Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Well I must say this is probably the worst film I have seen this year! The jokes were extremely crude (wasn't expecting it from as PG movie)(Rated PG in Canada) and they weren't funny! With this great cast I at least expected some good acting but I didn't even get that. I am a huge Rainn Wilson fan and this is the first time I was extremely disappointed by his performance. Neither Luke Wilosn or Uma Thurman's characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. I didn't expect this at all as in the past I have really liked other movies by this director (Six Days, Seven Nights for example) This movie was NOT worth the $10 it cost me and i strongly encourage you not to see this movie. I guarantee that you will be like me begging for this movie to be over. | negative |
The 74th Oscars was a very good one. Whoopi's work as EmCee was very funny, and light. I personally loved her last apperance, which garnered some frigid reviews due to coarse language and salacious jokes, but that's fine. The audience seemed to like it. Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Ron Howard, Woody Allen, and Sidney Poitier made this an Oscar telecast to remember.<br /><br /> | positive |
Lovely little thriller from Hitchcock, with lots of nice shenanigans surrounding a murdered spy, a kidnapped child, a nasty church, a foreign plot and some random taxidermists. Jimmy Stewart is as ever a great hero for Hitchcock, the story rips along to its cool climax at an embassy function, but it lacks the brooding menace of Hitchcock's black and white, low-budget original. Nevertheless yet another wonderful film from the great master's stable. | positive |
I can't see the point in burying a movie like this in sulfuric sarcasm, when it is in no way intended to be anything more than a vehicle to entertain children and prepare them for the next line of merchandise to beg madly about.<br /><br /> This is a fun movie. My children sat quietly through the entire thing and loved every minute of it. Granted, the villain is a bit over the top with his silly costume and maniacal laugher, but this is a lot more easier to take than the dark, gloomy, and very morbid Pokemon 3.<br /><br /> My children have been watching Pokemon since it started and they are soon getting to the ages where they will "put off the childish things" and move on to others. I am glad that we got to enjoy this together. | positive |
David Mamet's film debut has been hailed by many as a real thinking-man's movie, a movie that makes you question everybody and everything. I saw it for the first time recently and couldn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it.<br /><br />The movie is about a female psychologist named Margaret who is also a best-selling author. Margaret has become disillusioned by her profession and her inability to really help anyone. She tries to rectify this by helping settle her patient's gambling debt to a shark named Mike (played by Joe Mantegna, who is the only reason to watch this film). She discovers that Mike is actually a professional confidence man when she nearly falls victim to a scam he pulls immediately after meeting her. Intrigued, she returns to see him and asks him to show her how con artists operate (she plans on using this as the subject of a new psychology book). She then falls for him and accompanies him on a long con that he and his associates have set up.<br /><br />I don't feel like going into details, but at the end of the film it is revealed that the events of the whole movie were an elaborate con by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret out of $80,000.<br /><br />First of all, the big twist towards the end was VERY predictable. Any scene where the con men were operating was made very obvious by the stagey acting and weird line reads. Not only that, but the audience (and the main character) knows that they're dealing with con men, so is it really such a big surprise when we find out that Margaret has herself been conned? Besides, Margaret is supposedly an intelligent psychologist who is an expert at reading people, yet she allows herself to be duped far too easily -- and keep in mind, she knows full well that Mike is a con artist.<br /><br />Secondly, we are led to believe that Margaret was conned from the very beginning, yet in order for the con to ultimately work, she had to do several things that the con men couldn't possibly have predicted that she would do. First, she had to decide to help settle her patient's debt, allowing her to meet the con men in the first place. If she hadn't done this, the entire con would have failed. I just have to say that it's pretty unreasonable to assume that a psychologist is going to take it upon herself to settle a patient's gambling debt. Not only that, but what are the odds that the con men would be at the right spot on the very night she decided to show up? Did they simply show up at that bar every night, hoping she would come and see them? Another thing that had to happen that couldn't have been predicted is that Margaret had to return to see Mike again and ask him to teach her the tricks of his trade. What are the odds of this happening? And yet the whole con is based on this premise.<br /><br />Another problem I had is with the ending. Margaret finds out she's been conned and decides to get revenge on Mike. At first, Mamet leads us to believe that she's going to con the con, but that falls through, so the ultimate ending is her gunning Mike down in an airport baggage area. Somehow that just felt like a clumsy and inept way to end a movie about con artists plying their trade. Not only that, but she didn't even take back the money he stole from her.<br /><br />Ultimately, the movie leaves you feeling empty and unfulfilled. And if you, like me, predicted ahead of time that Margaret was going to be conned, you will find this revelation just as unsatisfying. | negative |
This is the best thing Burt Reynolds ever did . . . . nice combination of suspense and humor, with an excellent supporting cast, this is a very well written and credible urban drama with a great sound track as well . . . makes you wonder why Reynolds doesn't direct more movies . . . | positive |
Combine good casting, bad writing, good orchestral scoring, bad dialogue, and good story idea with lots of potential but is never realized then you have Slipstream. <br /><br />Just bought the movie for a buck, it is worth it, but not much more. <br /><br />Good to see Mark Hamill act again. <br /><br />There should be a decent sequel made to remedy the damage from the original. Or at least give it the proper attention it should have received in the first place. <br /><br />Berstein's score gave demanded your attention from the opening credits, however, the long shots of slipstream planes and the even longer revealing of interesting plot points mutes his attention getting score. <br /><br />It is really easy to dog a movie like this, after all it is by the producer of STARWARS and the director of TRON and a tremendous cast but it is what it is. And that ain't much.<br /><br />Favorite Line- "We're going to make it, ha-ha!...(BOOM!)" | negative |
I absolutely LOVED this Soap. It has been one of my favorite. Will highly recommend :)... I just love Brazilian soaps, they deal with real life events. I'm really sad that the soap ended but I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere. For those of you who have not seen it, please see it. I loved the characters, the plot and how things turned out in the end for the villains. The only thing I would have changed is the end for Xica and her long life love. I can't wait to see it again and highly recommend it. Xica has been by far, the best soap I have ever seen. Forget everything else :)GO XICA.. Hope you all like it as well. | positive |
This is truly awful, the feeblest attempt at a comics adaptation ever committed to film. Every possible thing about this movie that could be bad, is. Music, acting, lighting, sets, "special" effects... about the only positives I can find are that Sue looks cute in her blue tights and that the Thing make-up is almost passable (face only). That's it. Zip. Don't bother tracking down that bootleg copy; it's really not worth your time. Even the aborted "Captain America" movie from the early 90's is far less excruciating than squirming in your seat while you try to endure this mess. | negative |
A demented scientist girlfriend is decapitated so he brings her head back to life. Honest this is the plot of the movie. He try's to get her another body he searches through the sleaze area of town for that perfect body. For some reason he has ugly looking monster in a closet at his cabin. The sleaze style of the movie is laughable. No one in the movie can actually act including the head. The closet monster is a man with a mask tie on and you can really tell. The plot is slow, weak and the ending is so badly done. Watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of this move. Believe me folks I wouldn't watch this movie on its own. | negative |
J Carol Nash and Ralph Morgan star in a movie about a mad scientist in love with a pianist's daughter. When his advances are spurned he injects the father with a disfiguring disease so that she will be forced to come to him to get a cure.<br /><br />God this is awful.Its dull and boring and you'll nod off before the pianist gets uglified, I was on the verge. Yea it picks up once things are set in motion but this is one of those old movies better remembered then seen again.<br /><br />If you must see it come in late<br /><br />4 out of 10 | negative |
Gary Busey is the title character, Frank "Bulletproof" McBain, your standard-issue reckless maverick cop who's earned his nickname because no matter how many bullets he takes (38 and counting), he never stops going after the bad guys.<br /><br />When a cutting-edge U.S. tank dubbed "Thunderblast" is driven across the border into Mexico, it's nabbed by revolutionaries / terrorists led by General Brogado (Rene Enriquez) and Libyan Colonel Kartiff (Henry Silva), who's aligned himself with Russian villains. The Army personnel involved are kept as prisoners, chief among them Devon Shepard (Darlanne Fluegel), who happens to be McBain's ex-girlfriend. McBain is then recruited by the Army for a rescue mission.<br /><br />Busey may not have the physical presence of say, someone like Schwarzenegger, who would have been another appropriate lead for a film of this type, but he's a blast as a self- confident dude who's quick with the wisecracks. Fluegel is a great female lead; she not only looks incredibly sexy but makes for a fine butt-kicking action babe. Enriquez, Silva, Juan Fernandez, and the always welcome William Smith (as a Russian major) are loathsome scum in the classic action movie tradition. The supporting cast is quite full of familiar and reliable character actors: L.Q. Jones, R.G. Armstrong, Thalmus Rasulala, Lincoln Kilpatrick, Mills Watson, Luke Askew, Danny Trejo, and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa.<br /><br />T.L. Lankford and B.J. Goldman supply the script, based on a story by Lankford and veteran B director Fred Olen Ray. It's the kind of script where you just know the writers have their tongues in their cheeks: they know their material is absurd and cheesy, and just have fun throwing credibility out the window. Veteran action director Steve Carver keeps it moving and delivers a respectable amount of gunfire, explosions, and general all-out mayhem.<br /><br />"Bulletproof" is good fun for the action fan who doesn't mind switching off their brain now and then and just enjoying a generous assortment of violence and humor.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like "who is this character" and "what the hell is that supposed to mean". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie... | negative |
I had to read I Know Why The Caged Birds Sing in my English class and we watched the movie after finishing it. After watching the movie, I regret seeing. It completely took away any of the impact the book had. The scenes made no sense in their sequences, the acting was horrible, and it seemed as though the screen writer never actually picked up the book but opted for the cliff notes instead. I was outraged at how the movie ended. Almost half of the book was cut out and certain aspects were extremely important to Maya's growth as a person. If you have read ...Caged Birds, this movie will ruin the experience of the book so I warn you not to see it. | negative |
Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about 500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel that looks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of the weapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim's chest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit in on a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? The ancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queen played by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than by madness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There are some stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, but this Grendel isn't one of them. <br /><br />What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes without motivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savaged more than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect for the danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the land of the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like an old cowboy western than any kind of myth.<br /><br />Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literary tradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. I suspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligent attempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent "Beowulf and Grendel" which sees Grendel essentially as human and sees Hrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognize Grendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect its revisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugs who never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had brought this nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story of Beowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story. I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, but this "Grendel's" terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied to previous human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shame experienced by Hrothgar and the Danes. <br /><br />This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or as modern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but always hopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up to telling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-making seems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots of probes that fail than a few that succeed. | negative |
The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them... | positive |
This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock. | negative |
I didn't know anything about this DVD when I hired it. Had a quick look here at the comments but decided to keep an open mind. Obviously an independent film and low budget but that didn't worry me. I will watch anything with Derick Jacobi and as always he played his part well. What a pity no one else did. I had watched 'Atonement' a few weeks ago with Vanessa Redgrave and she was sublime. In this she seemed to just turn up to read the lines. In my opinion the main mistake was in casting Vinnie Jones. To be honest I saw his picture on the DVD cover but didn't notice that he got top billing. A sticker was strategically placed over his name! It was watchable and I quite liked the Dickens story alongside present day. Maybe with a more capable actor playing the lead this might have worked better. Still it was weak. | negative |
John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, "Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the "southern" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of "Faith". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time. | negative |
I was hoping for some sort of in-depth background information on the Apollo 11 mission and what I got was some decent interview material with Buzz Aldrin Gene Krantz and other people involved in the mission, linked by over-hyped disaster-predicting sensationalising voice-over in the worst tradition of TV production.<br /><br />If you could cut out the voice-over and change the spin of the program to a positive testament of how people can overcome setbacks to achieve a goal out of the ordinary then this could've been great - but I feel I've wasted about 45 minutes of my life whilst watching a 60 minute programme. I want those minutes back. | negative |
A very suspenseful giallo from the director of "L'Anticristo"(1974),this one begins with a brilliantly-handled sequence involving a priest,a little girl,and a broken doll.However the main story is about maniac(David Warbeck)marrying a traumatized cripple to kill her for her money.The plot,whilst not original,is really suspenseful,the acting is good and there are several skillful and gory murders.The score by Francesco de Massi is quite effective,some of which can also be heard in Lucio Fulci's "The New York Ripper"(1982).Highly recommended for fans of Italian cinema! | positive |
this is a visual adaptation of manga with very little dialogue. what dialogue there is appears in word baloons as it would in the manga. the plot of this is existent but only vaguely accounted for. there is an issue of the manga on which this is based available in english in the blast books collection, 'comics underground japan', and it has actual captioned dialogue that explains the plot a bit more than here. i recommend checking that volume out if you liked this, as it explains some of the "plot" of the movie, which is otherwise inexplicable. animation wise this is pretty decent, good unintrusive use of computers and the images are for the most part realized well. it jumps in and out of episodes, as the characters, a cat and his brain-dead older sister cat wander in and out of a series of odd images: a boat, a circus, a desert. for a mere half hour they go through a number of semi-plots and settings, which leads me to believe that the director chose a number of issues of the long-running manga to adapt at random, but primarilly selected visually. knowing what's going on might somewhat increase appreciation. this reminds me mostly of the kind of stuff they used to play on the mtv show, cartoon sushi, in particular a short that features a cat chasing a man's severed butt-cheek around the house. only in this case the cats resemble hello kitty more and their adventure is expanded to include death and reincarnation and a number of other themes [though not all that easy to tell what's going on]. the dvd of this has director's commentary and a "making of" features, but i cant comment on those because i didnt get around to them. i'm giving this a 8/10 for now, here isnt much to compare it to in anime, and i hope for more like this. | positive |
I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences. | positive |
I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.<br /><br />The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.<br /><br />The "Mysteries" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one. | negative |
The Coen's strike again. I had no presuppositions going in and I was amazed at the bizarre telling of a good-bad guy story. Although Clooney is easily replaceable in this, his cornball style is welcome. Turturro and Nelson are dead ringers. And I loved "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow" as performed by the "Soggy Bottom Boys". Catchy tune...<br /><br />8 of 10 | positive |
In case you dear readers never heard, this movie was the main inspiration for last year's Samuel L. Jackson-Eugene Levy clunker The Man. This 80s-drenched buddy action-comedy pairs short 'n stubbly Billy Crystal and the late Ethiopian Shim-Shammer Gregory Hines together as some witty Chi-town cops who don't play by the rules. That's pretty much the extent of the movie. Interest is somewhat peaked by Hines' line delivery that is spookily similar to Will Smith's and by cameos of now-more-famous actors like Memento's Joe Pantoliano and "NYPD Blue's" Jimmy Smits. My favorite scene is, I dunno, the car chase on the tracks, I guess. Basically, I just view this movie as a major helping hand in the demolition of action buddy flicks. Well, this and Lethal Weapon 4... and Rush Hour 2... and The Man... | negative |
A handful of nonprofessional actors are terrorized by a prehistoric creature. This creature appears in about thirty seconds of marginal stop-motion animation, but oh how you will long for that margin when for the rest of the movie the animation is replaced by production assistants waving around an inner tube with teeth. No time for terror when this movie is hijacked halfway through by these comic relief boat rental doofuses, who suddenly become the lead characters; but again you gotta admit watching them try to be funny is better than plodding around after the sheriff. Only at the end one of them gets eaten and the other one is left sitting on a rock crying tears of loneliness - that's no fun! | negative |
It seems like this is the only film that John Saxon ever directed, and that he had the good sense to stop after that and stay in front of the camera. This movie is a dog, from start to finish, and it's dull and wooden with nothing much going for it. A Viet Nam war hero takes a job working for a mob boss, gets a bit too friendly with the wife and then the wife is killed by the mob boss himself & the war hero framed and sent to prison, death row, specifically. Now, this particular prison has been experimenting on inmates and is testing some formula that will turn men into the ultimate killing machine (a zombie). Of course, everything goes wrong and then there's all these infected people trapped in the prison, some of whom are turning into zombies and the rest who suddenly just don't want to be there anymore. This just goes on and on and on with nothing particularly much to show or say for itself, and I stopped it before the end, which seemed like it was coming a few times but no, it was apparently only getting set to take off on a different and equally dull path. If one watched to the end they may well become a zombie themselves, so don't risk it. 2 out of 10. | negative |
This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward "Why can't I move you?" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: "That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!" | negative |
I'm only rating this film as a 3 out of pity because it attempts to be worthwhile. I love to praise a great movie and I'm not biased toward "male" movies. Legally blonde was an excellent film. Georgia Rule on the other hand, was a disorganized, weak, poorly written, unrealistic example of movie making at its worst. by the end of the film I didn't care who was lying or if anything was resolved. <br /><br />The most important thing in a film is a good STORY. This story is weak and never develops (just because the subject matter is deep, doesn't mean the story is good). A good story has dynamic characters. A dynamic character is one that experiences a major character change, and is primed for that change over the course of the movie. In Georgia Rule, the character changes were abrupt and undeveloped. Secondly, there were too many ATTEMPTED dynamic characters. Pulling off a really good dynamic character is a tough job and takes time (you've only got a couple hours in a movie). That means that too many attempted dynamic characters will get too little attention to their personal change. Even if I ignore the poorly written story, and the litter of weak dynamic characters, I can't even say I liked anyone. Every character was a mess. That's fine if your're writing American Beauty but not when you're attempting a dramatic comedy. Georgia was a horrible mother, her daughter was a horrible mother and daughter, and Lohan was a horrible excuse for a human being (no I'm not cutting her any slack because she was molested, crap happens to everyone and we're all responsible for our own actions). The "Dudley Do Right" Mormon kid should have had the guts not to compromise his religion and commitments...and Simon, I mean seriously, what kind of guy lets a 17 year old girl who's been molested just stay over occasionally (unless he's an actor or a politician). This movie is worth watching if you want to remind yourself what good movie making is NOT! | negative |
A while back I bought the Chinese box set of Fist of the North Star which came with all of Fist of the North Star, Fist of the North Star 2, New Fist of the North Star, and the Fist of the North Star movie. While there is an American Version and a few European Versions, they end half way through Fist of the North Star which is about as far as the movie goes.<br /><br />The series is about the successor of an ancient martial art called Hokuto Shin Ken (Fist of the North Star) named Kenshiro, or Ken for short. There is only one successor each generation. It takes place in a post apocalyptic future where martial arts is the most powerful weapon. The two most powerful arts are Hokuto Shin Ken and Nanto Divine Ken as my version calls it. Nanto is really multiple styles but they are all the same since they allow a person to chop someone to pieces. There are six Nanto masters and each has their own star. Hokuto is an art that allows someone to damage/kill or heal someone by hitting a point on their body. Each art has their own constellation. Hokuto - Big Dipper, Nanto - Gemini. Kenshiro goes around saving the world from evil consisting of going after his two brothers and three of the Nanto masters and their armies. Each army captain has their own way of fighting which makes each episode different and the number of soldiers bloody. Also, Kenshiro is looking for his girlfriend Yuria who was stolen by the Nanto master Shin. Along the journey Kenshiro is joined by his brother Toki after rescuing him from his brother Rao who calls himself Kenou or Boxing King. He is also joined by two Nanto masters Rei, who is looking for his sister who was taken by Ken's brother Jagi, and Shu. Both of them and Toki die along the way. Other characters that join Ken are two kids Rin and Batto who don't do much. That's about as much as I can say for story since its so long and full of details. The series is also divided into four parts.<br /><br />What makes this show great is the fighting. Ken normally goes up against a group of people that think they are tough and then get killed in one hit. Which is funny and badass, but makes for quick fights. Another great part is comedy/badassness. Ken hits someone, and they think its nothing. Ken says they are already dead. Then they die. Other parts are when he'll hit them and tell them they have a few seconds to live. Then a counter will pop up. Or when he tells them they are not worthy of knowing his name. Then there is when he does a rapid fire kick or punch and goes wa da da da da da da etc. Eventually you might find yourself doing it with him. One great part was when a bad guy thought he knew Hokuto. He went up to Ken and hit him. Ken stood there said he was dead in a few seconds. The bad guy counted off then died. It isn't limited to Ken everyone else kills just as quick. There has never been a character as awesome as Ken and their probably never will.<br /><br />There are a few problems though. One is the repetitive nature. Some flashbacks mainly the one with Yuria being taken are played too much, and there are also too many recap episodes especially in part four of the series. In fact, the last episode is a recap of the whole thing. Another problem is the ending. The final battle with Rao wasn't that impressive. Ken and Rao fought then talked, etc, until Rao came to some realization and kills himself instead of Ken killing him. But it is better than the American and European versions that just cut off halfway. <br /><br />Who would I recommend this for? This is for older teenagers and adults who like action. Since the styles cause people to explode or get cut into pieces, the violence is very graphic and there is a lot of it, but they don't show much blood because they usually make the death just a silhouette that still looks like the person but less colorful. This was probably done to avoid censorship. If you don't like action rent the American Version. If you like action though, then I say go for the import since you can see all of the series, but they do not have the best English translation since it is subtitled by the Chinese. Note: My import came with everything I said at the beginning, some imported versions do not, but you still have to get an import to see all of the series and Fist of the North Star 2. If you don't think you can handle the subtitles for any reason then go get the American Version. Another note: In the version I got no subtitles were on the last disc for New Fist of the North Star; although, New Fist of the North Star isn't very good to begin with.<br /><br />I give the show an 8/10 for its high amount of action, good story, and the awesomeness of Kenshiro.<br /><br />****UPDATE****<br /><br />Toei Animation released an English subtitled version. You can download the episodes as well as Hokuto no Ken 2 from IGN's Direct2Drive or watch it free on FUNimation's site. | positive |
To think this film was made the year I was born. To think people are still having their constitutional rights taken away, now in the name of "homeland security". To think this movie was intentionally banned from the American public. PUNISHMENT PARK addresses the political divide in the United States better than any movie I've ever seen. Had it been more widely seen, would it have changed anything? A movie like this is so polarizing, it has the potential to cause riots. It shakes you up and forces you to take sides. It makes you face the issue: are you for the people's right of dissent in a time of war, or for the constitution being compromised in the name of "national security"? The protagonists are forced by the government to race to the American flag in a game that undermines the very ideals the flag stands for. The acting is totally convincing. So much so, I can't see any acting going on here at all. If this is a scripted documentary, it's more convincing than any reality show on television today. PUNISHMENT PARK is possibly the most important film ever made. It really makes you think. | positive |
Shintarô Katsu, best known for the Zatôichi films, again stars in this third and final movie in the Kenji Misumi (mostly known for "Lone Wolf and Cub), directed saga of Hanzo 'The Razor' Itami feature the big dicked one battling ninjas, rapeing 'ghosts', and uncovering shady goings on at the Shogunate treasury. The Hanzo 'plot' was kinda getting stale and repetitive. What was once novel in the first film, was not any longer. Fortunately, this one was better then the second thanks to having more humor. I'm just glad that they choose to stop at the one trilogy (I'm looking at YOU Lucas) <br /><br />My Grade: B <br /><br />DVD Extras: Merely Trailers for all 3 Hanzo the Razor films <br /><br />Eye Candy: Aoi Nakajima unleashes both tits, Mako Midori just her left one | positive |
This movie sucked. The problem was not with the cast. I think the cast was great, lots of good talent, lots of great acting. But the script was TERRIBLE! It seemed to be mostly just a frame work in which Steve Carrell could do his improv. And that is what he does best, but it just didn't work here. The script was hard to follow, the story was non-sensical, and scenes were random and lacked direction. Also, much of the action was extremely contrived and poorly thought out. It was a good effort, but as Max says, they missed it by THAT MUCH! I am shocked to see how many glowing reviews there are for this stinker here on the IMDb. Obviously, the movie producers are getting people to write lots of positive reviews on their movies and fill up the entries on the IMDb. If you read the positive reviews and compare them to the negative reviews, it is pretty clear which ones are genuine reviews from normal users.<br /><br />This movie was full of problems and jokes that just didn't work. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchor Man, and I like his comedy and style. But I will tell you that I never once laughed while I was watching this movie. Yes, I had a couple of light moments, a couple of chuckles, but no real laughs. Nothing that struck me at all.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert! One ridiculous scene was when Max had his hands binded on the airplane and he goes to the bathroom to try to escape. He uses his special Swiss Army knife...but instead of just using THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE, he tries to SHOOT the binding with his miniature crossbow. And as the crossbow miss-fires and shoots little arrows into him over and over again (almost putting out his EYE), Max doesn't give up or try the blade instead...no, he just keeps shooting himself with the crossbow. What was he really expecting to do with that crossbow? It seemed to be THE WORST option on the knife to try to remove the bindings. It just made absolutely no sense.<br /><br />That is a good example of the typical circumstances in the scenes that made up this movie. They were ridiculous, poorly thought out, poorly motivated, and made of pure nonsense. And that was truly distracting.<br /><br />As I said, this movie was a big let-down, and I recommend you avoid it. A note to the IMDb: You should do something about these phony reviews that people are leaving. It degrades the authenticity of the site. | negative |
Judging by the hype, and other reviews on this site, I was ready for an awesome horror movie focusing on junkies. What i got was complete crap focusing on junkies. I wonder if there's another movie called "Cookers" that these people reviewed? There are only 3 main characters, and none of them struck me as well-written or well-acted. Basically the whole movie I just spent shaking my head and marveling at the stupidity of these drug addicts.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Don't rent this movie. Rent "Cabin Fever" or some other decent horror movie. Hell, rent "Mary Poppins"! The animated penguins are scarier and more convincing than anything you'll find in "Cookers." | negative |
It does come out of left field, and REALLY isn't what you're expecting. But I love that. The most memorable movie experiences come from being surprised, if you ask me. If you haven't been tipped off about the mysterious "thing" that makes these brothers so odd...you're in for a treat.<br /><br />The cast is fantastic, but not stretching so much that it's palpable. The special effects come out of nowhere (seriously, it's like an oddly dark romantic comedy until they do -- then WOW) and they're great. The overall cinematography is easy on the eyes, the editing and sound are very good quality, and the twisted story unfolds without clichés. While none of these aspects individually make it a blockbuster, the "what the hell?" factor ALONE makes it a film treasure.<br /><br />The people who bash this movie make no sense. It's one of those often-overlooked flicks of the 90's that you've either never heard of, or love so much you jump at the mention of its title.<br /><br />I'm in the latter group. | positive |
***1/2 Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Hope Davis, Adam Scott, Philip Baker Hall. Directed by Richard Shepard.<br /><br />A well formulated story and film all together, Brosnan has never been better in a film role outside of his "Bond" movies. After 2004's "After the sunset" his newest role brings in the laughs and a great time. Professional hit-man, so to speak, Julian Noble on a job in Mexico City winds up meeting the exact opposite of himself a high strung business man Danny Wright (Kinnear, possibly one of his best roles) also on business there. The two on-screen duo produce a comically charged, laugh riot and fail to not deliver the laughs. Davis in one of her best roles since "American Splendor" gives another charming and witty performance. One of the years most enjoyable and best films. My final rating 9/10 | positive |
In New York, in a morning close to Christmas, an upper class father and mother go in their BMW to a private school to see the play of their daughter. Then they go shopping and later they return to their fancy apartment in Manhattan. In the night, they move to a simple apartment in a dangerous neighborhood, where they prepare drugs for distribution. On the Christmas Eve, while buying the Christmas gift for their daughter, the father is kidnapped, and his wife desperately tries to raise a high amount of money to pay the requested ransom. "R Xmas" is a deceptive movie of Abel Ferrara. The lead characters do not have names, are anonymous, and maybe his intention is to tell that in the breast of a neighbor family in your building may have drug dealers; or that drug dealers may also have families and may be loving persons; or that there are many dirty cops, probably worse than the criminals; or is it a simple apology to crime? Whatever! However, this humanization of criminals is a horrible message, and I really did not like this movie. In Brazil, for example, many drug dealers and criminals help their communities, due to the absence of the State in poor areas and slums, but this procedure does not make them model citizen. In this movie, we see a loving upper class family in the day, providing drugs as means of living, but the destruction of the members of other families is not shown in the story, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for any characters. In the end, I wished all of them dead. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Gangues do Gueto" ("Gangs of the Ghetto") | negative |
When the Legends Die is a powerful, moving story of an orphaned Ute Indian who goes on to become Tom Black Bull, a champion bronc rider. Raised in the old ways, Tom is given a white man's name and must adopt the language and ways of the white man to live in that world. Bitter about the role he has been forced into, Tom finds fulfillment doing one thing, busting horses, riding them to death, in the rodeo. The movie has Richard Widmark in the role of Red, the man who befriends Tom and acts as his manager. Red is a drunk who eventually dies in the story, which is about where the movie ends. The real story is completely ignored, the dark side of Tom Black Bull who develops a reputation as a killer of horses in the rodeo arenas. Oh well, you should read the book, this movie doesn't come close to doing the story justice. | negative |
I went to see this movie expecting a nice relaxing time in the theater with my younger sister. Instead, I had to really control myself in order to convince her that I was not scared. In many ways still a children´s story, but with a screenplay that has a lot of potential. Could have been one of the scariest movies if planned for another audience. | positive |
Writer/director John Milius takes a little-known incident from American history and extrapolates wildly in all the right ways. The result is a grand adventure tale that showcases two of its stars in memorable, larger-than-life roles: Sean Connery as the wily Arab sheik with an inexplicable Scottish brogue, and Brian Keith as President Theodore Roosevelt, itching for the chance to put that "big stick" to good use.<br /><br />Aided immeasurably by Billy Williams' glorious widescreen cinematography and a magnificent score by the always reliable Jerry Goldsmith, this early effort seemed the harbinger of a talent to rank with contemporaries Lucas, Coppola and Spielberg. Although Milius served up tantalizing glimpses of his ability in scripts for JEREMIAH JOHNSON and APOCALYPSE NOW, his career seemed to take a downward turn not long after he started directing, ultimately foundering on dreck like CONAN THE BARBARIAN and RED DAWN. <br /><br />Here's hoping that he will again find his way. | positive |
Like most musicals of the era, one must check reality at the door. Broadway MELODY of 1938 is not remotely believable nor plausible, but kind of fun in its strange way. This movie is really just an excuse to execute the talents of the stars. Some scenes just happen as if they were in a review, not a plot driven movie.<br /><br />Judy Garland shines and it's a pity she has so little to do unless much was left on the cutting room floor.<br /><br />One of the most inane happenings are the way Eleanor Powell get a lead role in a Broadway show and Robert Taylor says it's going to be work, work, work from dawn til dusk. Several scenes go by and there's no work, no rehearsals...NOTHING. She needs money to win a horse in an auction. She has no money. Isn't she getting paid while she rehearses? Taylor has to borrow money to help. He's supposed to be a big time producer. He has no money??? Anyway, that's just two elements in this strange story.<br /><br />The musical numbers are quite wonderful which saves this from being a total loss. Broadway MELODY OF 1940 is much better as is Broadway MELODY OF 1936. | negative |
I thought that The sentinel was going to be a mediocre movie.When I finally saw it,I took a good surprise.The movie isn't great thing but it's very fun and the action scenes are very well done.This movie reminded me TV series like 24 or Alias.It's very similar to that series and it reminded me too,to the Wolfgang Petersen's thriller In the line of fire.If you're going to expect one of the most original and and one of the greatest thrillers in the history of movies,you will be disappointed.But if you go with little expectations,you will enjoy The sentinel.<br /><br />Rating:7 | positive |
Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.<br /><br />This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.<br /><br />Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire. | negative |
honestly.. this show warms my heart, i watch it EVERYDAY on fox family and now that the new season has started i'm even more hooked than before.. the characters are so well-developed and their relationships are so real.. i would recommend this show for any woman or mother and daughter.. the Lorelei's are super fast talking witty girls that will, truly inspire you and the show is hysterical at times and never too too serious, but serious enough for it to be completely addicting.. it's an hour long which is a major PLUS because you can't ever get enough Gilmore! even in one hour.. Emily and Richard Gilmore are KICKS (loralie's parents, Rory's grandparents) they're you're average rich parents.. Emily president of the DAR and Richard a well known lawyer and Yale alumni st.. Rory is following in the footsteps of her grandparents and this could not make them any happier, of course, Rory's mother is so very proud of her but her whole life has worked on ultimately defying her parents and Rory going to Yale did not help her on that journey but believe me, every episode she does get closer ;) | positive |
I really enjoyed "Random Hearts". It was shocking to see such a low rating on IMDB, but chacun a son gout and all that. I am a big fan of Harrison Ford, but I do have to admit that he was ill cast in this movie, and the reason I gave it 9 instead of 10. Kristin Scott Thomas, though, was just wonderful. She was believable and beautiful, in spite of being made up for half the movie like she'd been crying for days. Could "Random Hearts" have been better? Sure, but it is very much worth seeing as it is. | positive |
The magnetism radiated from Elvira, drawing her legions of devoted admirers, has a primordial quality. With her lengthy, well-toned figure, large-bust, innocuously mischievous attitude and grab-bag lexicon of me-generation valley slang, the character of Elvira has a universal and timeless appeal. As an aspiring folklorist and an individual deeply interested in the structure of storytelling, it is evident that the Elvira persona has certain archetypal elements that help to make the character more than the sum of her corny one-liners and large chest. As initiated from the manner in which the children of the town react to her, she represents the deep adolescent fantasy for an experienced woman whom can connect to them of their level: a strange mixture of one-dimensional romantic yearning, boyish sexual craving and the desire for non-threateningly lighthearted fun. She symbolizes an undeveloped ideal of womanhood perfected for the boys and a source of strength for the girls of the town. The other adults have trouble with her for the same reasons. In the end, however, her film cannot move pass its more campy ingredients. The end result is that while Elvira is infinitely interesting, her film is limited by how weak a showcase it is for her talents. Nearly everything is tailored to an adolescent mindset and although it is a straightforward comedy, only those who can still process information with the mind of a young person will be able to enjoy the nonsense. Fortunately, I have such ability and found the film to be a delightful charmer.<br /><br />Best Quote: Bob Redding: How's your head? Elvira: I haven't had any complaints. | positive |
Sweeping drama with great sets, costumes and performances though some folks are channeling Rhett, Scarlett, Melanie and even Lady Macbeth. Patrick Swayze and James Read are excellent as two men trying to maintain a friendship despite the ties of family and location. Splendid villains you'll want them all to come to a very bad end. Lots of strong female characters in this one both good and bad. Secondary story lines also are well developed. Several cameos by major stars of past eras. Good representation of history and conflicts for those caught between friendship and politics. <br /><br />Curl up on a rainy day with your DVD or VHS player and drink of choice with this one. A lap rug and a cat would be optional. | positive |
ERROL FLYNN had one of his favorite roles as the brash braggart from a fighting Irish family who went on to become the heavyweight champion of the world at a time when John L. Sullivan (WARD BOND) went around claiming that he "could beat any man alive." Both Flynn and Ward Bond give what is probably among the best performances they ever gave on screen.<br /><br />Raoul Walsh has directed the colorful tale with robust style, capturing the family life as well with scenes that are warm-hearted and full of good humor. All the Warner contract players make up the fine cast--including the always reliable ALAN HALE as Flynn's rambunctious father, proud of his son's fighting abilities, and ALEXIS SMITH who makes the most of her role as a feisty society girl who enjoys taking Flynn down a peg with saucy one-liners dealing with his conceited manners.<br /><br />All of the 1880s atmosphere is captured in glorious B&W, although it's too bad Warners didn't have more faith in Flynn to do the film in color. He was entering a rocky phase of his film career at the time, engaged in a widely publicized rape trial that had all of the tabloids busy sorting things out.<br /><br />The fighting scenes are among the best ever choreographed for the screen, with Flynn obviously in fine form and making very little use of doubles for most of the action. And the scene where Bond turns over his award plaque to Flynn at a social gathering is one of Ward's finest moments in a long career as a character actor.<br /><br />Summing up: Maintains interest all the way through, whether you're a sports fan or not. | positive |
Well, what to say...<br /><br />Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...<br /><br />VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"<br /><br />Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it... | negative |
It's amazing to think that this movie came out only one year before Star Wars but seems a million years behind it in sophistication and special effects. Actually, the art direction and set design (nice Victorian space ship) aren't bad; it's the monster costumes that are the most laughable, resembling the "guy in a rubber suit" monsters from the LOST IN SPACE TV show. The evil cave-man makeup reminded me of some of the aliens from ancient TWILIGHT ZONE reruns.<br /><br />The script is stilted, and outside of Peter Cushing's comic relief the acting is pretty miserable too. This movie is only recommended if you really enjoy bad kitschy SF. And the music...yikes! A horrible 70s experiment with synthesizers that doesn't fit the time period of the film and which sounds like someone rambling with a Minimoog and a 2-track tape machine. | negative |
Not the funniest movie ever.....but I have to watch this film at least once a year just so I can fall in Love with Michelle Johnson all over again. She never looked better than she did in this film. by the way The story is good too. | negative |
I saw this on TV so long ago that I can't remember when it was, but it still stands out as one of the scariest, most unnerving films I've ever seen. There is a simultaneously subtle but intense dread induced by the woman in black lurking at the edge of the frame, not quite clearly visible, so that you feel (like the solicitor hero), unsure whether its just imagination or not. It is also one of the few films which has really made me fearful to keep watching. "Production values" be hanged, good films are about a director's ability to create atmosphere using film, actors, locations/sets, music, attention to detail, and ...imagination. A real gem. | positive |
Someone said that WEBS is a lot like an episode of SLIDERS, and I have to agree. Spoilers: I never liked the actors on Sliders, and rarely have seen it except when nothing better was on. WEBS is the kind of movie to see if you have no other choices. Read a book. WEBS has those kind of TV has-been actors that look like they are there as part of their PROBATION or Work Release Program. Some low budget TV movies have actors that at least look enthusiastic. The actors in WEBS look like they were getting paid minimum wage and were working on a Time-Clock. They have that desperate, "The-Paycheck-Better-Not-Bounce" look. The Queen Spider looks great, except it is rarely seen, and there are no other spiders (and no webs). The Queen Spider bites people, and they become Spider Zombies, which means that they try to keep their eyes WIDE OPEN when they are attacking the humans. The humans are all fighting among themselves over a number of different reasons, and they are not sympathetic. After meeting all the "humans" I would have recommended charm school for the characters. All that WEBS made me feel was APATHY. I was numb to the characters, and hoped for some interesting gore and special effects. The gore was minimal, and the special effects were reserved for the ugly spider queen, who looked good. If WEBS had a bunch of Spider Creatures eating humans, it would have been more entertaining. Apparently they could only budget "spider-zombies." WEBS is a sad entry into the field of SPIDER oriented movies. It may qualify as the worst Spider movie ever, because Eight-Legged Freaks had great special effects. | negative |
When I heard that this movie was coming out the night before Halloween, I was very excited. When I found out that it was a book, written in 1978, I had to read it before seeing the movie. I'm sure the movie would have been much different to me if I had not read the book. The writers actually did a good job of staying true to the main plot of the book, with minor differences, naturally. I think the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was Boyle playing the role of Col. I'm not a big fan of Boyle, and it seems that no matter what the mood during the movie, she's always trying to use her over-plumped lips, and darkly makeup-ed eyes to make herself seem super sexy. Indeed, I think that the movie held true to the genuine creepiness of the house. My favorite subplot was the Sheehan family (which is so weird b/c the son was killed in Iraq and in current events there is Casey Sheehan whose mother went on a huge anti-Iraq tirade). In the book, obviously the war was not Iraq, but rather, Vietnam, and when the house turns on that video of the son in the helicopter, I was truly creeped out. Overall, I was impressed with the movie, in that it followed the book very well. | positive |
Could easily have been better. In fact maybe so much so that if the filmmaker hadn't tried even as hard as he did, it might have actually been better.<br /><br />On a good note. The lighting was reasonably okay. But pretty much everything else was lacking. Wobbly camera work. (Yeah, yeah, I know, that's supposed to be the style now.) Poorly recorded audio. And editing that looked like someone watched too many Ulli Lommel movies (which are some of the worst edited movies.) To sum it up, the movie seemed to be a rationalization for the director/writer/main-character to get some young women naked, put them in fake bondage, and grope them, while saying "menacing" things. | negative |
I have very fond memories of this film, as I saw it with my two younger sisters when it first shown theatrically in 1977 and I was eight years old. Apparently it was deemed a failure - and is now practically forgotten (the pan-and scan videocassette - which never did justice to the picture or it's ambitious Panavision compositions is now out-of -print.) The film is very stylized (shades of YELLOW SUBMARINE) and admittedly uneven. Some of the characters and sequences are exquisite while others are somewhat juvenile and undistinguished. The sad discarded blue camel (shades of Eeyore) and his blue song are truly heartwarming. Joe Raposo's songs are for the most part simply beautiful. Definitely a worthwhile curiousity that will probably (sadly) fall into total obscurity. | positive |
I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of "Rivers and Tides." However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.<br /><br />The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed "ethical" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this "artist," scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.<br /><br />In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it. | negative |
I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.<br /><br />I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical. | positive |
Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.<br /><br />If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie. | negative |
I wonder how someone could diss on this movie. It is based on an actual story. It is not necessarily about "Rugby" itself so to the one that posted on here that they need to make a "real" rugby movie, you missed the point. This is not another typical sports movie where a team sucks, they hire Emilio Estevez and turn the team around and win the championship and give everyone the warm and fuzzies. It focuses on a STORY. It shows how someone can change his or her life for the better. The movies now days are all about sex, drugs, partying etc. That is Hollywood. I am a big fan of movies, but I have to say this was an inspirational movie with a great message. If you consider yourself a "tough guy" don't watch the movie, it won't live up to your standards. If you want to watch a good, inspirational movie, this is a good one. | positive |
Who knew they could be so funny?? Christopher Meloni and Janel Moloney are known more for their outstanding work in some of television's hottest dramas. ("Law & Order: SVU" and "The West Wing") Put them together on the big screen and what you get is an engaging romantic comedy with plenty of laughs.<br /><br />The actors develop the story's ongoing relationship with impressive skill, leaving the audience bound to fall in love with Barry Singer (Meloni), despite the fact he's a standup comic who also happens to be a mean-spirited, sexist jerk.<br /><br />You'll be rooting for him even as he takes all his insecurities with the opposite sex and chases Thea (Moloney) halfway around the country in hopes of winning her heart. They have so little in common...but when Barry finally opens his heart, you'll wonder why Thea keeps running away.<br /><br />The Souler Opposite is a wonderful movie with an incredible cast and a gifted writer. Well worth your time.<br /><br /> | positive |
This film was pure pain. Sitting in the theater for x-amount of minutes, I was wondering when the film was going to start. All the setups were in place; typical love story, characters have to overcome their short-givings, villain has to emerge, but none of it ever initiated. By the time these things happened, I was already bored stiff and the devices were completely ineffective. In scenes that required immense tension and buildup, it felt like necessary frames were cut. Kid's stuff does not have to be this way. Children's films can be as riveting and engaging as adult ones. The excuse, "hey , its for kids," is bull. I'll take "Sword in the Stone" any day. This was terrible. I'm getting the feeling that Disney will put out anything these days. And as for the kids, the 10-year I saw this with will agree...pure trash. | negative |
'Rise of the Footsoldier' follows the unrelentingly cruel journey of gangster Carlton Leach and his associates through drugs, violence, sex, violence, guns, violence and did I mention violence?<br /><br />Protagonist Carlton Leach (Ricci Harnett), member of the I.C.F (Inner City Firm); a group of football hooligans turned professional gangsters, guides the audience through the events leading to the 1995 'Range Rover Killings', in which three gang members fell victim to particularly vicious professional 'hits'. Leach's success as a doorman and talent for locating aptly violent friends to control unruly punters at a local nightclub launches him into the company of notorious drug dealers and gangsters, profitably benefiting from the 80s/90s rave scene and drug culture.<br /><br />Opening with brutally realistic shots of the dead men, the viewer is left thirsty to understand what happened, but left wholly unsatisfied. The next 2 hours meander through a series of countless character introductions. Each of these basically establishes yet another typical 'hard man', shows him assaulting usually undeserving victims, before probably coming to an even nastier end. What little emotional understanding the audience is allowed to form for a few of the characters (for example a family man blamed for missing drugs) is quickly destroyed when they are either anti-climactically killed, or their storyline left unresolved. The hints of a plot introduced in the beginning are inadequately concluded with vague impressions of how the murders occurred, as the events are slotted into place with little reward for persevering with the hazy muddle of previous events. <br /><br />This film has been made with a standard formula in mind, for an audience who prefer violence and 'ard nut' slang to an actual storyline. 'Rise of the Footsoldier' borrows too much from 'Football Factory', leaving out the good bits, demonstrating no moral ramifications of hooligan subculture or establishing empathy with the protagonist. The violence, although brilliantly shot, seems excessive and implausible because no one is around long enough for the audience to form an emotional attachment. The implication that the gangs are untouchable by the police is fair enough, but machete-wielding doormen regularly committing blatant murder in public places pushes the imagination of even the most willing viewer. The audience are left bewildered as to the relevance of many key events and developed characters that had no knock on effect on the eventual conclusion. Attempted 'gritty-realism' is further destroyed with a substance called 'Truth Serum', which the Turkish Mafia use to coax honest answers from unwilling individuals. This is NOT the genre in which to invent psychologically unrealistic drugs, and renders the interrogation almost absurd.<br /><br />The actual scenes of violence (before becoming repetitive) hold some tension, spliced with rapid flashes of colour or the end of a film reel. Seamlessly choreographed brawls coupled with obligatory but effective shaky hand-held camera work saves the film, but unfortunately the plot (or lack there of) limits it to a niche demographic.<br /><br />In essence, the events this film is based on aren't deservedly represented, and an adequately sequential storyline is sacrificed for stereotypical characters and an unoriginal plot. This film has a place in the market, but if you like a bit of brain with your brutality this one isn't for you. <br /><br />http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/ | negative |
i have rated this movie a 1/10 and have done this in good nature. this movie is not as it seems and i don;t get the point of it. take the first joke for instance. Their's that sign at the beginning to start. well that was OK but then they start having some guy talking about the hood and then he dies then theirs the other guys who talks then he dies after the other guy says people don;t get to their birthday with out dieing. and he gets a cake now. then he dies. <br /><br />The jokes are just stupid they are;t that smart and i would have thought they would have been better from some one like the directors of scary movie:<br /><br />Shawn Wayans (written by) & Marlon Wayans (written by) & Phil Beauman (written by)<br /><br />but it sucked and i hop next time they want to make another comedy they make some good jokes not lame ones. | negative |
When Las Vegas came out one review described this show as, quote "A harmless bit of fluff". Needless to say that after seeing a dozen or so episodes I think this description is right on the money. An assortment of pretty boys and strutting model types play out an assortment of paper thin stories while all the time trying to pretend they are serious business people. One dimensional characters, in a one dimensional setting, pursuing one dimensional stories. That pretty much sums up Vegas. I still watch from time to time to see if the show is trying to evolve and take itself a little serious but alas to no avail. So far. | negative |
Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.<br /><br />background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.<br /><br />Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.<br /><br />After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure. <br /><br />Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this. | negative |
Alien Warrior (or King of The Streets) is one of those 80s gems you stumble across by mistake, then watch awestruck, marveling at how wonderfully silly and over the top it gets.<br /><br />A rather hunky alien arrives on earth (LA to be exact) and stumbles into a world of drug dealers, gangs, and corrupt cops. He falls in love with the flaxen haired, beautiful teacher who only wants to help inner-city kids read more. He also manages to anger a coke-snorting drug kingpin who vows to destroy him.<br /><br />I fell in love with this film at first viewing... sure it's hokey, silly and low-budget. But you can tell the filmmakers had their heart in the right place, and damn if the thing doesn't work! I only pray it'll be on DVD soon.<br /><br />It's got a hot soundtrack, break-dancing, violence, nudity.... all with a positive, wholesome message! See it. | positive |
Drug runner Archie Moses introduces his friend Rock Keats to his boss, drug kingpin Frank Colton. Unknown to Moses, Keats is actually an undercover police officer. During the bust on Colton's factory, Moses accidentally shoots Keats in the head. He survives the wound & later arrests Moses. Dodging Colton's hired assassins, the duo must overcome their mutual hatred to survive.<br /><br />Adam Sandler's films are usually a hit-&-miss affair, with his comedies either loved by his fans or hated by everyone. This one is not as stupid as his other films, but still cannot overcome a lazy script. The direction is incredibly patchy, with fast-paced action sequences giving way to slow comic exchanges between Sandler & Damon Wayans. Some of the action scenes flying a plane with no engines, a car chase at night through a forest are quite absurdly contrived. The acting is the standard for this genre, with Sandler & Wayans making a good pairing. In short, the film is dumb but fun to watch.<br /><br />Grade: C+ Review by M. K. Geist | negative |
Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing | negative |
as an inspiring director myself, this movie was exciting to watch with criticism in mind. Shot with low end digital camera probably with 35mm adapter for DOF. The editing is good acting decent, sound effects aren't too over the top. I would have give it a 7 for an indie film, but the story aren't that interesting. It's more on the drama side, character developments than a horror flick.<br /><br />It's not for those who wants to get spooked startled frightened grossed out, or sit down with popcorn to just enjoy.<br /><br />honestly this movie would be good if we were still in the 50's<br /><br />This movie is about a family who has a dry field, and that is just that. | negative |
I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more? | negative |
After seeing the Harry Potter movies, I've been a fan of the trio actors Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson; yet, we've been waiting to see if they would do other projects besides play the same characters year or every two years of the J.K. Rowling series. Mainly instead of a trio, the cameras and magazine articles concentrate more on Daniel and Emma, being that they're the leading male and only leading female in the saga leaving Rupert dead-end. No matter, every actor has a time to shine and Rupert's light hits him for once in this movie.<br /><br />"Driving Lessons" is called the Harold and Maude of this generation with Rupert Grint playing the role of Ben Marshall, a young British lad who lives with his domineering mother (Laura Linney) and a wimp of a vicar (priest) father for which he wants a job in the summer but can't find work while at the same time taking his driving tests (and failing) and writing poetry for a young girl who doesn't have any interest in him.<br /><br />Ben seeks an ad in a church newspaper for which the job requires to take care of an elderly lady. He takes the job and realizes that he's in for a fun of surprises as Evie (Julie Walters, Rupert's mother in the Harry Potter series) an out-of-work actress who is also a poet giving Ben the run for his money. They bond where and tell each other secrets along with Evie acting like a child and getting into mischief where she drags Ben along for a country road trip. From their not only does Ben drive all the way from Britain to Scotland since Evie needs to recite at a local library, but at the same time an older lady falls for the young man in which Ben starts becoming a man.<br /><br />There is mishap and at the same time rejoice with Ben and Evie along with saying that I was very pleased about the film when it came out in theaters and I was impressed with Rupert Grint's acting, especially if he showed the rest of the world that even though he brings a bit of Ron Weasley within Ben Marshall, there's no stopping the actor on his brilliant performance. | positive |
The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen. | negative |
"Victor doesn't have much, but that's not stopping him from trying to go out with Judy, the prettiest girl on the block. All he's got is hope and a one-bedroom apartment he shares with his family. His grandmother doesn't trust him, his brother worships him, and his half-sister just declared war. But Victor thinks love really can conquer all in this warm, genuine, and touching romantic comedy about life in the part of the city most people never see," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Peter Sollett' "Raising Victor Vargas" elicits engaging "debut" performances from lead actor Victor Rasuk (as Victor Vargas) and the cast. Mr. Rasuk and juicy Judy Marte (as Judy Gonzalez) are sexy and endearing as "Lower East Side Kids" discovering the joy of sexual attraction. Considering how attractive they look in this picture, it's not hard to predict they hook up - and, although you may wonder how "innocent" they really are, their characterizations seem true.<br /><br />Victor's brother "Nino" is played by Victor's real-life brother Silvestre Rasuk, who looks the part his older brother is playing. Sometimes, it's nice to see movie brothers who actually look alike; and, hopefully they will work together again. "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" sister Krystal Rodriguez (as Vicki) and old world Altagracia Guzman (as Grandma) round out the sex-starved Dominican immigrant family. So, are hand-held-camera coming-of-age films in vogue, or what? <br /><br />******* Raising Victor Vargas (5/16/02) Peter Sollett ~ Victor Rasuk, July Marte, Silvestre Rasuk | positive |
Trailers of this movie may show scenes of violence or non mainstream sexuality, but these scenes are just rare fragments, picked out to attract audience. They are, of course showing the main message of the movie:<br /><br />People who are constantly kicked on their heads in their jobs and lives, using power, which they may have somewhere else, to notoriously oppress others. And at the low end of the oppression chain, mostly women.<br /><br />A movie showing this as brutally as Hundstage is surely tough to face, but having to endure such lives, is even tougher.<br /><br />Technically the film is much like Short Cuts, but consisting of documentary style episodes, featuring people like your neighbour, playing just the way they are. Without any glitter, and most disturbingly, without any hope. Its documentary style makes the movie even more disturbing, because you realize, such people are out there, and there are many of them, although our society focuses on the nice exterior looks. Somewhere the porn industry has to do its business, somewhere unreported domestic violence has to take place, somewhere hopes have to shatter. I sure do know such people.<br /><br />If you want to see a movie without any funny scenes (some may think the handicapped woman repeating the top ten supermarkets is funny, but this happens for real) and without any melodramatic, go watch this movie. However it will lose when you are focusing on subtitles I fear, as subtitles can´t transport accentuation. | positive |
I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.<br /><br />Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.<br /><br />Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film "The Iron Giant", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".<br /><br />On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.<br /><br />Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.<br /><br />The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat. | negative |
At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, "What was the plot again?" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from "The Matrix," although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about "Star Wars" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The "Morpheus" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! | negative |
Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.<br /><br />Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.<br /><br />Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.<br /><br />As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence. | negative |
Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED! | negative |
Some of those guys that watch films and complain about them for a living are forgetting something: DVD menu system. I tell you the people, I watched the main screen repeat in this one about 35 times. It was awesome. A cinematic tapestry of cascading brilliance that had me from where it was, which was the very beginning. Many times the sum and Bam! I was hooked. Over and over and over. And over.<br /><br />"Doot de doot, de doo de dodedo." And that's just the soundtrack! <br /><br />I is laid aside in the bed, curled up with my Vaio. The rain is in the flat roof and tonight soft is again soft. The cat is comfortable and my ankle which crosses in me, is already rested. I popped in the DVD. I was mesmerized. Through the night. "doot de doot, de doo de dodedo."<br /><br />The Blob. See it. Steve Queen, two cops, and one girl in a dress. Two thumbs way up! | positive |
After some of the negative reviews i heard on this movie, i was doubtful of giving it a go, but i had £3.99 in my wallet & thought id gamble on buying a budget like movie & saw this and gave it ago & I'm glad i did, i enjoyed it. Directed by The star of films such as Chain Reaction, the Ring, Bourne Identity,(Brian Cox) i had to gamble with this even if it was rubbish but it weren't at all, i found some of the humour quite funny especially Alfred Molina the star of Spider-man 2 the Character Doc Ock. He was excellent the most enjoyable part of the film. Of course like many other people which bought this movie i saw Matthew's name, and that made me get it! and no his part isn't big at all, it's very short at the very end of the film, it's not a big part which makes me believe thats why people hate the film. I suggest you give it a go. Some parts are a pit poor that needed polishing, the acting, and a bit more action. But it's watchable. | positive |
I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.<br /><br />One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.<br /><br />The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.<br /><br />Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing. | negative |
This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT! | positive |
Movie didn't have much plot and was uninteresting. Basically you spend a lot of time watching people paint. Also it's very difficult to hear or understand the dialogue -- partially because of the accents, but also because words are mumbled. | negative |
This is a film that revolves around two mysteries (which I have now demystifed).<br /><br />First, did the film makers understand the concept of 'parody' before using it to carpet bomb the audience throughout the film? Parody is when a reproduction attempts to mock, comment on, or pay homage through self-depreciating humour to, the original work. In other words, there should be reasons to parody such work, and they should definitely be clever. I didn't see any of those in the film. I did see some awful 10 seconds jokes that fell flat within 2 seconds of delivery. Bryan Stoller probably went to Eric Roberts and said "hey, I was drunk last night, watching Survivors, and had this brain fart for a straight to DVD release. I want you on board without reading the script...because I plan to direct this film without one!" <br /><br />And herein lies the second mystery: Eric Robert's career. I use to think Eric Roberts had the career he had because he was unlucky. Now I realize it's because he is stupid (and therefore deserves the career that he had). After watching this movie, it is apparent that he would have been better off had he gone into mainstream adult films, which has higher budgets, more...intense...scenes and roles, better acting and direction, more elaborate and compelling plot lines, and a much wider audience than this B-movie reject (C-movie?). | negative |
This is a phenomenal movie. Truly one of the best movies I have ever watched. I am a serious critic and it takes much to stir me, but this movie had all the right combinations for "stirring". The passion of the actors,without the overacting, the aching for all the characters involved, the serious and subtle truths about marriage and divorce, all make this a must see movie, despite the fact that it is 1970s. This is definitely not an "old movie", but a classic/vintage movie. I hope you engage with it as I did when you consider how volatile relationships of all kinds can be, when you also consider how deep pain associated with love can be and how the hardest decisions to make will always be the most painful, but once they are made the pain will subside, but only gradually. This movie certainly demonstrates that the most volatile relationships are not necessarily weak relationships and that leaving certainly is not synonymous with lost/lack of love. The 'crafting' of this movie certainly emanates from a place deep within someone's heart and mind. | positive |
Although copies of this movie are hard to find, if you can find it, get it!! !!! I believe this was, aside from In The Navy, Abbott and Costello's only musical. Although they twisted the plot around a little, (I've never heard a version where the butcher goes up with him), you still enjoy the antics of the slightly idiotic but lovable Jack, and the greedy butcher, Mr. Dinklepuss. Slightly reminiscent of DuBarry Was a Lady, this uproarious film will have you rolling on the floor - only to get up and dance as Lou Costello sings. (I don't know why they didn't do that in other films.) | positive |
"More", maybe, is mostly remembered for the excellent soundtrack composed by Pink Floyd -in 1969 they weren't superstars yet. Actually they made an album with the film music, no fan can miss it!<br /><br />But this is also the first film of German-French director Barbet Schroeder: it's a cult movie. When it was released, censorship everywhere cut several scenes of sex and drugs. It is also one of the first films to treat explicitly the theme of drug slavery.<br /><br />A German boy travels to Paris and meets an American girl: they fall in love. Together they search for sun and exoticism. But it's a too high price love: she initiates him into drugs.<br /><br />In the Sixties anti-drug campaigns were not like today, there wasn't much information. On the contrary, in many milieus taking drugs was a sort of spiritual experience... So it's quite surprising to see a film of that period which describes a nightmarish heroin experience.<br /><br />The film is simple, not vulgar at all and shot in a "cinema-verité" style. Actors Mimsy Farmer and Klaus Grünberg are very convincing. "More" is a document of the end of the Sixties -and a document of the end of the hippies illusions as well. | positive |
I've never made one of these before, but this movie was literally so bad I had to say something about it.<br /><br />I'm all for independent film-making as the past year has seen of the worst (in my opinion) of Hollywood's showings, the mainstream just seems to have lost touch with what making good films is all about. That being said movies like this really give independent film a bad reputation.<br /><br />The characters are boring and too stupid to empathize with. The direction is horrible, the plotting is horrible, the plot itself is horrible, stay away, far away. Only one brief scene featuring a female's nude breasts, and even that wasn't worth a second look.<br /><br />The scariest thing about this movie is the idea of ever having to watch it again. I gave it a 2 and not a 1 simply because the actors were visible and the sound was audible - it earns one point for each of those traits. | negative |
This is NOT as bad a movie as some reviewers, and as the summary at the IMDB page for this movie, say it is. Why? First is the fact that in 1984 the movie makers were daring enough to confront, as one of the plot elements, the issue of domestic violence -- so reviewers who complain about the plot are sadly missing one of the main points! Second, without the plot element of Prince's movie relationship with his abusive father, the musical climax wouldn't work as well as it does -- so those reviewers who say that only the music is good have, once again, missed one of the points -- specifically, WHY it is so good...because all of the music in this film has a plot element backdrop that makes the music more effective. Third, give this movie a break! For first-time movie producers and director, this is just not that bad! There are far worse movies out there by accomplished movie people!! And last, the reviewers who say that the music is "good" have also missed the point -- check out the range of stylistic musical treatments, the variety, the musicianship, and the stage performance of Prince -- truly one of a kind, going musically where no one else was going during the 1980's, and with a style seen in the work of other artists (clothes and movement: which costuming elements came first, Michael Jackson's or Prince's? Also, see if you can spot the splayed fingers sweeping in front of the eyes that Prince does in this movie, long before Quentin Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction"). As the sum of its parts, not a bad movie at all. | positive |
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why. | negative |
I write this after just seeing the latest episode broadcast in the UK, and to me it must be a tough job to keep up the standard. The last episode shown called "Blink" has elements of Gothic horror all to do with statues that aren't quite what they seem. The Doctor and Martha don't appear much, but that doesn't detract from a well crafted episode. The general standard has built to a high level and the last three episodes, the two parter with "The Family" and the latest have to me been the best that the current team have ever done.<br /><br />It's not just David Tennant holding it together, the whole supporting cast week in, week out are helping as well. For those awaiting series 3 abroad, the wait is is well worth it. | positive |
A lot of people in the cinema enjoyed this film, but it only made me feel misanthropic. If smug "intellectuals" bantering about their irritating sex lives, sounds ok to you, watch it. I felt bored, but glad I did know people like that. The premise of the film was that, as with all societies or great civilizations, they are eventually doomed to fail. According to the female historian character, who bores us with this fact, America is showing signs of it's decline (Admittedly she goes into greater detail than me). The next part of the film is concerned with the vacuous, fatuous and asinine behaviour of her friends and colleagues, and the various miseries caused by their libidinous behaviour, with a vague attempt at humor. A lot of people liked this movie where I watched it. I could not relate to it. | negative |
From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt. | negative |
Every time this film is on the BBC somebody in the Radio Times says how it is a satire against the post war world of rationing and the welfare state. I do not think this is the point of the film at all. The film parodies the spivs(small time criminals who ran the blackmarket) and the housewives league who campaigned against government restrictions but were really a Tory front organisation.<br /><br />Yes of course the film sends up the political/social situation but in the end the people realise that they need all the controls to ensure a fair society,they want to be British and muddle through rather than foreign.<br /><br />But I don't think they go back to being exactly like they were before. | positive |
This gripping tale of intergenerational love, jealousy and revenge was even more enjoyable to see on DVD years after its PBS broadcast, with a sharper picture and crisper sound. My only reservations are that the plot has a few improbable moments and that some of the stronger Manchester accents are difficult at times. Luckily even missing a word here and there won't spoil the fun: the primary actors are ideally cast. Robson Green brings an enigmatic smile, a go-for-broke temperament and an athletic physicality to his role as a young surgeon who falls hopelessly for the wife of his boss at the hospital where he's just begun to work. Francesca Annis is one of the most striking 50-ish women imaginable; her acting rivals her beauty. (The love scenes between these two demonstrate better than words how little the age difference matters to them!) Each of the supporting characters is sharply drawn and excellently portrayed as well. The mix of pithy dialog and passionate excess makes this a delightful miniseries. As Russell Baker notes in his introduction, you may not be morally improved by viewing "Reckless" -- but you'll have plenty of fun. (The sequel, a part of the DVD box set, provides a wild yet satisfying two-hour denouement. You won't want to miss it if you've enjoyed what came before.) | positive |
MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD! OK the movie in a nutshell. so this girl goes out buys drugs gets pulled over by a cop, the cops name is Wolf. the cop feels her butt, then he eats her...okay? he beats her up and eats her. then this woman is at home and this guy come with bulging genitals and he does her up. then the woman goes into the other room and this black guy is there and she undresses.....then the movie turns into a porno. he starts sucking on her breasts, then she gives him head. then wolf walks in with blood all over him and says "honey I'm home" then he realizes his wife is blowing some black guy and he kills her, the black guy kills him cuts the girl out of wolfs stomach and the go home. the end and they lived happily ever after. THAT IS THE MOVIE.<br /><br />now after reading this do u really think there is anything to like about this movie. the only thing i liked in the woman had a nice body. but the performances sucked, the story sucked, the dialogue sucked, THE WHOLE MOVIE JUST SUCKED!!!!! | negative |
The quintessential Georgian film of Georgi Danelia, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't Grieve is loosely based on the novel by French writer Claude Tillier (1801-1844) "Mon oncle Benjamin" The novel takes place in the country side of the 18th Century France. The Great French Revolution is still ahead but some of its stormy signs are present in society. Benjamin, the local doctor is a soul of a local society, the educated, friendly, democratic person who often treats the poor for free. It makes him very popular with the locals but most certainly does not help with his bank account. He is in love with a beautiful Manette who is also crazy about him but is being watched closely by her father who called his daughter "his small capital" and is determined to protect her virginity until the moment the marriage contract has been signed... I never read the book, and from description it sounds like a charming very French novel but I am fascinated with the results of moving the characters and some plot elements from 18th Century France to the beginning of 20th century Georgia-Grusiya. I would think that it was Danelia who came up with all the colorful memorable characters that feel so much at home in his native Georgia-Grusiya, the land of long and wonderful traditions, including Art of making and drinking wine, rare music talent that all Georgians seem to possess, very unique humor, and high code of honor. When we watched the film last night together with my husband, he said, what a great example of an Art film, and I so agree with him. Don't Grieve is a perfect Art movie, visually beautiful, deep but funny, at times sad and philosophical but never in a preachy arrogant way but optimistic, celebrating life with all its beauty and sadness, full of interest, loving irony and understanding for its slightly eccentric but very human characters. What is the most important, the film is warm and gentle, it does not look down at its viewers as some of the Art pictures do. You don't have to be a movie buff to love it, to live with it, to smile and sigh at it, to follow the good-hearted young Doctor Benjamin (first role in a Danelia film of famous singer and actor Wachtang Kikabidze with whom Danelia would go on to make two more films including one of my all time favorites, Mimino) on his journey through the roads and mountains of Georgia. Or to be a guest on one of a kind party where the friends gather to celebrate life of the old doctor Levan who wanted to be a guest on his own wake, to hear what his friends have to say about him when he dies while he is still alive, and who gets to choose which color he prefers for his coffin. When I watched the film I thought that it is a sort of movie that Federico Fellini might have liked. I was not surprised at all to find the article about Danelia where he names Fellini his number one director. I also found out that according Danelia, the famous Soviet directors, Leonid Gaiday (the creator of many beloved comedies) and Sergei Paraszhanov (the visionary whom I don't have to introduce loved another Danelia's film, fairy tale about American boy Huck Finn, Sovsem propashchiy) felt and spoke negatively about Don't Grieve while Fellini praised it highly. I dare go a little further and just guess that perhaps Maestro Fellini kept in mind some images and the very aura and atmosphere of Don't Grieve when he was making Amrarcord in 1973. Just a thought, because there is something essential that connects both films. Both Artists came back to their roots, to the places that they love deeply, to the people they remembered, loved and wanted to honor. Both films have a lot of smiles through the tears. Both are Art movies that would get directly to the hearts of the viewers. Both are masterworks.<br /><br />I think I am going to add Georgi Danelia to the list of my favorite directors. He has made some of the brilliant pictures in my most favorite genre of dramedy, even tragicomedies that are funny and bitter sweet, poignant and subtle, earthy and uplifting, gentle and shining. When I looked up the list of the movies he has written/directed, I was amazed at the fact that he has not made a single bad film since he started back in 1960 with the Award winning story of a young boy, Seryozha. Many of Danelia's films are among my favorites, as I am sure they are among his legions of fans. The man behind 'Seryozha, Sovsem propashchiy (1972) which is an adaptation of Mark Twain The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 33, Ya shagayu po Moskve (1964) aka Walking the Streets of Moscow, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't grieve, Afonya (1975), Mimino (1977), Osenniy marafon (1979) aka Autumn Marathon or Sad Comedy which is a very fitting title for this movie as well as for the whole genre that Danelia practically invented, and the cult favorite for over 20 years Kin-Dza-Dza (1986), is brilliant and deserves our true love and genuine gratitude for the unforgettable moments of cinematic happiness. | positive |
After 2 years of using this site for movie reviews, I finally registered with IMDB just so I could give Farscape a "10." The show's writers, cast and crew have proven themselves the unambiguous masters of the science fiction genre. Even those who do not normally appreciate sci-fi should be encouraged to give this exceptional series a chance!<br /><br />Farscape's virtues are simply too numerous to list, but one of them stands out above all; the quality of the writing is amazing. I haven't heard dialogue this good since "Blake's 7." In fact, Farscape feels a lot like a "Blake's 7" with good special effects and a bit more romance.<br /><br />Everyone, enjoy! | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.