacecraft also had a realistic look. (Look for some 1990s/2000s video technology in use, too!) One thing: I suspect a love scene has been cut, but I can't prove it! It would have been a distraction anyway.<br /><br />Unlike most Sci-Fi films, this film will make you think about the plot, and that's well worth a look. I'm pleased to have this film in my video library. | positive |
this is an example of a movie that can have great potential and is executed very poorly.. i am a fan of kids and thumb sucker and many other so called teen angst films, but this one bugged me.<br /><br />why is every white kid made into a thug who loves rap, its getting to be one dimensional. the acting was awful but simple since It mainly consisted of just dropping f bomb after f bomb just a bad bad movie if you'd like to see better movies like this : thumb sucker kids bully all<br /><br />those i think are better so i recommend one of those is you'd like to see a good "teen movie" i hope my comment you found useful and hope you hear future comments from me | negative |
***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught). | negative |
Japanese animators have a unique freedom with animation, which is why they tend to be able to come out with movies like these, movies that ultimately end up on anime-fans hard-drives and college student's floors, but get completely ignored by pretty much anybody outside of its country of origin. Cat Soup is one of those films that, from Western eyes, is supposed to be experienced on drugs or deeply analyzed. Really, it's just a beautifully detailed surrealist journey.<br /><br />There's no real dialog, which makes it easy to pass on to other interested parties uninterested in things like subtitles. A cat and his half-dead (brain-dead?) sister travel through various landscapes of imagination and association. There's a general theme of water, or lack thereof (possibly because of the cat drowning at the beginning? Possibly because of the title?). There's an interesting sort of Genesis take. There's a pig that gets to eat itself. An elephant made of water. And it's gorgeous, compelling, exciting, and fun--provided you don't watch it around druggies who cannot experience anything visually unique without comparing it to an acid trip. Eventually the movie turns itself off, adding another compelling self-reflexive level to the proceedings.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | positive |
I would like if they brought back surface. I really enjoyed the show along with my family. I felt the plot development and storyline were first rate. Like the other person said, it seems that everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator. Nothing but bland, politically correct junk survives. Just look at the internet to see how many people were watching the show. Also it is not nice to leave us hanging as to what happened the all of the characters on the show. This is the same thing that happened to the time travel show I think was called 8 days but should have been called backstep. Did the Olympics kill surface? I know the writers strike killed another one of my favorite shows years ago called greatest American hero. | positive |
This movie was, in one word, terrible. It was boring, predictable, and downright creepy. I kept waiting for it to end and when it did, I was horrified. The ending left a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least. My advice to anyone interested in movies about budding female sexuality: stay away from this movie. Movies like this give classics like Lolita a bad name. | negative |
Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.<br /><br />By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.<br /><br />Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that. | negative |
Black Candles is rather a muddled mess from the same director that brought us "Vampyres" and much later, "Rest in Pieces", among others..I'm only noting the ones I've seen. At any rate, we have a couple making love and then somewhere near by a pin is poised over a voodoo doll and then pierces it, and the man keels over. Not sure if it was good for either of them, at that point. Fast forward to where the man's sister has come to the house to investigate and hear the reading of the will, or something to that effect, and of course everybody else except her is in on something, which happens to be devil worship. It's really hard to say who is who at moments during the movie and it does get a bit confusing at times. To spice things up though, there's a simulated bestiality scene (I HOPE it's simulated) with a black goat, sure to be a crowd pleaser. Ugh. At times this echoes "Rosemary's Baby", minus the baby, because the hostess is always giving one woman herbal tea and the place reeks of whatever nasty Satanic herbs these are too, because that keeps getting remarked upon. However, the herbs aren't the only thing that reeks about this film. The end seems to be back to the beginning again, and many viewers might find themselves wondering where they've been during the middle part. It's not unwatchable, it's just not very good, and I guess it all depends on what you like to see in films, and there wasn't much here that did anything much for me. 3 out of 10. | negative |
what is wrong with you people, if you weren't blown away by the action car sequences and jessica Simpsons hot body then you are majorly screwed in the head. Of course the film isn't a masterpiece, i don't think it was aiming to be. It was fun and funny, i never watched the show when i was younger, i only recently saw one episode, and when i watched the movie, i felt it had the same kind of atmosphere. The movie seats were practically shaking, and the car sequences were good because it didn't bore me and drag out like some of the scenes in 2fast 2furious. and jessica Simpson is plain hot, i just wish they had used her more in the action sequences. All in all, i had a hell of a time watching this and i would go and see it again soon and i will buy it on DVD. People, enjoy it for what it is. | positive |
With this topic, it is so easy to take cheap shots. You know, the guy with hairy legs trying to look like Marilyn Monroe. Not here -- Adrian Pasdar does a superb job of making Gerald a REAL person, someone you care deeply about, and as a result you feel for his plight trying to live both as Gerald and Geraldine. Not only that, but as Geraldine, he looks HOT! And the chemistry between him and Julie Walters is electric. These are two characters who feel love for one another, and it comes through even when they simply look at each other over the breakfast table. Even the potentially cheesy sub-story line of corporate takeovers is believable, and you find yourself cheering at the end! At least I did! | positive |
Below average blaxpoitation action / melodrama in which the lovely Ms. Grier plays a private eye who comes to the aid of her father (Rudy Challenger) and his partner (Austin Stoker of the original "Assault on Precinct 13") whose loan business is being threatened.<br /><br />I'll be frank - I agree with the few other user comments for this movie. "Sheba, Baby" has a less than satisfying script, direction that isn't particularly distinguished, action scenes that are moderately entertaining at best, and one of Ms. Grier's more nondescript supporting casts (although there's an important supporting role for D'Urville Martin, also a familiar name in blaxpoitation). I get the feeling that this routine movie may have been put together quickly merely to cash in on her then enormous popularity.<br /><br />It sure was cool seeing Stoker again, although Ms. Grier doesn't have as good a role - or dialog - as she has had in other films, although she is doing what she does best, and that's playing a sassy, sexy sister on a mission of vengeance.<br /><br />Non-stop soul / funk soundtrack is enjoyable, at the very least.<br /><br />Mostly recommended to those who wish to see everything in the Pam Grier film repertoire.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
If you have never read the classic science fiction novel this mini-series is based on, it may actually be good. Unfortunately, if you ARE a fan of the book, you probably won't be able to watch more than the first hour or two. All of the political intrigue has been taken out of the film, the most important scenes from the book have been taken out, characters motivations have been changed completely, and words from the wrong characters mouths. Where in the novel Paul Atredies was a teen age boy with incredible political skill and a great understanding of the way the world worked, in this film he is hot headed and and frustrated. Avoid this movie at all costs. | negative |
It's interesting that someone made a comparison of the "Fifth Missile" to the Star Trek episode. It should be pointed out that the original Star Trek TV episode in which the crew of the Enterprise undergoes a space madness while orbiting planet Si 2000 is entitled "The Naked Time", not the "Naked Now". The "Naked Now" refers to the first regular Star Trek The Next Generation episode in which the Enterprise-D encounters a science vessel. This episode, though, does refer to and is based on the "Naked Time" original series one.<br /><br />Now, to the Firth Missile. While the reactions of the crew in the Star Trek episodes were based on those similar to alcohol intoxication, the crew's condition on board the Montana was caused by a much more serious situation, namely the paint vapors emitted by the faulty bulkhead finish. There are few places where such a reaction could have more serious consequences than among a crew who has responsibilities as serious as a crew on a ballistic missile submarine, and of course this is what makes the film so suspenseful and such a thriller. The plot is very believable. At the same time, this film, along with "Crimson Tide", "The Day After", "By Dawn's Early Light", "The Hunt For Red October", "Ice Station Zebra", and many other similar movies give us much insight into how easily things could go wrong and just how easy it could be for a nuclear holocaust to begin. Thankfully such an event has not occurred and (God willing) such an event will not happen. | positive |
one day someone said lets redo the mod squad we can make it hip cool and all that YO!it'll make a mint then they actually made it and as you are watching it you can hear your spleen cringe in agony as it twists and binds into a knot from the pure horror of it all any movie ever made has something on this id rather meet wayne newton and sing karaoke with him in a gay bar in idaho and drink a virgin bloody mary than ever watch this again may god have mercy on my soul | negative |
I am compelled to write a review of this IMAX feature as a means of warning others to SAVE YOUR MONEY. Almost any episode of Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" or David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" could have bested the material presented. Not only does the director fail to make use of IMAX's incredible 65 to 70 mm film stock and gigantic presentation screen, everything on screen is extremely unimpressive given the accessibility of such programming mentioned previously. Viewers are introduced to a pregnant Heather, her husband Buster, and their niece and nephew. We follow them for an interminable forty-odd minutes as they eat, sweat, listen to music, etc. Although we are given access to scenes inside the human digestive track and learn about babies' natural diving reflexes, do we really learn anything more than most grade-school graduates? Are we even remotely entertained by the trans-Atlantic Heather? Do we care? Avoid this film at all cost. If you do wish to see an IMAX feature, I suggest the beautifully photographed "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" or the technically thrilling "Space Station 3D". Trust me. | negative |
I have a high tolerance for the weird, but frankly some movies go way, way beyond weird--so far that they make your brain hurt. This is such a film. Trying to understand it or even explain it is impossible and I think the film is best understood while taking drugs--it's that incomprehensible.<br /><br />The film begins with some very cute Japanese animation involving a cat. However, out of the blue, tons of twisted and occasionally disturbing things occur--making me wonder if I am losing something in the translation. However, even if this is so, why did we need to be treated to images of a magic trick involving dismembering a lady with a clever, defecation, puking, lighting animals on fire, etc.. All this really seemed random and pretty awful. Oddly, and I don't know why, some see this as a work of genius. I just don't get that. | negative |
Although this lovely work of art does use some of the cinematic vocabulary of surrealism, it is in fact nothing of the sort. It is a political and cultural allegory of Mexico's post-Columbian odyssey, as even a passing glance at Mexico's history will attest. <br /><br />In contrast to "Like Water for Chocolate," "Erendira" expects the viewer to meet it at least half way so that understanding it takes a little work. (A good starting point is to see the grandmother character as Spain: proud, aloof, sorrowful and, above all else, weighed-down-with-history.)<br /><br />The ultimate actions of the heroine are obscure because the "outcome" of history (i.e. the present) is always obscure, since we are too close to it for honest evaluation. Refusal to neatly tie up loose ends is the only real choice available to the director, given the ambitions of the film.<br /><br />"Erendira" is gorgeous. A big-screen experience would be ideal, if you can catch it at a local art house or university screening. But if not, VHS is better than never seeing it at all. | positive |
***Might not consider this having a spoiler, but I'd rather be cautious than careless*** I never saw this movie when I was little. I fell in love with it the first time I saw it with my three year old daughter. I can watch it over and over again.<br /><br />For the little acting Ilene Woods did in her lifetime, she was a wonderful voice for Cinderella; very appealing; very believable. The music really fit the movie perfectly. The acting was great; loved the mice!! You really "hated" Lady Tremain and the step-sisters; they were just awful. The cartoonists depicted the spoiled behavior very well.<br /><br />This is a wonderful movie, especially if you are into love stories. My daughter has seen the movie about 25 times and still gets excited at the end. | positive |
I admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.<br /><br />The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more "stagey" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.<br /><br />Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.<br /><br />This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation. | positive |
'Steamboat Willie (1928)' is often erroneously touted as the first Mickey Mouse film, though that title actually goes to 'Plane Crazy (1928).' The source fuelling this common misconception is probably an episode of "The Simpsons," which places the origin of Itchy the Mouse in a 1928 short called 'Steamboat Itchy,' obviously a parody of this cartoon. Interestingly, 'Steamboat Willie' was itself a parody, spoofing the latest Buster Keaton release, 'Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928),' though the connection stretches little beyond the title and the general story setting. In this Walt Disney short, Mickey Mouse takes charge of a river steamboat, much to the annoyance of Captain Pete the cat, who spitefully casts him aside. But Mickey is not to be outdone in nastiness. Far removed from the pleasant, wholesome Mickey that more recent generations enjoyed, this little mouse cares only for numero uno, inflicting pain and displeasure on a series of farm animals in order to provide music for his own amusement.<br /><br />First there's the laughing parrot, which cops a bucket and a large potato to the head. Then a goat is cranked by the tail to provide music ("Turkey in the Straw") from a guitar it has swallowed. A cat is swung around by its tail, a goose throttled about the throat, and a piglet viciously booted. For a children's cartoon, 'Steamboat Willie,' directed by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks, certainly has some mean-spirited humour, though I also noticed similar elements (though not quite to this extent) in some later Disney shorts, like 'Gulliver Mickey (1934).' Let's not forget Minnie Mouse, of course, who suffers treatment for which she could today sue for sexual harassment! The jokes may be crude, and the animation perhaps even more so, but this cartoon delivers a bucket-full of laughs, and it's easy to see why this little rodent became one of the most beloved characters in cinema history. If you're a fan of Mickey Mouse, or Disney in general, this is one steamboat you can't afford to miss. | positive |
I am not sure who is writing these<br /><br />glowing reviews for this movie but trust me it STKINKS. I have seen hundreds of horror films and slasher flicks and this one is LAME it is only about 80min long and believe me that is all I could take. Plot is terrible, acting is even worse. And there is no development at all.<br /><br />Even the David Cocteau films are better than this. RUN AWAY from JIGSAW . I expected to hate the acting, which can be forgiven in direct to video movies, if the plot is good.<br /><br />This had no scares, very little Gore,<br /><br />and a truly unattractive cast.<br /><br />I watched this with three other friends<br /><br />who I hope are still talking to me!<br /><br />They wanted me to fling the disc out the window. I can not believe anyone could have<br /><br />given this tripe a good review. | negative |
This had to be one of the worst films ever. When Kate shows up and Jed is with a bunch of guys and they all start clapping...so Hollywood. Another bad scene was when Kate was running her hands over the pavement it appeared that she was examining the texture of the pavement. Andie's acting is so bad in this film - I could not connect with them or feel there love for each other. The other 2 women however were very good and overshadowed Andie. Anyway this was such a campy movie. I usually like these type of films but I just couldn't get into this film. Too many unlikely situations and again Andie's acting didn't help the film. Also, she is all gums. Lancome must put her makeup on with a putty knife because she looks glamorous in the commericals. | negative |
Like Steven Seagal I also am a big Van Damme fan and have followed most of his movies since the start of his acting career.<br /><br />In this flick Van Damme assumes the role of Jack Robideaux whom is a cop that just moved to New Mexico from New Orleans to work as part of the Border Patrol. Haunted by memories of his past, it is up to Jack to put an end to a group of Ex-Navy Seals from smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S. that killed his daughter.<br /><br />Overall I found this film to be very good, Van Damme is in very good shape for 48 years old and can really move. The action scenes are very intense and the movie even throws a couple of plot twists in to keep you guessing. Unfortunately Van Damme does not have the same intensity as he did say 10 years ago, regardless The Shepherd: Border Control is the 3rd straight solid film that Van Damme has made possibly opening the door for a larger project.<br /><br />I definitely recommend this movie to a Van Damme fan or fan of action movies in general; The Shepherd: Border Control is a great movie, not as good as Until Death but better than the Hard Corps. Be sure to give this one a try, you will not be disappointed. | positive |
Does anyone happen to know where this film was shot? The aviation scene on the cliff is beautiful. It appears to be England. However, Ivy's apartment building certainly looks like the Brill Building, with its fascinating elevators.<br /><br />Charles Mendl is listed as playing "Sir Charles Gage". Maybe I blinked, but I never saw him. Perhaps he was the husband's lawyer, but, again, I don't recall that character being in the film, other than being mentioned as having made a phone call. Perhaps he was in the aviation scene? Or the ballroom scene? Did anyone spot him?<br /><br />Herbert Marshall was 57 years old when he shot this film. | positive |
OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.<br /><br />There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.<br /><br />Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please. | negative |
It's a shame House Calls isn't better known. Is it perhaps because the romantic leads are middle-aged, shopworn, and gun-shy, rather than oversexed teen-stars? Could be. If you're over 35, you'll probably get this comedy. If you're over 45, you're really going to get this comedy. If you're 25, wait until you're older to see it.<br /><br />The unlikely pairing of Matthau and Jackson works precisely because it is so unlikely. There's a wonderful line of Matthau's that sums up what is happening between the two of them--"I like old broads because you don't have to explain who Ronald Coleman is." (If that's not the exact line, it's close...)<br /><br />The premise of a sub-par hospital run by incompetents rings true. Art Carney's portrayal of a senile head surgeon is absolutely brilliant. It is impossible not to laugh out loud at his delivery. Subplots, if you can call them that, are fun too, like between Matthau and Jackson's teenage son. Everything hits just exactly the right tone. <br /><br />Okay, there's the bit where Matthau has to wear women's clothing that's a bit over-the-top and an easy mark. But, still--it's Walter Matthau in drag! It's funny! | positive |
So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved. | negative |
The dudes at MST3K should see this dog of a film. It's basically about a dopey hack actor in Hollywood who can't land any acting gigs. And he has this strange obsession with the movie Taxi Driver. So what does this dumb actor do? He dyes his hair blonde and starts acting like a L.A. surfer dude in the naive hope this will get him acting roles. You'll laugh yer head off at so many of this movie's inadvertently funny scenes. Like when the actor dude's girlfriend is heart broken and sobbing and saying lines like, "How could you do this to me?" And why is she crying? Cos he dyed his hair blonde and became a surfer dude to get acting gigs. This movie makes no sense at ALL! The actor who played the governor on Benson is in this too and he plays a stereotypical right wing politician with lotsa dumb funny dialog. This movie will crack you up, trust me. You talking' to me?! | negative |
This show is great. Not only is "Haruhai Suzumiya" a very well written anime show, it also reflects things like Philosophy, Science Fiction and a little religion. It's hilarious at some points and "cute" (for lack of a better term) at others. Actually this may be effect to my lack of experience with Japanese anime shows, but it is one of the best of its genre I have seen.<br /><br />I mainly have to give credit to the writers. I haven't seen such brilliant scopes of imagination in a television show since the original Star Trek. I hope the writers continue to add strange new characters and give more insight on the already great characters that have been added.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! Avoid at all costs. | negative |
My friend and I picked "Paperhouse" out of a random pile of movies on our weekly excursion to the Horror section-- neither of us had heard of it, but the blurb on the box was really promising. And the movie didn't disappoint, though I still probably wouldn't call it a horror movie exclusively.<br /><br />11-year old Anna Madden draws a house, and visits it in her dreams. She is definitely asleep when she's seeing the house, but it's so real in a sense that it's almost like a completely separate reality. Which, in view of later events, doesn't seem like a far cry from the truth. Anyhow, she finds she can add to the house, its contents and its surroundings by simply adding to the picture. <br /><br />While this is going on, Anna is getting increasingly more ill with a fever, and besides that is getting totally obsessed with the house and her drawing. On top of that, she and her mother are also dealing with her absent father; he has a job that takes him away for long stretches, though one gets the impression there's actually more to the story than that.<br /><br />OK, so the drawing stuff sounds nice enough-- but frankly there's something really menacing about it. The dreamworld is eerily surreal -- the house, for instance, is just a grey block in the middle of a desolate field. The folks who made the movie did a great job of making us very uncomfortable with this alternate world/ongoing dream...<br /><br />One of the things Anna adds to the house is a boy, Mark, who seems to be the same patient her doctor keeps talking about (I'm not giving that away, you know from the moment he appears that it's the same kid). In reality, Mark can't walk due to an illness; in Anna's drawing-world, he can't walk because she didn't draw him any legs. She blames herself for his real-life illness, and tries to rectify the situation, but... everything starts getting really weird. She even brings her absent father into the drawing, with disastrous results. The bits with the father are really terrifying.<br /><br />I don't want to give anything away, so I'll stop there... There seems to be a lot going on in this film. I'm sure you'll have a ball analyzing this thing do death with your pals after you watch it-- Is it a simple a story as it seems, or are there actually layers of meaning? I don't know, but either way it's quite fascinating. There was a "Nightmare On Elm Street"-ish quality about it, in that at a certain point reality and dreams intersect. I love things like that.<br /><br />My only complaint is that it feels like it COULD have ended many times, but didn't. I'm satisfied with the ending it had (some of you sensitive types might want to have Kleenex handy!), though it really could have a variety of conclusions. Anyway, it doesn't exactly feel drawn out once it's actually over, but while you're watching and it keeps fading back in, it's a little nerve wracking.<br /><br />Still, "Paperhouse" is a really GOOD film. It's well done, and acting-- especially Charlotte Burke as Anna-- is top notch. Burke, who has never before or since appeared in a film, is a real gem. I don't know why she never went onto do anything else, but either way she's really convincing and enjoyable to watch.<br /><br />"Paperhouse" isn't exactly a horror movie, it's sort of a fantasy/suspense/something else type of movie, with some definite horroresque moments-- but you can still watch it with your family and not be worried that your little brother or grandmother will get grossed out by blood splashing or something.<br /><br />Give it a chance, you won't regret it! And maybe you should read the book, too... | positive |
I've loved this movie for a LONG time. I hadn't seen it in a while, so I again checked it out and actually found it even more enjoyable now. I loved the Chipmunks cartoon when I was young, so naturally I adored 'The Chipmunk Adventure.'<br /><br />I honestly can't think of a better plot to this movie. It's not wildly creative, but I've always wanted to travel all over the world, and so I just have so much fun watching it as my longing to travel grows even more. The part with Elenore singing to the little penguin always makes me cry...<br /><br />'The Chipmunk Adventure' will remain a favorite of mine forever, I'm sure. I guess it's because I saw it when I was so young. I don't think it would make quite an impact on someone older seeing it for the first time. (Unless, of course, they have a young heart) | positive |
I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.<br /><br />In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.<br /><br />The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.<br /><br />Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.<br /><br />Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?". <br /><br />Scenes like those you will find plenty. <br /><br />Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.<br /><br />Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back. | negative |
These two stars are the only iconic heroes/villains i know that got a good TV series, so let's compare.<br /><br />Freddy - 7 movies Robocop - 3 movies<br /><br />Freddy - 1 TV series, 2 seasons, about 40 episodes Robocop - 1 TV series, 1 season, about 22-23 episodes<br /><br />Freddy - 2 extra films (Freddy Vs Jason, Freddy Vs Ghostbusters) Robocop - 4 extra films (Robocop: Prime Directives: Dark Justice, Meltdown, Crach & Burn, Resurrection)<br /><br />Freddy - 1 upcoming film Robocop - 1 upcoming film<br /><br />Who's had more screen time? Well they've both had 7 movies, 1 TV series, and 1 upcoming film. But Freddy wins it thanks to his 2 extra films (one being a fan film) & 17-18 TV episodes.<br /><br />Since this is a comment for the series, between Freddy's Nightmares - ANOES: The Series & Robocop: The Series I would personally choose Robocop... | positive |
I just saw a press screening of this film and I was pleasantly surprised. Not often is it that I get to see all of my favorite actors in one film at one time.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the pick pocket scene and it was good to see Rachael Bilson and Hayden back together. I think their chemistry on camera is a direct result of their time together off camera. My favorite scene was by far (surprisingly so) Bret Ratner's piece... Without giving too much away, I'll just say that there is a surprise that leaves you hanging...<br /><br />The old couple were really good together and you actually got the impression that they had spent a lifetime together. <br /><br />Both the Chris Cooper and the Ethan Hawke segments packed a punch with surprises that seem realistic and similar to experiences that I've had in the big apple. Over all the film is a great place to take a date... especially if you're already fond of the city itself.<br /><br />I can't wait for the next in the Cities of Love. | positive |
In the winter of 1931, supposedly 12-year-old Tyler Hoechlin (as Michael Sullivan Jr.) wonders what his mobster father Tom Hanks (Michael "Mike" Sullivan) does for a living. Young Hoechlin follows Mr. Hanks to "work" one evening, and witnesses him blasting away some rival gangsters. This leads - in a VERY roundabout way - to "Godfather"-type Paul Newman (as John Rooney) hiring independent hit-man Jude Law (as Harlen Maguire) to track down Hoechlin and Hanks, who are off to cool their heels in Chicago. Hanks thinks they will be safe with a relative, which is puzzling when you consider the characters' line of work.<br /><br />Looking uncannily like Paul Peterson ("The Donna Reed Show"), Hoechlin does a terrific job for director Sam Mendes; and, getting to work with this cast makes him the luckiest young actor of 2002. But, the most striking thing about "Road to Perdition" is the stunning cinematography of Conrad L. Hall, which deservedly won a career capping "Academy Award" for the late photographer. Mr. Hall's work is truly superlative. This helps make up for the overall impression of a measured, contrived staginess to both the narrative and visuals. The deviating end is abruptly uplifting (the unrelated dog is an example of the aforementioned staginess).<br /><br />******** Road to Perdition (7/12/02) Sam Mendes ~ Tom Hanks, Tyler Hoechlin, Paul Newman, Jude Law | positive |
A blatant rip-off of "Air Bud", this movie is REALLY about parents worrying too much about parenting. All the foibles of the characters (eg; adult coaches who dont know the game) are taken to the extreme- so much so that they are totally unbelievable, not funny.<br /><br />There is no semblance of reality here, folks and you'll not develop sympathy for ANY of the characters.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the good looking kits (uniforms) of the opposing team in the first game the dog plays. Perhaps chosen because the setting is supposedly near Arlington Heights, IL, the home of the Columbus Crew's franchise player, Brian McBride. | negative |
A chance encounter between a salesman and a hit-man changes both their lives. This is an odd film that works, an impressive effort for writer-director Shepard. In a daringly unglamorous role that is a far cry from James Bond, Brosnan is surprisingly effective as the lonely hit-man who starts to buckle under the stress of his job, but is unable to connect emotionally with anyone to help him cope. Kinnear is equally good as the salesman, a decent fellow with a void in his life. Davis is fine as Kinnear's flirtatious wife. Mainly a character study, the film is rewarding because it feels fresh and unpredictable, an extremely dark comedy. | positive |
I have watched this movie on and off since it started playing about 1 hour ago, and i have to say, thats an hour of my life i wasted and will not be getting back, The acting is crap and the scripts need a serious look at, and whoever wrote them needs to be slapped, perhaps the TV will explode and put me out of my misery..... The only good thing about this movie is that for guys and girls it has some good eye candy in it, though, most of which i wish would disappear, as far as the movie is concerned, the special effects as sh*t, Dante? who thinks a guy dressed in skin tight leather pants and half a leather jacket is scary, he looks more feminine than most of the women in this movie, the voice of Dante is pathetic, nobody finds it threatening or scary AT ALL..... please TV i beg you to blow up!!!!!!!!!! | negative |
Having been born and raised in Odessa, and having graduated from the "other" high school in the late 70's, Odessa High School, I had mixed emotions about this movie. I no longer live in Odessa, but will always be a Texan at heart. I didn't like the way that this town of 80,000 plus was portrayed as a dirt poor small town. If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to correct me, but I believe OHS also plays in the town stadium, and the "Home of the Permian Panthers" sign that was shown at the stadium used to be at the practice field at Permian. I would have liked to have seen a little acknowledgment about the cross town rivalry of the big game in town every year, OHS vs Permian. I am curious why the outcome of the game was altered though, I think it would have been just as dramatic if the real outcome was portrayed. Overall, the movie was okay, made me a little homesick, remembering the "good old days" of MOJO. | negative |
Having enjoyed Jean Arthur in "The Devil and Miss Jones", my interest was peaked, so I tried sitting through this second-string screwball outing about an investigation into the death of a jockey--but I didn't make it to the end. Arthur, photographed in a gauzy, movie-magazine fashion, either wants alimony from ex-husband William Powell or another shot at marriage, but I never felt for her because the character is just a string of wisecracks (she's the type of heroine prone to comical curiousness, but once inside a morgue--like all women in these '30's comedies--she faints). William Powell reportedly had a high time working with Miss Arthur, but you'd never know it from the end result; they look awkward standing next to each other, hesitant over their banter. The actor playing Powell's valet is excruciating, and the pauses for viewer laughs are pregnant with unease. | negative |
no really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and "the killer is out here somewhere" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster! | negative |
This is the first sci fi series that I have seriously become hooked on since Star Trek, (and I haven't watched Trek in years). It takes the invasion theme in somewhat different directions, but has done it in a very exciting way. It also borrows from soap opera format, where it continues the arc throughout the entire year run of the series. The CGI definitely doesn't overcome the plot or the characters, except for Nim, the fledgling creature who is a pet with definite attitude. (Anything that would show what he really thought about the neighbor's yippy dog is A-1 in my book.) He was a stroke of genius. <br /><br />I am left at the end of the finale asking questions (intelligent ones, I hope) and crossing my fingers and toes that NBC or someone else (Sci Fi, maybe) will continue to run the series and answer those questions. <br /><br />A really great, classy show. | positive |
This movie is hilarious. The laughs never stop. Every scene is packed to the limit with hilarious comedy. Chris Farley is a comic genius, and Spade plays his character to a tee. Farley was one of the best slap stick comics ever, and in this movie(as with all his movies) we see how much time and energy he devoted to portraying his character the way he saw fit. "Tommy Boy" is an excellent example of a comedy, it always makes me laugh, no matter how many times I have seen it before. | positive |
This really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame "special effects" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).<br /><br />This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.<br /><br />Keep away from it, as far as you can. | negative |
There are many mysteries in life. For example: Why did any of the people other than Carrot Top agree to appear in this movie? Why did anyone distribute this movie? Why did anyone pay money to see it? I guess none of these questions will ever be answered, but one thing I know for sure, this movie is one of the worst ever made with a budget this big. It would already be bad, but the addition of Carrot Top's "humor" makes it even worse. The only entertainment one could possibly get from this movie is to burn it, smash it, or otherwise destroy it in an amusing fashion. If you were to rank it against every movie ever made, it would be right between "Problem Child" and "Biodome". Nuff said. | negative |
Despite the apparent structural similarity with The Simpsons - loud fat dad, housewifey mum, 3 children, a pet, typical suburban home, Family Guy is actually functionally and stylistically opposite to The Simpsons. Its avid use (and sometimes too much) of cutaway gags has been its main stay since the first season. While some hit the nail on the head (The Rhea Perlman and Danny Devito bit in Season 5 is spine-snappingly hilarious), others are less successful, coming across as contrived. And they can be annoying, especially when they don't advance the story line. (The Jesus bits are entirely unfunny and insulting)<br /><br />The chemistry between Stewie and Brian Griffin lends itself to pure comedy gold, so much so that Chris and Meg only manage to fulfill the role of the obligatory teenagers in your typical dysfunctional family.<br /><br />However, the feature film Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, is MINDNUMBINGLY horrible. Thank goodness it went straight to DVD.<br /><br />Contrary to tiresome comparisons with the perennial Simpsons, Seth Macfarlane's approach with Family Guy is actually very different - it's much more politically incorrect, and amazingly, a lot more brazen.<br /><br />Creator of Ren and Stimpy, John Kricfalusi, famously criticized Family Guy for having "extremely low" graphic standards from a cartoonist's standpoint. I don't think it looks that bad though, the detailing and accuracy of some of the spoofs are quite successful.<br /><br />All in all, a great series to go with a great big bowl of chips smothered in ranch sauce and ass jokes. | positive |
Some news reporters and their military escorts try to tell the truth about a epidemic of zombies, despite the 'government controlling the media'. The makings of the film don't understand that the George Romero zombie films only worked because he kept his politics subtly in the background of most of his films ("Land of the Dead" withstanding). This satire is about as subtle as a brick to the face or a bullet to the head is more apropos for this scenario. What's subversive or subtle about seeing a military guy masturbating to death and destruction? Anything nuanced about the various commercials that are inter-cut with the film? Nope. Furthermore the acting is uniformly horrible, the characters thoroughly unlikable, and the plot inane. Add this all up and you have the worst, most incompetent zombie film since, "C.H.U.D. 2" reared it's hideous head.<br /><br />My Grade: D | negative |
During the summer, the cue line for this attraction is really long, since it is a water ride. It's very well-themed, but a lot of the ride's artifacts seem to be out of order. Overall, the ride is not worth it if you have to wait for almost 2 hrs. in line. The drop at the end is exciting, but the whole ride itself could have been better. Creators for Indiana Jones could have prob. helped these Hollywood designers. Also, many times the ride breaks down and causes even longer waiting periods for others. It's also very unpleasing when they only have one raft departing dock open and not the two, like they are supposed to. During Halloween Horror Nights, you ride in the dark, and it's exciting if it's your first time, but if it's not, then don't bother waiting in a four-hour line. | negative |
From what critics and audiences indicated, BIRTHDAY GIRL had to be a big fat clinker. Still, because I love Nicole Kidman, I decided to rent it last night. It proved to be quite worthy of watching. Sure, it isn't your basic American comedy, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is a very British movie, but that's why I liked it. It was a change from all the other movies around, a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were some plot holes, but overall it worked. First off, Kidman was fabulous again in a very different, not very glamorous, but still quite sexy role. She just keeps proving that she is one of the top talents in Hollywood. Not only is her Russian accent when she speaks English effective, but there are times when she carries on long conversations in Russian and if you didn't know it was Nicole Kidman, you would never question her authenticity. Harrison Ford should have taken note in "K-19." Overall a slight little movie that works despite the horrible buzz. | positive |
Sophmoric this film is. But, it is funny as all get out. It shows the "boys locker room mentality" being played by the "other side". It is good to see such tides turned and how silly they are. But that's probably not news to most women, 'cause (just ask one), "they've heard 'em all before".<br /><br />Watch it with a small group or party of mixed gender and 97.3% of the room will laugh for 2 hours straight. And the other 2.7%...can you ever really please them? | positive |
Prolific and highly influential filmmaker Martin Scorsese examines a selection of his favorite American films grouped according to three different types of directors: the director as an illusionist: D.W. Griffith or F. W. Murnau, who created new editing techniques among other changes that made the appearance of sound and color later step forward; the director as a smuggler: filmmakers such as Douglas Sirk, Samuel Fuller, and mostly Vincente Minnelli, directors who used to disguise rebellious messages in their films; and the director as iconoclast: those filmmakers attacking civil observations and social hang-ups like Orson Welles, Erich von Stroheim, Charles Chaplin, Nicholas Ray, Stanley Kubrick, and Arthur Penn.<br /><br />He shows us how the old studio system in Hollywood was, though oppressive, the way in which film directors found themselves progressing the medium because of how they were bound by political and financial limitations. During his clips from the movies he shows us, we not only discover films we've never seen before that pique our interest but we also are made to see what he sees. He evaluate his stylistic sensibilities along with the directors of the sequences themselves.<br /><br />The idea of a film canon has been reputed as snobbish, hence some movie fans and critics favor to just make "lists." However, canon merely denotes "the best" and supporters of film canon argue that it is a valuable activity to identify and experience a select compilation of the "best" films, a lot like a greatest hits tape, if just as a beginning direction for film students. All in all, one's experience has shown that all writing about film, including reviews, function to construct a film canon. Some film canons can definitely be elitist, but others can be "populist." As an example, the Internet Movie Database's Top 250 Movies list includes many films included on several "elitist" film canons but also features recent Hollywood blockbusters at which many film "elitists" scoff, like The Dark Knight, which presently mingles in the top ten amidst the first two Godfather films, Schindler's List and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the fluctuation of similar productions further down such as Iron Man, Sin City, Die Hard, The Terminator and Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Writer Scorsese's Taxi Driver Paul Schrader has straightforwardly referred to his canon as "elitist" and contends that this is positive.<br /><br />Scorsese is never particularly vocal at all about his social and political ideologies, but when we see this intense and admittedly obsessive history lesson on the birth and growth of American cinema in both ideological realms, we see that there is really no particular virtue in either elitism or populism. Elitism concentrates all attention, recognition and thus power on those deemed outstanding. That discrimination could easily lead to self-indulgence much in the vein of the condescending work of Jean-Luc Godard or the overrationalization of the production practices of a filmmaker like Michael Haneke. Yet populism invokes a belief of representative freedom as being only the assertion of the people's will. As has been previously asserted about the all-encompassing misconceptions the people have about cinema, populism could be the end of the potential power and impact of cinema. One can only continue seeing films, because it is a vital social and metaphysical practice. And that's what Martin Scorsese spends nearly four hours here trying to tell us, something which can't be told without being seen first-hand. | positive |
If I remember, Ira Gershwin, the lyricist and brother of George, offered the Gershwin catalog for this film and it was snapped up by the producers. In many respects, it was a typical 50's movie musical by the Freed Unit at MGM and directed by Vincente Minelli with a lot of help from Gene Kelly.<br /><br />The Gershwins were, of course, among the greatest of all Broadway musical teams but, in my opinion, George himself was among the greatest of all American composers, period!!! Gene Kelly was, of course, one of the two greatest male dancers of the movie musical (One guess as to the other?) and I don't imagine his casting was ever in doubt. But, I think the rest of the cast needs some explanation: Oscar Levant was a noted personality in his time and, as an actual friend of George Gershwin, he had to be in this film. He was a talented pianist and even a moderately talented composer as well as a noted neurotic and hypochondriac and here, as always, he plays himself.<br /><br />Leslie Caron was an unknown at this time and she was of the French "gamin" type. A talented dancer, she was never a real beauty. George Guétary who plays the part of Maurice Chavalier, oops, I mean Henri Baurel, was Greek and not French but he certainly is more than OK as a French boulevardier even if a little too young for the part.<br /><br />Gene's hoofer's voice is serviceable here but Guétary has much the better vocal equipment. Though Gene was better cast elsewhere as, obviously, in "Singin' in the Rain" where his character is much more calculating, even here he shows himself to be something of a heel at times (He was, not for nothing, cast as the original heel Joey in Pal Joey, the Broadway musical.) I was not so enchanted with his "I Got Rhythm" scene with the children which does not appear as spontaneous as was intended in my opinion.<br /><br />I also found Nina Foch's character Milo to be rather irritating.<br /><br />But the highlight of the film is obviously the lengthy ballet at the end of the film based on the title music with sets and costumes in the styles of the great French Impressionist painters.<br /><br />I found it difficult to believe Gene and Oscar, as struggling artists, and I don't think the musical numbers are as well set up as they might be but, on balance, the Gershwin music is very well served in this film.<br /><br />The DVD is well-done with fine clear graphics (when they are supposed to be) and the mono sound is good but a trifle shallow. | positive |
A female ex-cop who was drummed out of the force for recklessness (and who could probably beat Chuck Norris in a fight) hires herself out as a private bodyguard; her first client is a worthless playboy type. It takes half the movie for her to get kicked off the force in the first place. Lots of great fight choreography but the plot is strictly by the numbers, and the acting is as wooden as the dialogue. Give this one a miss. | negative |
This is an excellent documentary, packed with racing action beautiful pictures and a great story. The IMAX Cameras give you a very wide perspective, as a DVD movie it is perfect. Your hear every speaker working almost all the time, The film is not speeded up and just gives you the natural feel of 230mph. Of course there are some sound effects added but i think they are good, they give a depth to the driving scenes... | positive |
Even though i am slightly older than the recommended age group, I really enjoyed this movie. It's a little break from reality and it must be every little girls dream to become friends with a pop star. I know it was mine, to be sure! The first 10 minutes were really cheesy and the mean girls said a few things that were also slightly cheesy. Once you get over that, you can really start to enjoy it. I loved the relationship between JD and Jane - it was really sweet and you could see how much they began to like each other. The soundtrack is perfect and it fits into the film really well. I also liked the family set up for Jane, her sisters seemed lovely. Very well made film. | positive |
George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is, at root, a dark fairy tale told via a horror-movie framework. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the 1970s, and it's downright criminal that the picture was basically stolen and distributed without Barry's knowledge (those responsible for this theft should be fed to the bed, ASAP). If you're looking for overt gore or rabid action, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" isn't the flick for you. "Death Bed" is a gentler, weirder drive-in picture; it plays like an utterly strange dream, half-remembered. I'd recommend reading Stephen Thrower's summation of "Death Bed" in Thrower's FAB Press book, "Nightmare USA" (he describes the movie's vibe perfectly). Whether intentional or not, I've noticed shades of "Death Bed" in everything from the "Phantasm" films to Michele Soavi's "Cemetery Man" to the magic-realism/slipstream fiction of authors such as Kelly Link. Barry is an original and in a fair world I'm sure he would've followed "Death Bed" with a number of fantastically bizarre films. | positive |
The gang is back for more! Ron Howard and Cindy Williams are now married! Her brother is demonstrating against the draft and Charles Martin Smith is doing everything he can in Vietnam to get sent home.<br /><br />The issues of the 60's are brought to light here, but it's all over the place, beginning with New Year's Eve 1963, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1964, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1965, then three minutes later, it's back to 1963 again. Martin Smith is talking about his friend dying in a drag race a year ago, and a couple of scenes later, this friend is winning his next heat in a drag race and to top it all off, the drug scene and the flower children enter the picture (or pictures, in some cases, as many as three different camera shots are shown on the screen at the same time).<br /><br />If you want to watch this film, you have to WATCH this film, but I'd advise you to stick to the original and leave it there. Wolfman Jack is heard in the beginning of the film before almost every song played in the background, but where'd he go? Maybe HE couldn't keep up with this film, either, and quit! 2 out of 10 stars! | negative |
Six for the price of one! So it is a bonanza time for Cinegoers. Isn't it? Here it is not one, not two but all SIX-love stories, an ensemble cast of top stars of bollywood, plus all stories in the genre of your favorite top directors Johar, Bhansali, Chopra et al. You will get to see every damn type of love story that you enjoyed or rather tolerated for years now. So no big deal for you. Do you need anything more than this? No sir, thank you. Why sir? Enough is enough. Please spare us. They signed every top star that they manage to sign, whether required or not, so they end up making a circus of stars, believe it or not. Too crowded Every thing depicted here is exactly how it is prescribed in bollywood textbook of romances. Plus you have to justify the length given to each story, as each has stars. Therefore, it is too long-three hours plus. The gags are filmy. Characters are filmy. Problems, Barriers, situations, resolution
yes you guessed it right, again
. filmy-tried and tested. Same hundreds of dancers dancing in colorful costumes in background. Why they have no other work to do? All couples are sugary-sweet, fairy tale type, Picture perfect. All are good looking. Each story beginning in a perfect way and therefore should ends also in that impossible perfect manner? Too haphazard. You can't connect to a single story. Here you have everything that you already seen a million times. Bloody fake, unreal, escapist abnormal stories considered normal for more than hundred years since evolution of this Indian cinema. What a mockery of sensibilities of today's audience? Yes it could have worked as a parody if he just paid tribute to love-stories of yesteryear but alas even that thing is not explored. At least, Director Nikhil Advani should have attempted one unconventional, offbeat love story but then what will happen to the tradition of living up to the mark of commercial bollwood potboiler brigade? Oh! Somebody has to carry on, no. Imagine on one hand audience finds it difficult to sit through one such love story and here we have six times the pain. I mean six damn stories. I mean double the fun of chopra's Mohabbatein (Year 2000) In this age and time, get something real, guys. We are now desperate to see some not so colorful people and not so bright stories Oh, What have you said just now- come on, that is entertainment. My advice, please don't waste your time henceforth reading such reviews. Go instead, have some more such entertainment! Thank you. | negative |
Police, investigations, murder, suspicion: we are all so acquainted with them in movies galore. Most of the films nowadays deal with crime which is believed to involve viewers, to provide them with a thrilling atmosphere. However, most of thrill lovers will rather concentrate on latest movies of that sort forgetting about older ones. Yet, it occurs that these people may easily be misled. A film entirely based on suspicion may be very interesting now despite being more than 20 years old...it is GARDE A VUE, a unique movie by Claude Miller.<br /><br />Is there much of the action? Not really since the events presented in the movie take place in a considerably short time. But the way they are executed is the movie's great plus. Jerome Charles Martinaud (Michel Serrault) is being investigated by Inspector Gallien (Lino Ventura) and Insector Belmont (Guy Marchand). It's a New Year's Eve, a rainy evening and not very accurate for such a meeting. Yet, after the rape and murder of two children, at the dawn of the old year, the door of suspicion must be open at last. In other words, (more quoted from the movie), it must be revealed who an evil wolf really is. To achieve this, one needs lots of effort and also lots of emotions from both parties...<br /><br />Some people criticize the script for being too wordy. Yet, I would ask them: what should an investigation be like if not many questions and, practically, much talk. This wordiness touches the very roots of the genre. In no way is this boring but throughout the entire film, it makes you, as a viewer, as an observer, involved. Moreover, the film contains well made flashbacks as the stories are being told. Not too much and not too little of them - just enough to make the whole story clearer and more interesting. The most memorable flashbacks, for me, are when Chantal (Romy Schneider), Martinaud's wife, talks about one lovely Christmas... But these flashbacks also contain the views of the places, including the infamous beach. It all wonderfully helped me keep the right pace. And since I saw GARDE A VUE, I always mention this film as one of the "defenders" of French cinema against accusations of mess and chaos. <br /><br />But those already mentioned aspects may not necessarily appeal to many viewers since they might not like such movies and still won't find the content and its execution satisfactory. Yet, GARDE A VUE is worth seeing also for such people. Why? For the sake of performances. But here don't expect me to praise foremost Romy Schneider. GARDE A VUE is not Romy Schneider vehicle. She does a terrific job as a mother who is deeply in despair for a lost child. She credibly portrays a person who is calm, concrete, who does not refuse an offered cup of tea but who does not want to play with words. Her part which includes a profound talk of life and duty is brilliant, more credible than the overly melancholic role of Elsa in LA PASSANTE DE SANS SOUCI. It is still acted. However, Romy Schneider does not have much time on screen. Practically, she appears for the first time after 45 minutes from the credits; she, as a wife and a different viewpoint, comes symbolically with the New Year, at midnight. Her role is a purely supporting one. Who really rocks is Lino Ventura. He IS the middle aged Inspector Antoine Gallien who wants to find out the truth, who is aware that his questions are "missiles" towards the other interlocutor but does not hesitate. He is an inspector who, having been married three times, is perfectly acknowledged of women's psyche. He is the one who does not regard his job as a game to play but a real service. Finally, he is a person who does not find it abnormal to sit there on New Year's Eve. Michel Serrault also does a fine job expressing fear, particularly in the final scenes of the movie. But thumbs up for Mr Ventura. Brilliant!<br /><br />As far as memorable moments are concerned, this is not the sort of film in which this aspect is easily analyzed. The entire film is memorable, has to be seen more than once and has to be felt with its atmosphere and, which I have not mentioned before, gorgeous music. For me, the talk of Chantal and Inspector Gallien is the most brilliant flawless moment. You are there with the two characters, you experience their states of mind if you go deeper into what you see.<br /><br />GARDE A VUE is a very interesting film, a must see for thrill lovers and connoisseurs of artistic performances. New Year has turned and...is it now easier to open the door? You'll find out when you decide to see the memorably directed movie by Claude Miller. 8/10 | positive |
Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at "The Wedding".<br /><br />This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.<br /><br />I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the "American Pie Presents" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
The comparisons between the 1995 version and this are inevitable. Sadly, this version falls far short.<br /><br />The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book,so did not understand the characters.<br /><br />Sir Walter Elliot is portrayed as pompous but his inadvertent silliness which Redgrave brilliantly captured (in the 1995 version) is nowhere to be found.<br /><br />The Musgrove sisters are so unlikable, one doesn't understand why Wentworth or anybody else would give them a second glance.<br /><br />The relationship between Wentworth and Anne is devoid of feeling.<br /><br />In the 1995 version, Hinds and Root managed to convey the depth of emotion the two of them felt towards each other with their body language and facial expressions. In this one, it is hard to understand Anne spent years mired in regret unless one has read the book.<br /><br />This production does not capture the emotional complexity of the main characters' relationship.<br /><br />In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.<br /><br />In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), the tension is thick. Resentment is coming off Wentworth in waves, while Anne is almost overcome.<br /><br />In this version, while Wentworth is courting Lousia, it is as if he is truly invested, the undercurrents are missing. In the 1995 version, the viewer sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, as if to say, "see what you gave up, I don't need or want you anymore".<br /><br />Yet he still cares if she suffers, as the scene where he asks his sister and the Admiral to take Anne back to house illustrates. In the 1995 version the viewer feels Anne's shock that he would care if she was tired, we also feel Wentworth's discomfort that he does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia as if nothing happened.<br /><br />The pivotal scene where Anne is conversing with Harville about who loves longest, man or woman, is totally botched. The actors are just reciting lines with no emotional investment.<br /><br />When Anne reads the letter from Wentworth, it is as if she is reading a grocery list.<br /><br />Contrast this to the 1995 version, where the viewer feels Anne's joy at her second chance. We are there with her as she reads the letter. The director had both actors reading the letter and you hear both their voices. Wentworth is full of frustration, passion and hope, while Anne's is at first incredulous then evolves in to joy.<br /><br />This production has more scenes after the revelation, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew and rejoiced for the characters The only thing this production has in it's favor is it kept the Mrs. Smith sub plot intact, while the 1995 version did not.<br /><br />The 1995 version however did include part of Austen's original ending. The scene where Wentworth is commissioned by the Admiral to find out if Anne and Mr. Elliot will want to move back to her house (which he & Mrs. Croft are renting) after they marry. <br /><br />This is a production to avoid at all costs. | negative |
Altioklar's populist approach manifests itself in all his titles, from the worst to the best. He doesn't care (or has no clue) about art, all he cares is to make people think they've got a kick in the groin by watching his movies. The problem is, the effort is way too evident, and as events unfold with all the senseless exaggeration kneaded into them, the effort fails badly.<br /><br />On this "Turkish" movie (who knows where the original or originals were made, since it felt extremely Hollywoodish to me), Altioklar is trying to be some sort of Tarantino. (Mr. Tarantino, if you're reading this, please watch the movie for the best comedy of your life!) He doesn't use subtle moves to do that, all he does is to use extreme stuff, and it gets unbearably absurd and laughable.<br /><br />Levent Üzümcü as the forensic guy with the cow-licked hair is just hilarious. I'm hoping to meet him in person and ask how he felt about this movie himself. Because I really found the role insulting for him. Demet Evgar groping her genitalia was also uncalled for, and did nothing other than making everything look fake. Another specifically idiotic aspect of this movie was the 100% faulty pace setting. When things need to be taken slowly, scenes flow abruptly. And at other times, it makes you sleepy to watch the slow ridicule going on.<br /><br />If Altioklar is so deeply in love with lame Hollywood superficiality, he should use Michael Sixarrows as his name instead. Even such a move wouldn't be half as ludicrous as what he has done on this movie. He should first learn not to imitate directors whose levels he'll never approach, then realize he's not in Hollywood, and then take private lessons from Zeki Demirkubuz or Reha Erdem on how to lay the flow of ideas out in the plot. This useless movie couldn't be saved even by those, but perhaps he can make watchable movies in the future by taking these steps.<br /><br />By the way I've seen some infamous failures such as Propaganda and Otostop, and I still can't divert from saying this one was the worst Turkish movie ever. | negative |
What's up with Robert "Pretentious" Altman? Was he saving on lighting? Everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. I mean, have you ever seen a lawyer's office where everyone works by candlelight?<br /><br />Don't waste your time. In fact, don't waste your time with anything Altman makes: It's all a pretentious waste of film. | negative |
In keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.<br /><br /> | negative |
I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better. <br /><br />The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.<br /><br />THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without. <br /><br />To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list. | negative |
A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.<br /><br />Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen. | negative |
Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.<br /><br />Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).<br /><br />Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.<br /><br />Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.<br /><br />Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.<br /><br />Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film. | negative |
The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous. <br /><br />I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched. | negative |
China O'Brien (1990) was an attempt to make Cynthia Rothrock a star in the United States. This Golden Harvet production was helmed by veteran director Robert Clouse. Sadly he was either lucky with Enter the Dragon or he's lost his touch because he's not that great of a director. The only reason to watch this movie is to see the fighting skills of Ms. Rothrock and Richard Norton. If this movie was directed by Corey Yuen or Hoi Meng it could have been an action classic instead of a cheesy straight-to-video action flick.<br /><br />China O'Brien returns home to help out her dad. He's having trouble with the local mob and he needs her help. So she returns home and restores order (with the help of two unlikely people). But will they be enough to topple Mister Big and his evil cronies?<br /><br />If you're a big Cynthia Rothrock fan then this movie's catered for you. I only enjoyed the fighting scenes, everything else is rubbish. Why didn't Raymond Chow shell out a few shekels and hired a top notch action director?<br /><br />Recommended. | positive |
The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.<br /><br />Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.<br /><br />Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script. | negative |
Jay Chou plays an orphan raised in a kung fu school, but kicked out by the corrupt headmaster after fighting with a bunch of thugs in the employ of a nefarious villain. He happens upon down-on-his-luck trickster Eric Tsang, who immediately sees cash potential in the youngster's skills. Basketball is the chosen avenue for riches, and Tsang bids to get him a spot on a University team and to promote him in the media. General success leads to a basketball championship and a really nasty rival team managed by the same nefarious villain of before.<br /><br />It's all a bit Shaolin Soccer I guess, but not so quirky or ridiculous - the plot sticks pretty close to sports movie conventions, and delivers all the elements the crowd expects from the set-up. You've seen it all before, but it's the kind of stuff it never hurts to see again when it's done well. Luckily it really is done well here (some might say 'surprisingly' with Chu Yen-Ping in the director's chair... I expect he had good 'assistants') - the script delivers and the presentation is slick and stylish. Jay Chou remains pretty much expressionless throughout, but such is his style, and when he does let an emotion flicker across it can be to quite good comic effect. Eric Tsang compensates with a larger-than-life character that he's played many times before (in real life, for instance) who gets many of the films most emotional moments.<br /><br />Since the film revolves around basketball, it's good that the scenes of basketball matches are suitably rousing. The cast show some real skill, including Chou, and some well done wirework and CGI add that element of hyper-real kung fu skill that make the scenes even more entertaining (assuming you like that sort of thing) and justify the movie's plot/existence.<br /><br />There's only one significant fight scene in the movie, but it's a doozy in the "one against many" style. Jay Chou appears to do a lot of his own moves, and is quite impressive - he's clearly pretty strong and fast for real, and Ching Siu-Tung's choreography makes him look like a real martial artist. I wish there'd been more, but at least it's a lengthy fight.<br /><br />Very much the kind of Chinese New Year blockbuster I hoped it would be from the trailer, and recommended viewing! | positive |
The Good Thing about this movie: The concept is interesting and there are some funny scenes. It also makes you think of those little things in life that could greatly affect the life of someone else without you ever knowing. Its a small world and this little movie shows us.<br /><br />The Bad Thing:There are too many characters and its hard to tell who the main character is but its still a great movie.<br /><br />Its a great movie and many people compare it to Magnolia which I haven't seen.<br /><br />8/10<br /><br />Not Rated---I would rate it PG-13 for brief violence,some language and sexual situations. | positive |
Anywhere But Here is not exactly anything new, but the excellent performances by both of the main actresses made it worth watching. Sarandon and Portman are a mother and daughter who move from rural Wisconsin to sunny Beverly Hills, California, in search of a better life. The main conflict comes from the fact that Natalie would much rather have stayed in Wisconsin with all of her friends and family, and she felt that she was forced to go to California with her overbearing mother. <br /><br />(spoilers) While it's true that the film as a whole is disappointingly predictable, Susan Sarandon and especially Natalie Portman give performances that are so good that they almost make the material seem new. Anywhere But Here doesn't cover any new ground, but it does have the rare quality of being able to take overused subject matter and make it fairly interesting again. Also seen in this movie is the most heartbreaking facial expression seen in years, seen on Natalie Portman's face when her mother drops her off on the side of the road and she watches the car fade into the distance. Particularly noteworthy is the ironic subplot about Natalie's mother pressing her to become an actress, as well as a very convincing performance from Shawn Hatosy as one of Natalie's very close cousins from back home. His death is a tragic cliché almost always seen in movies like this one, but the rest of the film makes up for numerous weaknesses like this. Not great, but Anywhere But Here is definitely worth a look. | positive |
This film is one of those that has a resounding familiarity to it. It is earthy, grounded and a film that will make you think...and smile. Paul Reiser and Peter Falk take you on a journey that you will not forget. The soundtrack is beautifully varied and fitting; and the film itself is like a breath of fresh air. This surely deserves recognition for both the film and the actors! Finally, a piece of art that departs from the obvious love story and the frequent special affects that are seen today. Never have I walked out from a movie with such deep warmth and feeling of thoughtfulness in my heart; for it felt as if someone had just wrapped it in a fluffy fleece blanket. To see this film is to find a real treasure and delight in it. | positive |
To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it. | negative |
I've seen 'NSNA' just after I've seen all Roger Moore-films and I must say that it felt so good to see Connery again. He proves for all times that he is the one and only Bond.<br /><br />The film itself isn't really a masterpiece but it is really worth watching. The jokes sit much better here, the effects are funny and interesting, Connery is Connery and Brandauer is really a good villain. But von Sydow is just wasted and the score is not often good and there are a few scenes that seem pretty unnecessary.<br /><br />7/10 \ 2.5/4 \ 3+ (1+ - 6-) | positive |
In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to "protect" them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). "Offside" tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).<br /><br />"Offside" is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films ("The Shop on Main Street," "Loves of a Blonde," "Closely Watched Trains" etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the "Prague Miracle" in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, "Offside" is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.<br /><br />Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a "point." They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.<br /><br />It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in "real time." Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.<br /><br />It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. "Offside" is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, "Offside" is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007. | positive |
Robin Williams shows his stand-up talents and boosts up his status as a comedian in this movie of "what's wrong-in American politics and how can Hollywood try to make an influence without boring people". Of course Hollywood uses movies with hidden or not-so-hidden agendas. I think this movie is for people who likes stand-up and political discussion. And the trailers of this movie were for everybody just to make sure as many people as possible will see this. Everybody knows Hollywood is more liberal/democrat than the bush&co so they have to make these movies every now and then...but this one was perhaps too obvious, at least I thought so, for making any real change.<br /><br />Still, great stand-up and fresh political issues and talks...I enjoyed it and thanks to IMDb.com ratings I was positively surprised when I walked out from the movie theater, and yes, I laughed many times. Sometimes you just have to let it go and forget all the seriousness....see this movie if you like good and clever stand-up or politics and you will not be offended by the several references of how things are not good right now. Rent it if that doesn't match you. | positive |
This absolute trash is based so closely on the Friday the 13th series that is practically a carbon copy, accept for it being an Australian film with people who can't act.<br /><br />Once upon a time a young boy got burnt up accidentally during the filming of a music video at Lake Eildon. Now, a number of years later, the boy is all grown up and taking revenge on anybody who comes to the lake to film a music video. It is cliche-ridden and a waste of time and money, see it only out of curiosity, or if you're an aspiring actor trying to learn how NOT to (not be able to) act. Lead role Alan Dale used to star in the television soap opera Neighbours, but ended up in The X Files - how did THAT happen? | negative |
To many people, Beat Street has inspired their lifestyle to something creative concerning the hip hop culture.<br /><br />The young Lee is living in NY in the 80's when hip hop was at its beginning. His a crew member of "Beat Street" -a b-boy crew. The movie follows Lee in his average day, dancing, graffitiing, etc.<br /><br />The director has succeeded in making a movie with a plot and at the same time presenting hip hop to the rest of the world. The movie has old school features such as<br /><br />Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force, Grandmaster Melle Mel & the Furious Five, the Rock Steady Crew, the New York City Breakers, and many more....<br /><br />Neither the movie Beat Street nor the Beat Street spirit will ever die. | positive |
The biggest problem that the TV program Key West faced was that it was advertised wrong. If you saw the ads you would think it was a jiggle how, and be sorely disappointed. It was a vastly more complex show than that. <br /><br />I happened to be in Key West just before Hurricane Andrew hit, and I think I actually found myself having a drink or two with some of the cast in Rum Runners. Of course, that was before the show hit. I did see the sailboat that was in the opening go by a few times, and chatted with the guy who you see hacking up coconuts in the opening too. HE was a real local. Yes, I'd love to see this on DVD. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.