Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
A very funny movie. Michael Douglas' "do" is worth watching this flick for if for no other reason. I'd like to see him do more of these low life roles. He was terrific, as were all the performers.<br /><br />The film struck me right off as an American Roshomon, only funnier and easier to watch because it was in American and didn't need no stinkin subtitles!<br /><br />In a funny movie with a laugh every minute or so, two of the best were with John Goodman (not someone I am crazy about) - 1. He is telling the priest about Jewel doing something he liked and says "I had to wipe the smile off my face." The visual shows he is not smiling and clearly is a guy who never smiles, but probably doesn't know it. 2. The scene at the end between Goodman, all suited up for Jewel in his cop uniform, and grappling with the be-leathered Reiser hunched over a table... and the two of them then protesting that they are not gay to another character who happens on the scene - this alone deserved a special Comedy Academy Award. | positive |
Peter O'Toole gives a brilliant performance in this movie. I have seen the original version with Robert Donat and I much prefer Peter O'Toole's performance and the movie in general even though it is a musical. I've really never seen anything that Mr. O'Toole is in that I don't like. He is a brilliant actor, multi-talented, giving performances full of passion and depth. Petula Clark also gave a surprisingly good performance and was perfect for the part. It is an all-around heartwarming movie, full of tenderness and bittersweet fun. I will always remember (in para-phrase) the line where Mr. Chips regrets he has never given her children, and she replies, "Of course you have, hundreds of them -- all boys." Thank you for the opportunity to vote for this movie and to voice my opinion. | positive |
This was a dreadful, boring movie, even for a documentary. At times, it did provided insight to life and also had humorous moments, but overall it was not worth seeing. Every time I began to feel sympathetic towards Mark and began to hope he would be successful, I would become disappointed by his lack of responsibility and drug and alcohol abuse. | negative |
I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.<br /><br />OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.<br /><br />As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.<br /><br />I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror. | negative |
Considering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.<br /><br />Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat. | negative |
The comments of the previous user are harsh indeed. One wonders if they have even seen this beautiful sweet film. As for being so nasty about it in front of the writer/director..well thats just plain rude! For those who grew up in the eighties, it is an artful piece of nostalgia and a sweet story well acted and produced. Irish film-making sure has a lot of bitter angry people involved with it and the spleen venting comment made about this is evidence of it.. As people we have a choice; give out and moan about the people who actually go out there and make stuff or make something yourself.. I know which one is easier... Do yourself a favour and watch this film and see how a short film is made... you won't be disappointed | positive |
Finally a thriller which omits the car chases, explosions and other eye catching effects. The movie combines a simple plot (assasination of a french president) with an excellent background. It takes a look behind mans behavior with authorities, and explains why we would obey almost every order (even murder) which would be given to us.<br /><br />Furthermore it shows us how secret services can manipulate the run of history and how hardly they can be controlled. The best thing on this movie is, that there is no classic "Hollywood end" which can easily be predicted. | positive |
The main complaint with this film is the fact that I CAN NOT tell who is who. No racism intended, but these Asians look all the same! I can tell somewhat of the story, but heck thats about as far as it goes. The peoples identities are not a mystery, if they were a mystery I would care about them. Instead I wasn't them off the screen ASAP.<br /><br />Tons of wide shots and silent emotionless faces occupy this movie. Heck is it boring, not only do I not know these people, but they are just sitting there.<br /><br />The production is typical Chinese John Woo, terrible video with blotched scenes. This looks only slightly better than Andy Lau's "Fulltime Killer" (Which was a great movie.) You would think with a decent budget they could at least make it look like 90s Hollywood. I didn't know the Chinese had these art-house beatniks. | negative |
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.<br /><br />I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic
nothing really makes any sense.<br /><br />Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it
nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.<br /><br />Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.<br /><br />Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here
I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things
Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine
especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough
HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer. | negative |
The significance of French title of this film, "La Naissance des Pieuvres" which literally means "The Birth of the Octopuses", is rather obscure, so it is perhaps not surprising that it has been marketed in English-speaking countries as "Water Lilies". The "lilies" of the English title are three teenage girls, Marie, Anne and Floriane, who are members of a synchronised swimming team based in the Paris suburbs, and the film is a "coming-of-age" drama about the development of their first sexual feelings.<br /><br />One feature of the film, perhaps unusual for a film of this type, is that it concentrates exclusively on relationships between the young people themselves. We see nothing of their parents or their teachers, and very little of the adult world at all. The three girls are very different in appearance, and are portrayed as being very different in character. The shy, retiring Marie is slim and petite and appears to be the youngest of the three. Anne is something of a plain Jane, Floriane a glamorous blonde who is very popular with the boys. The three, together with a handsome male swimmer named Francois, are involved in what might be described as a love-quadrilateral.<br /><br />Anne has fallen in love with Francois, but he is smitten with Floriane, who seems to return his affections, although he is by no means her only male admirer. Indeed, not all of Floriane's admirers are male, because Marie has a crush on her attractive friend. The film charts the way in which their friendship develops; at first it seems that Floriane is simply using Marie as a convenient excuse when she is in fact going out to meet boys; her parents presumably object to her dating boys, but have no objection to her going out with female friends. Later, however, we realise that, despite Floriane's image as the sexy, popular girl who is always the centre of male attention, she actually reciprocates Marie's feelings. The film reverses some conventional stereotypes about sexuality. Anne, with her short hair and rather chunky figure, looks typically "butch", yet she is the only one of the three main characters who is unambiguously heterosexual, whereas the more conventionally feminine Marie and the glamorous Floriane are lesbian, or at least bisexual.<br /><br />Coming-of-age films are common enough, although most of them tend to avoid the controversial topic of teenage lesbianism. "Water Lilies", however, deals with its subject-matter in a sensitive way, with three very good performances from its three leading actresses, Pauline Acquart, Adele Haenel and Louise Blachere. The relationships between the characters, especially that between Marie and Floriane, are complex, and capable of a number of interpretations. (Is Floriane, for example, simply using Marie for sex, or does she genuinely have romantic feelings for her? Could Floriane's sluttish behaviour with Francois and the other boys be just a device to hide her lesbian feelings from the outside world? Or even to hide them from herself?) This was the first film made by its young director Celine Sciamma (only 27 at the time); on this basis she must be regarded as a highly promising newcomer. 7/10 | positive |
This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever in Calvin Levels and a weak script. The characters were terrible, and it has hardly any action,plus even Chuck Norris stinks in this!. Christopher Neame is very weak as the main villain, and the story was not very interesting plus Norris seemed bored with the whole thing and i don't blame him as i was too!. Calvin levels gives one of the most annoying performances in a movie ever, i couldn't stand as i was tempted to rip the tape out of my VCR, plus Norris and Levels had no chemistry together!. If your looking for some great martial art moves from Norris don't go near this, however if you want a movie with an uninteresting story, hardly any action and bad acting look further!. This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever from Calvin levels, Avoid it like the plague!. The Direction is incredibly bad. Aaron Norris does an incredibly bad job here, with no suspense or thrills bland camera work, and keeping the film at a dull pace!. There is a little bit of blood and violence. We get 2 gory impaling's,ripped out heart, exploding body and a few gunshot wounds. The Acting is really bad. Chuck Norris is not AMAZING as he usually is here and seemed very bored here, his one liners are flat, and his acting wasn't that great and i am a huge Norris Fan, this is his absolute worst! (Norris still Rules!).Calvin Levels is INCREDIBLY annoying here, his whiny wimpy performance severely grated me, i was so hoping for him to get it good!, but sadly he didn't. Christopher Neame is pretty weak as the main villain, his voice was cool, but he over acted big time!. Sheree J. Wilson is beautiful and did okay with what she had to do. Rest of the cast are terrible. Overall Please avoid this it's not worth the torture, even if you are a huge Norris fan (like me). BOMB out of 5 | negative |
If you ever see a stand up comedy movie this is the one. You will laugh nonstop if you have any sense of humor at all. This is a once in a lifetime performance from a once in a lifetime performer. This is a stand up standard. | positive |
I got myself a copy of this film thinking it was the 1964 film with 'Zombie Bloodbath' as one of it's alternative titles. Perversely, this film actually has a better rating on this site than the aforementioned title; which may mean that the other one is really bad! This film is pretty bad too; obviously you cant go into a film that calls itself 'Zombie Bloodbath' and expect to see a masterpiece, and in fairness it does live up to the title with the amount of gore on display...but it all feels very old and tired, which isn't helped by the atrocious acting and stupid plot line. It's just your average nuclear spill causing people to turn into zombies etc etc. The film kicks off with a sequence that sees people melting and that pretty much lets you know what you're in for; low quality zombie garbage. There's plenty of gore in the film, and it's a real good job otherwise the film would have been really boring. Zombie Bloodbath looks really cheap too, and was clearly put together by inexperienced filmmakers! The main influence seemed to be Romero's superior Day of the Dead, although it could really be just about anything that features zombies and gore. It all boils down to a typically predictable and pointless ending and overall I can't say I was impressed with it! | negative |
Cinderella is a beautiful young woman who is treated cruelly by her wicked stepmother and stepsisters. One day, a ball is to be held in honor of the prince, but Cinderella has no chance of going, because her stepmother and stepsisters won't let her. With the help of her fairy godmother and her animal friends, she is off to the ball, with the warning to return home by midnight. At the ball she meets the handsome Prince Charming. When the clock strikes midnight, she runs home, leaving behind one of her glass slippers. With the help of her animal friends, her true identity is revealed. She and the prince later get married, and they live happily ever after.<br /><br />Cinderella, released 56 years ago, was a huge box office success, and it continues to charm audiences to this day. It has a well-written script. The characters are memorable. The songs, including "A Dream is A Wish Your Heart Makes", "So This Is Love", and the great "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo", help tell the story. This was my favorite movie growing up, and it hasn't lost any of its charm. A true Disney masterpiece! Recommended. 10/10 P.S. The recent DVD release is the best way to appreciate this film, including featurettes, deleted scenes, music video, vintage radio programs, and a restored print of the movie! | positive |
This movie has one redeeming feature. At one point, after a character is attacked by an ax-wielding fairy, his brother asks him, "Why is your dick over there, Chuck?" After suffering through almost an hour of bad film, this almost made my drink come out my nose.<br /><br />Some of the acting isn't too bad, but the kids all stink and P. J. Soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. The story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should.<br /><br />Of course, there are a lot of story points that don't add up. For example, in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist, a difficult feat since they apparently can't interact with physical matter. However, minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the Tooth Fairy with them. Apparently they CAN sometimes move matter and sometimes they CAN'T. Go figure.<br /><br />Lots of blood and guts, though...a few nice boobs. But this doesn't make up for the deficiencies.<br /><br />If you want a movie about the Tooth Fairy, go rent "Darkness Falls". I think it's great, though a lot of other reviewers don't share my opinion. At least it sets a mood. | negative |
A group of four young men, attending a prestigious private school, belong to an old covenant that was formed by their ancestors during the time of the witch hunts of the late 1600s. They each possess a power that ages them whenever they use it and they suspect that a new kid at the academy might be from a family that was thought to have perished long ago. This new guy wants everyone's power for himself.<br /><br />This not a horror movie as it tries to present itself as. Yes, there is magic and all that supernatural stuff, but this is really just an action movie. A very mediocre action movie. Focusing almost solely on being cool and slick and paying only minimal attention to the plot, which has plenty of sadly unused room for interesting twists. But none were put in and even before the movie is half over you'll know what is being played and by whom.<br /><br />There are a few good scenes here and there, most notably an exploding car that is magically reconstructed after colliding with a big rig, but that's about it. What's worse is that director Renny Harlin, who has some very entertaining if not smart movies to his credit, relies heavily on blasting metal music and overly sexy leads to carry that film and that makes it quite possibly the silliest "horror" movie since the disastrous "Alone in the Dark." It is not as bad as "Alone in the Dark" since the few slick scenes are actually slick and not ridiculously incompetent, but in the end, the highest this film can hope for is a nice and cozy home on late night cable. 3/10<br /><br />Rated PG-13: violent action | negative |
I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.<br /><br />Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.<br /><br />The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10 | negative |
This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. "I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy "comedy" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews. | negative |
Sigh
I sincerely wonder why all the acclaimed and supposedly profound movie critics hold such a grudge against director Michael Winner? Surely he isn't the avatar of subtlety, as his films are practically always hard-handed and confronting, but so what? They're awesomely entertaining. His most famous action movies, like the first three entries in the "Death Wish"-series for example, are easy targets to clobber down because they allegedly glorify violence and the personal use of shotguns, but even when Winner takes on far more mature cinema genres like the religious horrors of "The Sentinel" for example he doesn't stand a chance with any of the critics. "The Sentinel" generated some controversy and infuriated several people upon its release, when it leaked that Michael Winner cast genuinely malformed and handicapped people to portray the creatures attempting to cross the gateways between hell and earth. Pretty much the exact same controversy caused Todd's Browning's masterpiece and landmark in horror cinema "Freaks" to remain banned and unseen for over thirty years! And why? Just because certain prudish and easily offended people, who shouldn't watch the movie in the first place, claim it's an unethical thing to do? I don't suppose Michael Winner or Todd Browning held these people at gunpoint or forced them to appear in their films, so what gives us the right to feel embarrassed in their place? Another major reason why critics didn't warmly welcome "The Sentinel" is because Jeffrey Konvitz' novel and thus Michael Winner's screenplay is hugely derivative of other contemporary but far more successful religiously themed horror stories and thus, according to the merciless pens of horror critics, little more than pure plagiarism. Admittedly "The Sentinel" borrows multiple substantial elements from "Rosemary's Baby", "The Omen" and "The Exorcist", but let's face it, 70's cinema largely thrives on stolen formulas and imitating success stories. If you overlook the slightly unoriginal concept and, in all fairness, a handful of thoroughly confusing and unnecessary sub plots, "The Sentinel" honestly still remains a uniquely atmospheric and often downright petrifying 70's horror-highlight with an impressive ensemble cast and nightmarish imagery you're not likely to forget easy.<br /><br />Alison Parker, a ravishing model with some unprocessed mental traumas, moves into a stunning brownstone apartment in Brooklyn, deeply against the will of her boyfriend Michael who proposed to wed her several times already. Alison's physical existence and especially her mental condition drastically alter shortly after, and the ominous apartment appears to be the root of all misery. She meets eccentric neighbors and attends birthday parties for their cats, even though the landlady claims she and a blind priest are the only tenants. She frequently faints during her work assignments and has truly creepy visions of her bastard father and the night she attempted to commit suicide. It slowly becomes clear that Alison got chosen to serve a higher supernatural purpose inside this apartment building, but simultaneously malignant forces try and prevent this. It's truly regrettable how the promotional taglines and even brief synopsis on the back of the DVD immediately reveal that Alison's brownstone apartment is the earth's gateway to hell itself and she's the chosen one to guard it, because the film's script only slowly builds up towards this shocking revelation. For nearly 75 minutes (and throughout some sadly tedious and overlong sequences) Michael Winner successfully maintains the impression that Alison's own mind is playing tricks with her and that the involvement of the Catholic Church and her fiancée's odd behavior are strictly red herrings. Multiple of the horrific scenes come pretty close to being genius, like Alison's flashback or her first acquaintance with the priest upstairs. The whole climax, with the controversial guest appearances mentioned here above, is a literally perplexing showcase of pure terror and easily one of the most unforgettable and nail-biting denouements I ever witnessed.<br /><br />The cast Michael Winner managed to gather is deeply impressive, especially considering "The Sentinel" still remains a legitimate horror movie and this genre isn't the most popular among prominent actors, but of course you also have to put the cast listing a little into perspective. With such an extended cast, obviously several of the roles in the film are little more than cameos. Martin Balsam and John Carradine, for example, only appear on screen for a couple of minutes all together. Several others (like Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger) perhaps add a lot of fame to the movie nowadays, but back when it was released they were still too unknown in order to attract curious viewers. My personal pick for best performances go to Burgess Meredith as the uncanny neighbor and Eli Wallach as the satirical police inspector. The relatively unknown Cristina Raines does an admirable job carrying the film and Chris Sarandon neatly back her up, even though he sports a ridiculous mustache. In my humble opinion "The Sentinel" is a marvelously entertaining and frightening horror movie, and most definitely a must-see for TRUE genre fanatics. | positive |
The widower family man Dan Burns (Steve Carell) writes the column "Dan in Real Life" giving advices for families in The New Jersey Standard and raises his three daughters alone. Jane (Allison Pill), the older, has just got her driving license but Dan does not allow her to drive; Cara (Brittany Robertson) has a crush on his high-school mate Marty; and the young Lily (Marlene Lawston) misses her mother. When Dan and his daughters travel to Rhode Island for a family reunion, he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a bookstore and they spend hours talking to each other. They feel attracted for each other, but Marie receives a phone call and leaves Dan, giving her phone number first. Dan immediately falls in love for Marie, but when he return to his parent's home, he finds that Marie is the girlfriend of his wolf brother Mitch Burns (Dane Cook), who is also in love with her. Along the weekend, the attraction between the clumsy Dan and Marie increases and they have to take a decision.<br /><br />"Dan in Real Life" is a great surprise and a delightful movie, with comedy, romance and drama. The chemistry of the gorgeous Juliette Binoche and Steve Carell is awesome and it is very easy to know why everybody loves Marie. The trio Allison Pill, Brittany Robertson and Marlene Lawston is fantastic and their characters are responsible for some of the best moments of this story. The screenplay is wonderful and the performances of the talented actors and actresses are stunning, with a realistic behavior of a family meeting. Follow the advice of Dan's column and plan to be surprised with the reunion of the Burns' family. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Eu, Meu Irmão e Nossa Namorada" ("Me, My Brother and Our Girlfriend") | positive |
Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.<br /><br />Nope. It's not "Only Angels Have Wings" and it's not "M*A*S*H." It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.<br /><br />It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.<br /><br />As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.<br /><br />The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., "When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?" Replies another, guffawing, "No, it means it's night time." That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.<br /><br />There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.<br /><br />Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me. | negative |
Can a mentally challenged black youth be a catalyst to unite people in a South Carolina town? The answer appears to be that in spite of his handicap, James Kennedy, understood much more than what he was given credit for and went to become a fixture in the sports scene. Also, the film is saying how many of us overlook people with problems that can be helped if only we have the patience Coach Jones showed to the young man because of his own guilt in his heart.<br /><br />"Radio", directed by Michael Tolllin, is a formula film inspired on a true story. Yet, the movie is not a complete failure because of the inspired performances the director was able to get from his wonderful cast.<br /><br />Coach Jones is instrumental in getting the young man, who is called Radio because his passion for collecting them, involved in sports, a passion he discovers in this retarded man who has had only hard knocks in his young life. Coming from a poor background, Radio, lives with his mother who is protective of him and questions the coach's intentions. Radio is seen by the school kids as a mascot, at first, then, his sunny disposition wins him the acceptance of everyone because he is a good person without an ounce of malice in his body.<br /><br />The film owes a lot to Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. who make a great pair as the coach and Radio. Mr. Harris, one of the best actors of our times is never boring in anything he graces with his presence. He gets the essence of the principled coach who sees the possibility to make amends for something that bothers him from his past. Cuba Gooding Jr. is also at his best portraying the mentally challenged young man.<br /><br />The supporting cast is excellent. S. Ephata Merkerson, one of the best actresses of her generation, does interesting work as the mother of Radio. Alfre Woodard, another good actress plays the high school principle with style. Debra Winger, only has a few scenes in the film.<br /><br />"Radio", while being sentimental, will warm anyone's heart because it shows how we tend to see some people are in our society that we know nothing about and how quick we are to judge them. Michael Tollin puts a lot of ideas in the proper perspective for us. | positive |
This is both an entertaining and a touching version of the classic tale, also quite intelligent, not of the 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' school at all.<br /><br />It's the famous story of a child reared to manhood in the jungle by apes. A titled British couple (the wife pregnant) is stranded in the African wilds after a shipwreck. After the parents' deaths, the baby is raised in the jungle by apes. Twenty years later, this young man (i.e. Tarzan) rescues a wounded Belgian explorer, nursing him back to health. The Belgian discovers evidence that his rescuer is the young Lord Greystoke and returns him to his rightful estate in Scotland, where he must adjust to civilized society. <br /><br />The movie is sort of divided into two parts. In the first half, we see Tarzan in his jungle environment. Not being an expert, I am unaware as to the realism of its depiction of ape community life, but it is certainly entertaining. For me, the more moving section is the second half, when Tarzan must meet his real family, develop language skills, and adjust to aristocratic British society, all the while wooing Jane (Andie MacDowell). He is portrayed as a 'noble savage', whether in the wild or in elegant Edwardian parlors. By contrast, the upper crust is depicted as often far more barbaric than the jungle Tarzan left.<br /><br />Christopher Lambert is fantastic in his sympathetic portrayal of Tarzan in both the jungle and civilized environments. He conveys a real sense of his confusion and conflict, torn as he is between the two very different worlds, his original ape family and his new human one. Sir Ralph Richardson, one of the old British legends, is brilliant as always in the role of Tarzan's grandfather, the Sixth Earl of Greystoke. <br /><br />The film focuses more on Tarzan's struggles in adapting to civilization and his inner conflict than on his jungle exploits. This unusual take on the old classic makes it both the typical dramatic adventure but also, above all, a moving personal story. I wasn't surprised to note here that its director is the same individual, Hugh Hudson, who also directed Chariots of Fire, another brilliant movie. | positive |
Ok i know the original Ghoulies aren't in this entry it even seems it doesn't belong in this series. But it still iz a good movie. It is hilarious i thought especially with the pepper spray or mace. I give it a 9 | positive |
This is a romantic comedy where Albert Einstein, played wonderfully by Walter Matthau, and his cronies play match maker to his niece (Meg Ryan) and a talented auto mechanic (Tim Robbins). The interplay among these major roles is augmented by a terrific supporting cast of well recognized character actors. This movie is cute and fun ... a "feel-gooder"! Hearty recommendations. | positive |
With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, "How did this movie ever get made?" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one. | negative |
You can't help but marvel at Hitchcock's early work. "Saboteur," for example, is so slick and quick that it's hard to believe he made this film over 60 years ago. There's some propaganda elements but they're woven into the mystery so well that the thing plays beautifully years later. You also get some previews of stuff that Hitchcock would do later--like using a national landmark as a backdrop. This time it's the Statue of Liberty. In "North by Northwest," of course, it's Mt. Rushmore. You'll also recognize things that pop up later in "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" in "Saboteur" but let's not give away the show. Robert Cummings is excellent as is the oh-so-charming Otto Kruger. Look for Hitchcock's mini-western in this one. It happens quickly so don't blink. | positive |
This is a really great film! It gets you thinking about your parents. How we all have fragile relationships we all have with them, unless we really make an effort to know who they are as people. And just as important, we should remember to open up and show them our real selves, not just who we think they want us to be. Definitely see this documentary! IMDb is making me write more text before they will post my comment, how odd. Usually online comments need to be short short, and here I am being asked to write more! Well I went to see the film with my parents, I thought afterward they would want to talk about their parents, but my dad kept wanting to talk about himself and things in his life he feels he screwed up, which was unusual, my dad is not a reticent man, but I was surprised that he wanted to talk about mistakes he thinks he made. Mike and Kitty came to the film to do a Q & A and there was a hilarious moment afterward when my dad was talking with Mike, while my mom spoke with Kitty! Really just disregard my last few sentences to pad this comment, and just remember '51 Birch Street,' go see it! | positive |
If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good. | positive |
This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself. | negative |
The Railway Children was on TV again this weekend, and I had forgotten how good it was.<br /><br />If I have a criticism, it is that the episodic structure sometimes shows a little too clearly, there being little narrative flow from sequence to sequence. The charm and beauty of the film are such that this matters very little, however.<br /><br />I won't revisit the comments of others, other than to add my vote for the final scene on the platform as being possibly the single most emotional scene in the history of British cinema: as a cynical old git passing through middle age rather too quickly I, too, find I cannot even think of that moment without being hit with a severe case of "I've got something in my eye." In fact, it's not just something in my eye, it moves things around inside me, too, with that beautiful happy pain we sometimes feel.<br /><br />And Jenny Agutter was exquisitely beautiful in this film, standing with one foot in childhood and one in young womanhood, and bringing qualities of both to her portrayal of a girl having to grow up rather too quickly.<br /><br />Plus a quick plaudit for Bernard Cribbins. Regarded mostly as a lightweight actor, he deftly created a Perks of great humanity. | positive |
this was a thoughtful and well-shot and directed TV movie that took on a huge subject with precision and intelligence, and gives it a film treatment that would look great on a bigger screen -- the palette is a little muted for TV. if you're looking for a war action film or "bosnia lite", this isn't for you -- it's about an ordinary woman who took on an extraordinary challenge for humanity. if you want to learn more about the conflict and how the work of one woman influenced the world in a massive way, watch this film when it comes your way. i don't see that a lot of other TV films have dealt with the issue of genocide and ethnic hatred at this level. the story avoids obvious demonization of "the bad guys", and instead shows the denial and everyday hatred that resulted in deaths of thousands. i was moved at several points, and not in some manipulative Hollywood way with driving music and flashy mise-en-scene, but allowed to discover the horror and implications along with the characters. this is a film brave enough to let the content speak for itself, and keep the visuals understated to support it with dignity.<br /><br />the actors do a helluva job at bringing the intense dramatic scenes to life. the scenes where victims give their testimony before the war tribunal are powerful, and Wendy Crewson, Stipe Erceg and Heino Ferch are excellent. William Hurt's British accent is awful -- no one else has given him a chance to play a Brit, and when he finally has it, he blows it! -- and although John Corbett's body was born to play a soldier/commando, he's a little too gee-whiz nice, although he does a good job. | positive |
The movie was very good when it came out, I attended Cooley High and Cooley upper grade center ,around 1968 i was also home coming queen and grew up and lived in the area of Cabrini Greens, i knew a lots of people in the movie, it was nice to see friends in the movie that lived in the area also, and they had a chance to be a star that may have been a once in a life time experience for them, i had good times growing up on the north side and tough times i can relate to the movie Cooley High is no longer standing but a person like myself and others still remember the fun we had growing up attending Cooley High, there is a lot of history around this north side area to be told . | positive |
The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui | positive |
Man on fire, is definitely one of the best drama/crime thrillers I have ever seen. Despite having a slow beginning the story is so amazingly complex and sensitive that it sticks together rather well. This is Denzel Washington's perfect role, in which he plays a body guard, called Creasy that is tormented by his past and is an alcoholic but never gives up on his duty to save his latest protégée, Pita. Dakota Fanning plays Pita, the very smart, enthusiastic little girl that loves so many things, and acts in a very convincing manner, she has a great future ahead of her. As I said the story is somewhat complicated, in order to fully understand it, you must watch it a couple of times.<br /><br />This film is made in two parts, there's the first hour, where everyone is happy, nothing's wrong, everyone's just living their lives happily until the kidnapping of Pita occurs and where Creasy is almost killed. And then there's the second part, the rest of the film, where suddenly everything becomes complicated and somewhat gruesome and disturbing, when Creasy's recovered from his severe injury and starts chasing and killing the numerous criminals and "La Hermamdad" that were responsible for the planning and execution of the kidnapping of Pita.<br /><br />Denzel Washington shows us his most up to date acting talents alongside many other talented actors which have a great future ahead of them. It is a real shame that this film hasn't been acknowledged enough, Washington really deserved another Oscar for his performance, and so did Fanning and the director. And even maybe the visual effects which were of very high quality.<br /><br />If you like excellent, slightly deranged, suspenseful thrillers, this is the one to see. The most amazing thing is that elements of this film are actually based on a real story and real characters! 10/10 | positive |
Overall, I thought it a very nice movie - I hate to use the word 'nice' as it's rather dry but it was very beautiful to look at and the central performances by Rupert Friend and Emily Blunt were very strong. What I liked most was that despite the gleaming aesthetics of the costumes and the settings, all gilded and shiny, this aspect never took over the heart of the film which was good, strong writing (thank you Julian Fellowes :D); nothing too flamboyant or saturated with pomp, i.e not sensationalised greatly (when Victoria is dragged out of bed to be informed she is now Queen, well you couldn't get a less glamorous hand over of the crown). It was paced gently and every line in the film held its worth.<br /><br />Undoubtedly the portrayal of the love between Victoria and Albert, though somewhat fairytale-ish on the face it, was in fact a slow burning candle and Friend and Blunt did well to show how effortlessly these two people 'fitted' together despite the union being initially arranged (my fave bit was when they come home after hunting and Victoria simply hugs her new husband from behind; so much said without any words, that's what film is all about). Blunt held her own beautifully as well, she has a face that demands your attention and I can't not mention the costumes that she wears - every one simply gorgeous. If I was Blunt I would have trouble parting with any of them! The rest of the ensemble cast all played their roles well, Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide being a highlight.<br /><br />The only qualm I have, is that it lacked a sense of urgency, or an event that could have made the movie a little more exciting? (It was rather tame) I don't know, I wanted 'something' to happen that would have Victoria draw out some strength and prove her worth a little more. When she and Albert argued, I loved it, I could have done with some more pivotal dramatic moments, though that may be just me.<br /><br />Lastly, at the risk of sounding all patriotic, it did renew a sort of pride and awe in the crown and what it takes to be in such a position, especially in one so young. This may be in part to the fact that this film's snap shot of Victoria's young life is immediately apt to what I have been writing for one character of mine in 'The Sword & The Scion' but nevertheless, it did flag up those feelings (for those following my book, can you guess what character Victoria so aptly reflects?) It might have been in part to the film displaying how ridiculous the government were back in those times as they didn't seem to give two hoots about the poor and dispossessed of the nation, which only in turns renews appreciation that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were so active in this domestic domain. It made the government appear rather useless - nothing much has changed then I suppose.<br /><br />BLOG on films and books: http://sempergratis.blogspot.com | positive |
Woody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year. | negative |
I love the frequently misnomered "Masters of Horror" series. Horror fans live in a constant lack of nourishment. Projects like this (and the similar "Greenlight Project" with gave us "Feast" - like it or lump it) are breeding grounds for wonderful thought bubbles in the minds of directors with a horror bent to develop and bring to maturation food for we who love to dine on horror.<br /><br />This one began with a kernel of really-kool-idea and ran ... right off the edge of "where in the world am I going with this?!!!".<br /><br />I don't know how to spoil the spoiled but "SPOILER AHEAD" All of a sudden ... no, there was that light drifting across the night sky earlier ... we have long haired luminescent aliens (huh? ... HUH?) brain drilling males and ... yeah, I get it but ... well ... the worst curse of storytelling - a rousing and promising set up without a rewarding denouement.<br /><br />Cue to storytellers ... your build up has to have a payoff that exceeds build up. Not the other way around. Storytelling math 101.<br /><br />End of Spoilers - Big Oops! | negative |
There were at least a half dozen silent-film versions of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," and there have been several television productions. But no one has ever gotten around to making a big-budget theatrical feature from the play . . . until now. Given the nature of the play/s most memorable character, Shylock the Nasty Jew, it's a good guess that the little unpleasantness that transpired in Europe in the late 1930's and 1940's may have dampened filmmakers' enthusiasm. Sure the main motivation for Michael Radford's new film is to provide Al Pacino with a chance to shout, bray, brood, mutter, and be tormented - all of which he is quite good at. Like Richard III, the role of Shylock is a scenery-chewer's dream. It is ridiculous to call Shakespeare an anti-Semite, since he never met a Jew. Jews were banned from England from 300 years before his time to some decades after his death; and its unlikely that he ever traveled abroad. On some level, Jews might as well have been a mythological race to him. But, while Shakespeare may not have been anti-Semitic, his play certainly is. Pacino gives Shylock a strange accent that is probably meant to suggest the slightest hint of Yiddish. Unfortunately, the result is a 16th-century moneylender with the unmistakable diction and cadences of Fozzie Bear. Radford's version begins with a crawl about the wretched teratment of Jews and then spot Antonio (Jeremy Irons) gratuitiously spitting on Shylock (Pacino), who's really just standing around, minding his own business. Will buy it when it comes out on DVD, for sure! Sarge Booker | positive |
I feel Monarch Cove was one of the best written and acted out "Drama" Series to come on any Network in a long time. This show had great potential and I couldn't wait to view it each week. This could be developed into a great Primetime Soap. People look forward to this type of acting as we are being "Reality TV" overkilled. I long for the type of writing and acting that shows like Dallas, Knots' Landing, Dynasty, MelRose Place, etc. provided. Monarch Cove updated this concept quite well and I anticipated it only getting better. There's so much to expand on with these characters and they were all very interesting and captivating in their own right. It would be a loss to not explore this and develop these characters after having drawn and hooked us into their world. I absolutely loved this show because it was mysterious, interesting and sensuous without going overboard or offending. Loved It. | positive |
IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. | negative |
Best-selling horror novelist Cheryl (a solid and sympathetic performance by the lovely Virginia Bryant), her husband Tom (the likable Paolo Serra), and their son Bobby (nicely played by Patrizio Vinci) go to a remote castle located in the countryside for summer vacation. Local legend claims that the area is cursed. Cheryl discovers a creepy, hairy, nasty ogre (hulking David Flosi in a strikingly hideous costume) living in the basement. Cheryl has to surmount her deep-seated childhood fear of the beast so she can defeat the foul find. Director/co-writer Lamberto Bava does an expert job of creating and sustaining an eerie and unnerving nightmarish mood. Moreover, Bava eschews the standard blood'n'guts fright flick routine in favor of crafting a compelling and provocative dark adult fairytale-like fable on how the best way to overcome that which frightens us is to face said source head on. Sturdy supporting turns by Sabrina Ferilli as friendly school teacher Anna, Stefania Montorsi as hottie babysitter Maria, and Alex Serra as batty painter Dario. Gianfranco Transunto's glossy cinematography boasts a few fluid tracking shots and plenty of great atmospheric lighting. Fabrizio Sforza's gnarly make-up f/x, Simon Boswell's splendidly spirited spooky'n'shuddery score, and the dank, dark, cobweb-covered cellar set all hit the skin-crawling spot. Well worth watching. | positive |
And that's saying a lot. Rent this if you want to be staggered by oddness, blown away by one of the most bizarre scripts, direction, and casting in the history of films. I'm staggered. I can't believe I watched it. I'm a big Bernadette Peters fan, normally- but this tested my resolve. Don't read any more reviews here, it's best if you know nothing about the plot. Just rent it. You won't believe what you're seeing....... | positive |
Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like "Dracula" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed "42nd Street", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in "42nd Street", Ruby Keeler, and "42nd Street" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with "Footlight Parade"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache. | positive |
Four words account for why this film was made - "She Done Him Wrong". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.<br /><br />Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.<br /><br />Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival. | positive |
Stewart's age didn't bother me at all in this movie, although he was portraying a much younger person. I still recall my fascination with Lindbergh's story and while I was thoroughly adult by the time this biopic was made, I had to see it.<br /><br />Not only does this boast a great performance by Stewart,it also gives a lot of fascinating technical data,making it understandable to those technically challenged such as myself. And the look of the plane itself was great.<br /><br />I quite loved this depiction of a period before my birth and reawakens the childhood love I had for airplanes and for the idea of air travel. | positive |
or: It's a bird ? It's a plane ? No, look... It's a disaster ! or: No need to look up in the sky.<br /><br />or: (... OK, that's enough.) If singer tried to make a romantic titanic like movie to crash the box office record, he failed. The SR structure can't do this, the dark and restricted color scheme (I would call it "wishi-washi"), the boring usual dialogs, the clown with advanced alien technology, the missing fun and magic, etc. makes the movie completely disappointing.<br /><br />It simply doesn't work.<br /><br />The main thing at a character like superman is, that he is a superhero. That's the core, the most important thing.<br /><br />Love trouble and a sadly lost depressive Supersoftie can maximal only be a facet in a 2:40 long Superman movie, not the whole time.<br /><br />Because then it is not a superman or superhero movie anymore. It's like a (and in this case a very bad and boring) social study, where every 30 minutes a person flies around.<br /><br />That's a big difference.<br /><br />This movie is a joke. Holy skywalker, this is Superman, so give us Supervillains, Superaction and the most important thing, Superfun.<br /><br />We want ENTERTAINMENT ! Singer, if you want to make a 2:40 long soul love trouble drama about lost and sadly people ? Then take normal human characters and make a yentl remake.<br /><br />They say: Superman returns. And then, supersadlysoftie stands in the door.<br /><br />Maybe singer has tried to kill the legend without kryptonite, but one bad movie can't do this. Don't give up, they plan a sequel...<br /><br />Next time singer (and Warner Brothers), make a superhero movie, not a depressive superlame soap, or let it be. A superhero movie means a colorful fantasy with a lot of fun and magic.<br /><br />This movie is like a very cheap chocolate box with a super cover. Yes, technically there are all sorts in, yes, there is a lot of small talks, there are a few jokes, a view action scenes, etc, but the only one what all these worse pieces have in common is their poor quality.<br /><br />It's not more than a super boring patchwork and one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my live.<br /><br />The ridiculous cast strategy (Cast them young as possible, so we can make sequels in the next 25 years) gives the rest. Kate Bosworth plays a 22 year old star reporter, she's looking like 19. Superman was full five years away, so he slept with her 6 years ago, so she was 16, (looking like 13) and a daily planet reporter, wroting "I spend a night with superman". Warner Brothers, that's too much.<br /><br />Routh is not so bad, he is playing a little bit wooden, but the whole movie is wooden, so... ?! Temporary good were marsden and sometimes posey. The rest, forget it. Even spacey, this is not his terrain.<br /><br />Reeve/Hackman/Kidder were acting so easy, with fun. What a difference.<br /><br />The Jesus poses at the end are ridiculous too. What the hell should that be ? The problem here is, they mean this serious, not as a joke. Next time Spiderman or Batman or Ironman falls and rises like Jesus or angels ? Or they speak with god directly. Why not ? They are superheroes, saving human lives every day. So at least one talk with god every week should be possible... Oh my god.<br /><br />Maybe this was not the real announced movie, instead it is from a bizarre dull parallel universe.<br /><br />For the warner brothers this superlame depressive flick will be possibly the greatest disaster in history. Not only because of the money.<br /><br />I understand how difficult it (maybe) was to create and transport some messages or feelings, but showing lone, lost and sadly people isn't new and thousands of movies or TV-Shows did it better, in very old or new ones like magnolia. And the flying frogs there were more impressive than this flying superwoman, sorry, superman of course.<br /><br />Singer and WB, that's simply nothing. In fact it's even more than nothing, it's like a black hole that destroys the passion for (comic/superhero) movies and steals us three hours of our life.<br /><br />Mrs. Smilla's little brother. (Very angry and green like the hulk.) | negative |
As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.<br /><br />The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.) | negative |
I wasn't even born when this series was released in the USA. It took about another decade before British TV networks laid hold of it.<br /><br />In fact, I was fortunate enough to see the very first episode, in which The Lone Ranger was one of a posse who ran into an ambush and got slaughtered. TLR was the only survivor. Although badly wounded, he was saved by a passing Indian called Tonto. I believe he took to wearing a mask in order to hide his true identity for fear of reprisal. But instead he made himself all the more recognisable. Dunno if he wore it in his sleep.<br /><br />This was Saturday teatime staple. The fanfare bugles of William Tell's overture presaged a dash to the telly, food still in hand. Though it very quickly became repetitive, predictable hokum. Nobody ever unmasked him. Nobody ever landed a punch, nobody ever out-shot him. He was a little too good, and just a little too camp in his dress for most kids. Poor Tonto, on the other hand, became his Aunt Sally. He was always getting slugged and tied-up and kidnapped and stuff.<br /><br />And what did he keep calling The Lone Ranger? 'King Savvy' was the general consensus where I lived. It seemed to imply 'the big know-all' in Indian-speak. But is sounded like something else, as if Mr Silverheels had a speech defect. 'Kemosabe'; what the hell's that? <br /><br />A later, and less well-merchandised duo called 'The Range Rider' and 'Dick West' eventually won my vote. This featured a naked-faced Jock Mahoney who got beat-up pretty thoroughly in each episode and was altogether less camp, less super, and more believable.<br /><br />Still; even today I can't hear William Tell's overture without expecting the gallop of hooves and a hearty Hi-Oh Silver.<br /><br />Devine daftness. | positive |
boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is. <br /><br />The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.<br /><br />Maybe next time knox.<br /><br />Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good. | negative |
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie. | negative |
This film reminded me so much of "A History of Violence" which pretended to be a close study of violence and violent behavior but ended up just being nothing short of a cheap action movie masquerading as some thinking film on violence. Dustin Hoffman and his new British bride move to a small English town and encounter endless harassment from the local drunks who do nothing but hang at the pub all day and make trouble. Don't these men have a job? Anyway, Dustin takes all he can take and by the end of the film he holds up in his house and fights off each one of the drunk attackers by such gruesome means as boiling whiskey poured over someone, feet being blown off by a shotgun and someones head getting caught in a bear trap. Funny that someone would have a need for such a large bear trap in a small British town except maybe put a mans head in it.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah who made the "Wild Bunch" which also covered the topic of blood letting violence in which no one was spared. But it was done with style, and you believed it. Straw Dogs is not believable. First of all the location is wrong and does not work. Why place it in England? I would think maybe in some inner city location or a small town in the American South in the 1930's or something. Second it is not in my view ever really explained clearly why these men are so quick to violence except maybe they got drunk and felt a need to kill Hoffman and rape his wife.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah missed the mark on this one. | negative |
I have vague memories of this movie being funny.<br /><br />Having seen it again either I have changed or I was thinking about a another film altogether.<br /><br />It seems as if we are supposed to be sympathetic to Jackie Mason's character however nothing in the movie actually engenders that emotion. Its notable that he is really the only person accorded tender dialogue with loved ones. No-one else's character is allowed to rise to the status of even vaguely human.<br /><br />I don't even like golf but as the film went on I found myself really rooting for Robart Stack and the club guys, really hoping they would repel Mason and Chevy Chase. | negative |
This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film. | negative |
I have to finish watching a movie once I start, regardless of how bad it is. This movie was agonizing to sit through. The "sparkling" bullets, the reporter with "ninja" like moves, the way the bad guys shoot hundreds and hundreds of bullets and only seem to hit innocent bystanders, the predictable outcome and all the bad acting was just horrible. Like the girl who finds the reporter in her friends apartment and goes from "what the heck are you doing in here (holding a bat)" to "hey, you're cute, wanna @#$%!???" in like 1.2 seconds.... Just bad.... Save yourself an hour and forty minutes and go play with your kids (or dog)! | negative |
i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.<br /><br />the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.<br /><br />(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).<br /><br />anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.<br /><br />its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.<br /><br />please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.<br /><br />i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/ | negative |
All the hype! All the adds! I was bummed that I missed this on the big screen. Where this film worked was in the little details. In EVERYTHING else it failed. Arnold has done so many better performances in the past few years. I thought the days of Commando and Last Action Hero were gone from our lives. Sadly this film panders to the lowest common denominator and reduces Arnold to a bellowing, grunting, face contorting muscle that just knows how to shoot guns and blow things up. In a cliche last moment (and at one other time), that was predictable from the start, we see a glimmer of the actor that has proven he is more than what he got paid for early in his career. I was unimpressed with the film as it never broke new ground or went anywhere but where you expected it to. | negative |
My children, DD 7 and DS 10, enjoyed the movie so much they were squirming in their seats. It was good, old fashioned, Rated G, family fun. This movie was made for kids.... someone really understands them.<br /><br />It was fun to see Julia Roberts, Brice Willis, Garth Brooks and the other stars make their cameo appearances.<br /><br />As someone who lives in the city the fictional "Big Texas" was modeled after, I can say that they did an honest and accurate portrayal. The kids looked like kids, not like superstars.<br /><br />I hope everyone supports this movie to send the message to Hollywood that we need more movies like this. Go see it, then spread the word! | positive |
Having watched this film years ago, it never faded from my memory. I always thought this was the finest performance by Michelle Pfeiffer that I've seen. But, I am astounded by the number of negative reviews that this film has received. After seeing it once more today, I still think it is powerful, moving and couldn't care less if it is "based loosely on King Lear".<br /><br />I now realize that this is the greatest performance by Jessica Lange that I've ever seen - and she has had accolades for much shallower efforts.<br /><br />A Thousand Acres is complex, human, vibrant and immensely moving, but surely doesn't present either of the primary female leads with any touch of glamour or "sexiness". I don't think this is well received in these times.<br /><br />Perhaps one reason for this film's underwhelming response lies in the fact that the writer (Jane Smiley(, screenplay (Laura Jones), and director (Jocelhyn Moorehouse) are all women. I know that, in my younger days, I wouldn't have read a book written by a woman. I didn't focus on this fact until years later.<br /><br />If you haven't seen this movie or gave it a chance in the past, try watching it anew. Maybe you are ready for it. | positive |
I have seen the film a few days back on a video tape and even though it was hard to swallow it at one take (because of its length and story), I liked it very much. I was impressed first, by the script and then, by the realization of this script. The film takes you on a ride, but that is not an easy, joyful ride; it goes through time and different political regimes and shows the influence of them to ordinary people's lives. What I loved was the inner logic the film followed; logic, which just like logic in life, was rather illogical and confusing at times but in the end, when I thought about it, all the events and twists made sense. It makes no sense though to try to re-tell the story as it spreads in more than 50 years of time. I also liked very much Nikita Mikhalkov's character Aleksei and the way he played it, as some critics would saw, with restless abandon. What I didn't like about it, was that I think he later played characters that remind me of Aleksei in films like "Cruel Romance" (Zhestokij romans, which I actually love) and to some extent in "The Insulted and the Injured" ("Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye"). "Sibiriada" shows, I think, what a great film-maker Andrei Konchalovski was before he went to Hollywood and made forgettable films like "Tango and Cash" and less forgettable like "Runaway train". I would prefer "Kurochka Ryaba" to them... | positive |
The implausibility of the plot has been noted by several commentators, particularly the immense amount of trouble Fr McKenna would have had to have gone to, and the sheer impossibility of some of the calculations he would have had to have made, including that Langdon was going to decipher each clue in minutes. McKenna is branded; a few seconds later he is giving orders, and a few minutes later, he is running (literally) around in charge of operations -- in real life, he would be in shock. And, as usual in thrillers, the assassin doesn't kill the heroes, giving as his only lame explanation that they were not on the list of those to be killed, as though every other innocent bystander he shot was. I have always used Independence Day as the hallmark of a truly awful film (US President commandeers jet plane and beats off aliens, ha ha), and this effort runs it close. For such an implausible film, Angels and Demons contains a remarkable number of predictable incidents. Who didn't laugh knowingly when the assassin went to get his reward in the Volkswagen? I felt like shouting, "You are going to be blown up". Who didn't know that the heroine was going to find a body in the lab? Who didn't spot the baddie? Technically also, the film was awful. The dialogue was more often indecipherable than clear, while the races across Rome to the next church were accompanied by deafening music. Moreover, many scenes looked like mud. The one redeeming feature was the shots of Rome and what looked like the Vatican -- an achievement, because I am sure that the Vatican officials would not have wanted this dross shot in and around St Peter's -- and the interiors were convincing. Rome is a magic place, and I enjoyed seeing it fleetingly. | negative |
Plot:<br /><br />- A Chair from EBay<br /><br />- Random people<br /><br />- Random people talk (" Dude, it's right. " "I'm feeling it." "Lets get married now!")<br /><br />- If you are a "hippie" then you will love this movie. (You must be high or drunk, otherwise you will question your life watching this junk.)<br /><br />This movie was clearly not thought out from the beginning to the end, and the other comments are probably the crew padding the reviews. If this wasn't aimed at my demographic, I don't know what it is aimed for. I found the plot everyday boring. It's something that I would do, and trust me it's not worth filming. Going on a roadtrip and filming half of the silence does not make a movie! | negative |
Scott's collection of 80's icons cannot save this teen disaster. But then I suppose that's why it was only a TV movie and not a major motion picture. William A. Schwartz (writer) comes up with something closer to "Stewardess School", except this movie is more boring. This movie isn't really stupid, just boring and completely plotless. The only reason to see this might be to see Tina Yothers in an actual role after Family Ties. After this movie and equally dumb "Class Cruise", I guess Mr. Scott wised up and went back to directing sit-coms, which was his best move yet. 4 out of 10 | negative |
This is officially the terrible, boring, corny, and ridiculous movie ever created. The movie is all about a crazy kid and his friends, and they land a 747. His dreams are very corny and make no sense at all, and is very poorly done. Every special effect looks as if it was done without any modern technology, and might have been created by the kid that plays the "leading role" in the movie. If you watch this movie, it will definitely make you stupider. I advise you to never consider watching this movie, and if you do, good luck and don't miss the brain cells you killed off. My comment does not even fully grasp the awful creation from hell that has been made. The person that wrote the comment before me did not watch the same movie that I dreadfully watched, and wish I never watched. Peace. | negative |
I watched fantabulosa! because over the last few years Michael Sheen has become one of my favourite actors, and if you haven't seen him in anything before firstly shame on you, and secondly get your hands on a copy of either Heartlands or Dirty Filthy Love. This production did not disappoint - Michael Sheen transformed himself almost magically into Kenneth Williams, and gave a performance that was as tragically moving as it was skillful. Not to take anything away from the other performances but like Kenneth, Michael truly stole the show. I don't know how he does it, but every performance I have seen Michael give he seems to metamorphose until the character he plays is truly, utterly believable, and no matter how hard I try I cannot fault him. Must go get my tea, enjoy! | positive |
There is no director I like more than Mamoru Oshii. But sadly, even though he directed quite a few films that gained huge international attention, there are still a fair few of his films that have slipped through the cracks. Tachiguishi is one of them, and even though I loved it to bits, it's not hard to see why distributors in the West are somewhat reluctant to release it.<br /><br />In between his big and serious films, Oshii is known to do some smaller and quirkier projects. While Tachiguishi definitely falls into this category, Oshii has really outdone himself with this one, creating something that is very hard to classify, even as a freaky Japanese flick. Go figure.<br /><br />At its very core lies a documentary not quite unlike Otaku no Video. But rather than make a fool of an existing subculture, Oshii invents his own and delves into the lives of culinary heroes, scrounging away food for free and upholding the Japanese culinary level. Oshii's approach on the subject has close ties with Dai-Nipponjin, as the subject is handled with a deadly sense of gravity while the images on screen look as ridiculous as can be. Deadpan humor taken to the extreme.<br /><br />But that is not all, rather than simply shooting his mockumentary Oshii decided to make it using a new visual technique baptized superlivemation. A weird mix of live action, photography, digital animation and puppets on a stick. Performed and acted out (or posed, if you want) by the greats of the Japanese animation industry no less, as the project was supposed to be as low-budget as possible.<br /><br />And if you think that just about covers it, know that the film is extremely dialogue-heavy, making it a good companion piece for Innocence. The influence of the grifters is analyzed from all kinds of cultural, political and even philosophical angles, fired at the audience through a continuous stream of monologues and dialogues. And to make it even worse, the whole film is completely grounded in actual Japanese history and customs, making it even harder for a foreigner to get a good grip on the material. Needless to say, multiple viewings are advised to make the best of all the details tucked away inside the film.<br /><br />That said, on a conceptual level the film is easy to follow and already pretty hilarious. Various grifters are introduced as were they the most influential historical figures of post-war Japan. The film plays like you'd expect a serious documentary of any other important figure to unfold, but somehow the big and crudely animated cut-out photography limbs of which figures are assembled don't quite make it all that serious. The range of characters introduced is sublime, Shinji Higuchi taking the cake as cow-creature wearing a nose ring while taking on the fast-food chains with his gang of bull/people.<br /><br />Oshii regular Kenji Kawai provides, besides a pretty comical performance, a score ranging from atmospheric and dark to wacky, strange and comical. A lot of fun is to be had from the exaggerated noises and effects, complementing the animation and totally contradicting the tone of the rest of the film.<br /><br />Visually the film is very atmospheric, though it must be said that the animation is pretty scarce and while effective, remains toned down, only to burst out in hyperactive weirdness from time to time. Which is not exactly a bad thing, seeing how Tachiguishi is so dialogue-heavy. Despite that, the film is still a visual masterpiece as each frame looks absolutely lush and is tailored to match and improve the general atmosphere of the film.<br /><br />Beware though, because Tachiguishi does demand a lot from the viewer. If you don't speak Japanese, there is a lot of reading to be done and there are many cultural references that demand some attention. On top of that, the monologues in the film area quite extended and can be hard to follow. The film still lacks English subtitles and even though my French was largely sufficient to get what it was all about, I'm sure I missed many of the finer points of the film.<br /><br />Tachiguishi is not an easy film to get into, but around halfway through it reaches full steam and it doesn't let off from there on. I still hope to see this one again with English or Dutch subs. A dub would actually be best for a film like this (much like Container), though I guess a quality anime dub is a bit too much to ask for.<br /><br />With all of that said, I can only congratulate Oshii on another marvelous film. It's rare to find a film that blends and mixes so many styles and influences to create something that is so unique and still works. The film is smart, looks and sounds great and is filled to the brim with creativity. It is immensely funny, even if you can't catch all the details on the first viewing. But be sure to at least get this with decent subs, as the automated English translation that is floating out there is completely worthless and does the film no justice at all.<br /><br />Tachiguishi caters to a very specific audience and I'm not surprised the French got their release while the rest of Europe (and the rest of the Western world) is still waiting for a sign of this film. But for those that like Oshii, appreciate dry and deadpan humor and crave creative spirits, it is a film that cannot be missed, even though it could just as well misfire. 4.5*/5.0* | positive |
Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.<br /><br />(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.) | negative |
I first flicked onto the LoG accidentally one night while waching television: since then, I have never missed an episode.<br /><br />It's humour is very weird, like a cross between Brass Eye's social commentary, the Fast Show's excellent one-liners, and an amazing plot that seems to develop each week without ever going anywhere. The best example of this was Hillary Briss's special stuff - what was that all about?<br /><br />The humour will not appeal to all. Some will say it's just too sick, and it's easy to see where they're coming from. Nonetheless, give it a try. If you don't like it, don't watch it, but if you do like it you'll be very glad you took my advice. | positive |
After being sent to prison for no less then 10 nor more then 40 years for being busted with drugs and refusing to give up her accomplishes, Jackie (Erica Gavin of Russ Meyer's "Vixen" and "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", in her last film role) has to get accustomed to life in the big 'doll' house, or at least try to, in this early film by Jonathan Demme. Due to it's tawdry nature and sheer watchability, I would also rank this as one of his best films, right below "Silence of the Lambs" and "Stop Making Sense", but so far above any of his other movies. This minor classic is just campy, sleazy, and fun enough to be an amazingly good guilty pleasure and thankfully never once goes overboard into all out parody of the Women In Prison genre. It ALMOST washed out the rancid bad taste of the ludicrously preachy "Philidelphia" from my mouth. However, the film is not without it's downfalls (the 'un'talent show is a HUGE chore to sit through and goes on far too long, Barbera Steele is sadly wasted, among other small things) But don't let those gripes stop you from watching an otherwise enjoyable movie.<br /><br />My Grade: B- <br /><br />DVD Extras: 5 minute Roger Corman interview; Cast & crew Bios; Original Trailer; and Trailers for "Candy Stripe Nurses" (with nudity), "Big Bad Mama 2", "Big Doll House" (with nudity), & "Crazy Mama" <br /><br />Eye Candy: Juanita Brown, Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith, Erica Gavin, Roberta Collins, Ella Reid, Lynda Gold, and some others all show skin | positive |
In 1930,Europe received quite a shock when Luis Bunuel's 'L'Age Dor' was released, causing a riot in Paris when screened there,resulting in it being banned for something like over forty years. Three years later,in 1933,when Europe had gotten over the shock,it was once again turned on it's ear with 'Ekstase',a symphony (of sorts)to love. The film starred a young,unknown German actress named Hedwig Kiesler,who would later change her name to Hedy Lamarr,when she moved to America to escape the madness of Adolf Hitler,as Eva,a young bride who has just married a cold,distant loveless husband (played by Emil Jerman),only to discover that she has made a major mistake. One divorce later,Eva is footloose & fancy free & is out one day, skinny dipping in a lake,when she discovers Adam,a handsome,young engineer (played by Aribert Mog)who takes a real fancy to her (and she,him). After a wild night of passion,Eva's ex-husband turns up once again,hoping to win Eva back,only to find he now has a rival. I won't spoil what transpires. Czech director, Gustav Machaty (who directed the original screen version of 'Madam X',another parable in romantic obsession) directs from a screenplay by Jacques Koerpel,Frantisek Horky & Machaty,from the novel by Robert Horky. The film's velvety cinematography (which reminded me of Avant Garde photographer,Man Ray's photos of the era,which goes for some impressionistic use of light & shadow,a lot)is by Hans Androschin & Jan Stallich). The film's brisk editing is by Antonin Zelenka & the films art direction, which goes for a lush,nearly Art Deco look,is by Bohumil Hes). If I have any quirk about this film, it is the music score,by Giuseppe Becce,which goes for an over the top,melodramatic feel to it that gets old fast (certain themes are repeated over & over again,wearing out it's welcome,fast---kind of like some of David Lean's over use of certain musical themes,especially in 'Lawrence Of Arabia',and 'Dr.Zhivago'). Some years back,a brand new restored print was made up of the best source material,cobbled together from various European existing prints available,restoring it to what is quite possibly the closest version of what it originally looked like before the Vatican condemned it as "decadent" (yeah,right...like the Church never did anything wrong),and the Hayes office cut it to ribbons,when it was finally released in the U.S.A. in 1936,in a "Hayes Office" approved cut (likewise). Minimal dialog in German with English subtitles (it was meant to be a mainly visual experience). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude skinny dipping scene by Hedy Lamarr (done tastefully,mind you) & some suggestions of sexual content (likewise)that would scarcely earn it a PG-13 rating,nowadays. Worth a look if you have any interest in early European cinema,or Avant Garde/Experimental cinema | positive |
What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some "hero" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible. | negative |
The film had NO help at all, promotion-wise: if there was an advertising promo on TV or radio, I didn't see/hear it. The only newspaper ad I saw was on it's opening weekend: a dingy, sludgy B & W head-shot photo of Andy as Val-Com, behind jail bars, with headline: "WANTED! Runaway Robot!" ( which was also the poster in front of the 3 movie theaters I saw it at --NOT the nice little color poster on this site, with headshots of all the cast, and cartoon of Crimebuster --which really wasn't THAT good--they OUGHT to have used an action scene from the film itself--didn't they have an onset photographer? A poster is supposed to HELP a prospective audience decide if they want to SEE the movie--there were SO many people who couldn't get into their sold-out choice, and wanted to know WHAT Heartbeeps was about--and that poster didn't help! That dingy pic, and the only other photos supplied to papers were so indistinguishable in B & W that they were worthless. ) There was NO trailer for the film: only a slide at one theater, consisting of the word "Heartbeeps" inside a heart-shape, with a Cupid's arrow through it, and one that was a totally black picture: just Andy and Bernadette's voices saying "Val-Com! My pleasure center is malfunctioning!" "So is mine; do you think we ought to tell our owners?" THAT is no help to people who hadn't been aware of the movie.<br /><br />During the filming, Andy told reporters that he couldn't eat, once his plastic lips were applied, so he would "load up on breakfast, and fast" during the day's shoot. I don't know WHAT Bernadette did: but at the time, I'd wondered why they didn't just sip protein drinks through long straws, or eat astronaut-style puréed food via tubes? <br /><br />Phil-Co, the baby robot, seemed to have been the pre-curser to Short Circuit's Johnny-Five, with the same eyes, similar face. I've been trying to find if they had the same designer, but no help. I have vintage magazine articles about the film, and the design team was immensely proud of their work, and were going for a special award for their innovative device to create stenchless "smoke" for Catskill's cigars. Just shortly thereafter, LucasFilm did NOT use that device, though they OUGHT to have, for Return of the Jedi's scenes with Jabba the Hut: a man created "steam" around Jabba, by blowing cigar smoke into a tube, joking that all he needed was a glass of brandy, and he'd be a happy man. I thought that LucasFilm's using of real tobacco products was insensitive to people who were upset by smoke. <br /><br />John Williams, who had then recently succeeded the late, great Arthur Fielder as the maestro of the Boston Pops ( which was THEN a ratings hit--but it never recovered from Fielder's death, and is now a shadow of it's former glory ), was using the show to promote films with which he supplied the music. He'd premiered "The Empire Strikes Back" score there; and you would think he'd have helped Heartbeeps along, by playing a few numbers there? The one thing that critics had liked of this film was Williams' score--yet it was NOT available for purchase! I saw one vinyl album, in 1982, with half Heartbeeps, half another film--but it disappeared. I only just tonight saw the CD listed on THIS site, and have ordered it. If I can ever get a scanner, and time to type out the articles, I'd like to create a Heartbeeps tribute site. I liked the movie, and don't care what dissenters say! <br /><br />The only trouble with the film, was, that near the end, it was messed up, logic-wise: the robots ran away from the factory to have the freedom to decide their own fate, make their own choices; yet, when the junkyard owners tell them that Phil needs to go TO the factory, to have a "purpose" programmed into him, they don't even question it; they just glance meaningfully at each other, and they go. Along the way, each of the adults lose battery power, and "die." They aren't REALLY dead, as they are robots, and only need new batteries, yet it is treated as "death," with little Phil crying over them, and rolling away. So, what was the POINT of this? Phil never gets back to the factory, and gets "a purpose!" AND of course, the junkyard owners COULD'VE driven them, or given them all battery recharges, with back-up batteries; but the real point was to have this poignant scene, where the robots all wore down, and Phil is left to cry. <br /><br />At the end, Val-Com is a golf instructor, and Aqua-Com is --I'm not sure what. Catskill is an ENTERTAINER--what ELSE is HE supposed to be? I'm not sure that they made it clear. The junkyard owners seem to be taking it easy, lying on chaise lounges, drinking lemonade from Phil, their "bartender." Val's and Aqua's new "daughter," Philsia--I think the name is--maybe it's Sylvania--doesn't seem to be much more than a table lamp. <br /><br />There is missing footage, which is sad--from photos I surmise that the stuff missing includes a sweet scene, where Phil is having a Christmas, with Val gifting him with a car's steering wheel; Aqua is supplying a horn; Catskill has taken the firefighter helmet to give to Phil, as we saw; and they have Christmas trees. I don't know if any missing footage supplies better logic, or if the writers just couldn't think of a better crisis/resolution. The film was trimmed to 72-75 minutes, to pair it with other failing films. No other reason than that. For a DVD, I would LOVE to be in on creating, as I want to see interviews with the cast/crew and John Williams, and the Merv Griffin interview. The making-of footage; and reediting and restoring the missing footage to make it better. | positive |
I finally have seen the real reason why Peter Boyle became famous. It wasn't being the monster in "Young Frankenstein" or being cranky Frank Barone on "Everybody Loves Raymond". For younger people who only know him from TV,give this film a try,it makes Frank look like a saint.<br /><br />"Joe" is Boyle in his finest acting role and as someone mentioned,most likely gave the inspiration for "Archie Bunker" on "All In The Family". I think Boyle even went back to "Joe" a little to play Frank. (I say this because I noticed the basement of both "Joe" & Frank Barone look similar.)<br /><br />I knew nothing of this movie when I checked it out of the library,I just knew Boyle and Susan Sarandon were featured. Yes,Susan does look great here and for a young actress a very good early role. A young hippie wanna be,who escapes her parents home and lives with,the ultimate lost in a drug induced haze hippie,who also sells as much as he buys.<br /><br />After a near-fatal over-dose on too many pills,she is hospitalized while her parents go to collect her things,her mother wont go into the smelly,run down apartment but her father does. While Dad gathers up her things,her boyfriend comes home and the two exchange words and then the father does what we will later hear Joe say he'd like to do to a hippie.<br /><br />Joe is shooting his mouth off about how he hates different cultures/races,hippies and a laundry list of others. When he says,"I'd really like to kill one of them",the father (trying to look like he's kidding)says,"I just did". Joe almost buys it but then takes it as funny. <br /><br />Later,when the police are at the scene and the story is in the paper,Joe realizes,he wasn't kidding. Instead of nailing the rich guy for money through blackmail,he actually,kind of,does blackmail him. By just wanting him and his wife to "get to know" him and his wife. Long story short their association is awkward but after Sarandon gets wind of what her father has done,the bottom is at risk of falling out.<br /><br />How this all plays out in the end you'll have to watch for yourself. Although it's over 35 years ago,the ending is something you wont expect. Unless you've seen the film before of course. Again,I recommend it mostly for those who haven't seen it.<br /><br />10 stars for Boyle not just playing someone completely opposite his nature but for what will show others that he was more than just a TV and movie comedy actor. (END) | positive |
Where to begin. This movie started out as something that seemed like a rip-off of "Darkness Falls". An old , disfigured woman living in the woods, giving kids presents for their teeth. Sound familiar? Then it changes. In "Darkness Falls", the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. The tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. Why did they need the rocker, his hippie girlfriend or the Bubbas and their sister? I think the movie would've been fine without them. It seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. Although, it's nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble-head for a change. Okay to rent, but I wouldn't suggest buying it. | negative |
I thought that Mr. Dreyfuss was perfect for his role as the actor and the dictator. His co-star, Mr. Julia, played his role equally as perfect. It was interesting to see how reluctant Richard Dreyfuss was in replacing the dictator against his will. But he became more confident and comfortable with the role as time passed. Since everything happens for a reason in life, I believe he was forced to replace the dictator because he was meant to stay there for over the year that he did. I'm guessing that he stayed because he was supposed to see how good his life was compared to the poverty he witnessed in Parador. I think he took too many things for granted in life and he needed to get a serious reality check by remaining in that country for as long as he did.<br /><br />But........... anyways........... this is why I gave this film a 7 out of 10. | positive |
When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.<br /><br />When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.<br /><br />All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.<br /><br />It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.<br /><br />Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it. | negative |
Ali G was funny at first. His interviews were fresh and original. The idea of a mock gangster wearing OTT clothes and using street wise lingo was appealing at first.<br /><br />But this film is just a rehash of old jokes, the humour was mainly childish and revolved around the male sex organ for the most part. The film claimed good actors like Charles Dance, but their talents were wasted as they played silly 2-d characters. It is not 'terrible' but isn't really funny at all a second time. It could be said that the movie was Ali G's last bastion of comedy. After that he ran out of steam. | negative |
Surface is one of the best shows that I have ever seen. NBC is so stupid for canceling a great show like this and worse of all only leaving it half complete. NBC or someone else should give Surface at least one more season just so it can be completed. It's as if NBC gave you a book to read and half way through it they decide to take it away from you and then you can never find out the ending. I just want to see what happens to everyone and most importantly see what happens to Nim. I think I can say this safely about most Surface fans is that we want to save Nim! Nim has taken all of our hearts away and then NBC just cuts them in two. Come on NBC, just give Surface one more season! | positive |
What is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the "Beaudelaire effect".<br /><br />Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.<br /><br />"Toby Dammit" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.<br /><br />"Metzergenstein" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.<br /><br />"William Wilson" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.) <br /><br />My advice is to skip "Metzergenstein", watch "William Wilson", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep "Toby Dammit" on while you cook dinner or make a snack. | negative |
This movie has problems in its presentation, may even be offensive to people who are looking for temporal and cultural faithfulness, but it challenges the watcher to reflect on a variety of issues. One of these is the nature and character of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. Another is that of the historical nature of the Bible and faith. And third, is the humanity of Jesus. The tension of the Christ-betrayer relationship is developed and held through the movie. Judas' passion is presented as a darker parallel to that of Christ. When Judas takes his own life, the viewer can sense the angst. Peter's denial and guilt, however moving, are not as powerfully portrayed as the Judas drama. Chris Sarandon offers a novel and provocative Christ, whether believable or not. I would like to find this movie on DVD or even VHS, to use in study or discussion groups. | positive |
A long film about a very important character from South Africa, Stephen Biko. He is one of these Blacks who did not survive apartheid, who actually died a long time before their normal time. The already old film though does not show how important Biko was, what he really represented. His life and his teaching is reduced to little, at best a few witty remarks. The film being from 1987, the objective was to push South Africa over the brink that would lead her to liberation. So the film aims at showing how irrational the South African supporters of apartheid are, in 1987. To show this the film has to look beyond Biko's death, hence to center its discourse not on Biko but on a white liberal journalist and his escaping the absurd system in which he is living. His escape is made necessary because of the victimization he is the victim of, along with his family, and because he wants to publish the first book on Biko, after his death, and that can only happen in England. The film shows a way to escape South Africa, while apartheid is still standing and killing. So do not expect this way to be realistic and true. It could not be. But the film has tremendously aged because it does not show South Africa with any historical distantiation, the very distantiation that has taken place under Nelson Mandela's presidency and that is called forgiveness provided those who want to be forgiven speak up and out. The film is strong and emotional but that very historical limit makes it rather weak today, especially since the film does not mention the third racial community, the Indians. Panegyric books or films all have that defect: they are looking at the person they are supposed to portrait from only one point of view. That explains why the film has aged so much, seems to be coming from so long ago, as if nothing had changed at all. A remake is necessary.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID | positive |
**Possible Spoilers**<br /><br />This straight-to-video mess combines a gun-toting heroine, grade-Z effects, nazis, a mummy and endless lesbian footage and it's still boring; the video's 45 minute running time only SEEMS like Eternity.The only good part is one of the blooper outtakes, wherein the bad guys force a 400-pound Egyptologist into a chair--and one villain's foot almost gets crushed under a chair leg. Take this snoozer back to the video store and watch televised golf, bowling or tennis instead. | negative |
This sad little film bears little similarity to the 1971 Broadway revival that was such a 'nostalgic' hit. Keep in mind that when Burt Shevelove directed that revival, he rewrote the book extensively. I have a feeling that this screenwriter wrought as much of a change from the original 1925 version as well. I played the 'innocent philanderer' Jimmy Smith on-stage in 1974, and thought this $1 DVD would bring back memories. Not a chance. Even the anticipated delight of seeing "Topper" Roland Young play 'my' part was a major disappointment. Three songs from the play remain, and are done very poorly. Even the classic duet, "Tea For Two", is done as a virtual solo. The many familiar faces in this 1940 fiasco do not do themselves proud at all, and the star, Anna Neagle, just embarrasses herself. When I feel gypped by spending a dollar, I know the film must be bad. Another commentator mentioned the Doris Day version, which is actually called "Tea For Two" and is about doing the stage play (the original, of course), so those who are seeking the true "No No Nanette" might find a more recognizable version there. | negative |
Crash is supposed to be a film about racism in Los Angeles. But in fact, it's just a bunch of coincidences between several characters that connect each other during one day in one of the biggest cities of the world. Who the hell is going to believe that? There are unrealistic situations, one after the other. On the other hand, this film pretends to show racism between Asians, Iranians, Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. But the big error relies on a pre-establish racism coming from the writer. Mainly because the White characters in this movie are usually portrait as people with a better social-economical status than the rest of the other races. Iranians are poor, just like the Asians. And Latinos, as always, are portrait as Housekeepers, police officers, or with a very low profile job like a locksmith. Jesus!!! Don't you guys think it's about time to change these stereotypes? Same with blacks, portrait as gang members, with the exception of a Black TV Director, who was the only fresh character for me. This movie sucks so hard, that makes me so disappointed about the kind of cinema coming out from Hollywood these days. Always with stereotype characters. No realism whatsoever. Nothing to identify with. It's simply a big waste because this could have been a great opportunity to show Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, and blacks, from a different perspective. | negative |
This movie is complex and interesting in so many ways. It is a non stop plethora of emotion and taboo subjects. Sex and love. Women's emotional abuse of men, Men's physical abuse of women, Sexual child abuse, Fresh approach to religion in real life, and all tied together with very raw and powerful blues music.<br /><br />I promise you that if you sit through the first 20 minutes you will find the tie in and bettering of all the characters. And the ending will be more pleasant than you can expect. Music is outstanding the writing is powerful and acting from everyone was brilliant.<br /><br />And the DVD has some great features, including Samuel Jackson's background of learning to play guitar and feel the blues.<br /><br />This movie is not for children and I even caution parents of teenagers. | positive |
Harry Langdon's "Saturday Afternoon" is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's "Cops" or Chaplin's "The Immigrant" this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.<br /><br />For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of "Saturday Afternoon" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch "Saturday Afternoon" will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.<br /><br />But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of "Saturday Afternoon," when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.<br /><br />"Saturday Afternnon" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake. | positive |
Had placed this on my TIVO for a rainy day due to the cast, some really hard working people in the industry, and when I finally watched I was NOT disappointed.<br /><br />This movie has some Altman-like flavor (he's mentioned in the end credits as a "thanks" person) utilizing seemingly independent unrelated plot lines that intertwine as the film draws to its climax. Macy is pure, clean, and honest as a man who can't seem to escape his "destiny", Sutherland plays and portrays as few can, Neve adds splash to a deliberately toned down environment, add Tracy Ullman, Barbara Bain (remember Mission Impossible on TV?), not to mention the steady John Ritter and you have all the ingredients for a good FILM. The script is uncluttered, the dialog is free from cliché and thoughtful (especially between Macy and David Dorfman). Suspend belief and enjoy, this is truly time well spent. | positive |
Rated R for Strong Language,Violent Content and Some Nudity. Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:14A<br /><br />Fear Of A Black Hat is one of the funniest, most original comedies I have ever seen.Its basically a gangsta rap version of the film This Is Spinal Tap.Its a shame not many people have heard of this gem of a film.If you manage to find this film anywhere don't hesitate to buy it even if you don't like rap music.There are not too many comedy films that I give a perfect 10/10 to.The only ones I can think of at the moment are this film,Clerks,The World According To Garp,The 40 Year Old Virgin and Chasing Amy.This film is a hilarious stereotype of the gangsta rap culture.The movie is about a woman named Nina Blackburn who is making a documentary about the fictional rap group N.W.H(N****z with hats).They are basically the stereotype of a rap group making many controversial rap songs about killing and being a gangsta.Fear Of A Black Hat is an excellent comedic film and I recommend it even if you are not a fan of the gangsta rap scene.Its a shame this film is not in the Top 250.<br /><br />Runtime:88min <br /><br />10/10 | positive |
I only gave this nine stars instead of ten because i really don't approve of pornography all that much. pornography has a useful purpose in society(can't say i can always think of one)but it probably does.<br /><br />personal viewpoints set aside, i really thought this film was pretty funny. i didn't buy this movie because it was pornography, i bought it because i am one of those 'Alice' obsessives who will watch anything about 'Alice in Wonderland'. i own just about every version there is on DVD so it was an obvious choice to complete my DVD collection with this. i must admit i was scandalized beyond my expectations, and the whole thing would have been thoroughly offensive if it hadn't been so damned funny. besides, the music is really good and i like musicals.<br /><br />not everyone can make a good nudie musical. anyone that has seen 'The First Nudie Musical' knows what a stink-bomb that was. considering what a low budget Bill Osco worked with, 'Alice' is pretty remarkable as a musical(it's better than some musicals made on costly budgets).<br /><br />the film can't totally escape the dirtiness of porn. I usually watch the XXX version for full shock effect and some of those scenes are scandalizing(scandalizing because we are talking about Lewis Carroll). i found myself feeling very uncomfortable and embarrassed during the scene where 'Alice'(Kristine DeBell) starts masturbating. it made me feel like a voyeur. and the gratuitous lesbian scenes with 'Alice' and the kitty-cats were a bit too racey.<br /><br />the film has a great sense of humor about everything however. there is one especially funny moment during the Queen's orgy when one of the actresses gets up and says "who do i have to F---K to get out of this movie?". Hilarious.<br /><br />i'm not sure i buy the whole sex is good for you ball your brains out philosophy here, but sex is human, and nothing human disgust me.(i don't know if i really feel that way, but i couldn't resist saying it)some people think everything should be about sex. i dunno. Jeez, just show some frick'in responsibility and decorum. this movie definitely scores points for the sex-minded, but i wouldn't push your luck, next time you might really freak someone out. i mean we are dealing with children's literature here. | positive |
When I borrowed this movie from a friend (thankfully I did not buy it) on the package (which truly looked bad and ugly) was printed "The ultimate vampire horror". After watching it I thought that the marketing campaign was probably more expensive than the film itself. The "story" begins when a teenager (surprise!) is chased by some vampire/zombie-creatures.<br /><br />Lighting, sound and everything reminded me of my first attempt to make a holiday-video on a ten year old VHS-system if not worse. I gave the movie a 2 out of 10 and only because the promo-T-shirts looked kind of cool. I don't want to dis' film-students or splatter-movies generally but I've seen Braindead and I've seen a 20-dollar-budget movie from students that was ten times better than this crap. | negative |
I wasn't expecting to much of this movie when I went into the theater but I had been waiting for it for many years. To sum it up, it was pretty damn good! Chad Michael Murray was pretty good, I thought he was going to be another Chris Flynn from Wrong Turn but I was wrong. Elisha Cuthbert was also good but the best performance has to go to Brian Van Holt. He played the bad guy too well, I mean he was sick, sadistic, and very cruel. The back story between the brothers was good, plus I liked how no killings took place until about 40 minutes into the film. It gave you time to pick the character you wanted to see live and the one you wanted to see die. Jon Abrahams was pretty good as the goofy best bud of CMM. I liked how Chad kind of cried when he found him dead, it was better then just him being like, "Whatever, my buddy is dead, who cares". It showed how he really cared. So overall, this was a darn god slasher with some great effects. Bravo! | positive |
A waste of time, talent and shelf space, this is a truly abysmal film. What are big leaguers like Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Dan Aykroyd wasting their time being in such rubbish?. Petty criminal Reeves turns up to his brothers (Vincent D'Onofrio) wedding and ends up leaving with the bride. A comedy?, thriller?, romance? I honestly do not know! Reeves is wooden in the lead and casting Dan Aykroyd as a cop is so dreadful it has to be seen to be believed!. Only bright spot from a dark dark tunnel is Diaz and even she isn't that good. Rent out something else. everyone involved with this mess should hold there heads in utter shame and prey that it gets lost in oblivion in the years to come. | negative |
I am a big fan of British films in general but especially gangster movies. Unfortunately this film was shockingly bad. I think its pretty depressing that this film is getting any good customer reviews. The idea that this film is gritty and realistic is laughable. I have read and heard fist hand quite a lot about the real life events shown in this movie and they have nearly all been glorified with over the top violence etc. The only gritty true to life event in the whole film was the Range Rover murders where some overblown bouncers got rubbed out for messing with people they could not handle. This film is a disgrace to British cinema! It has no plot and no decent acting and just relies on being violent( gritty and realistic as some people like to put it) The sort of people who made this film should not be allowed near a budget or film camera just as the sort of people this film is about should not be given the opportunity to tell this pathetic violent little tale of no consequence. | negative |
This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)<br /><br />The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...<br /><br />I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.<br /><br />It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.<br /><br />See it and laugh! | negative |
Well I just paid a dollar for a DVD of this movie, and it wasn't even worth that. It seems to be from a poor print and is in the public domain, I am guessing.<br /><br />Neagle - despite her glory, awards, and reputation - is a homely British gal who can't sing or dance or act.<br /><br />Some of the fine old Hollywood character actors on display here must have thought they were doing a classic. Director Herbert Wilcox (Neagle's husband) always thought Anna was the most exciting and talented femme on the screen. He was mistaken. She was improbably popular in Britain before and after WWII. Her "serious" roles are even more ludicrous than her musical appearance here.<br /><br />Only a couple of the famous songs are included and neither one is well presented. Skip this one and find the one that stars Doris Day. At least you get some real comedy and professional style dancing! | negative |
The game of hockey I play and watch has something called "speed" which the actual hockey scenes in this limp movie never even come close to capturing. Add to that a storyline that is cliché, predictable and stupider than stupid with some of the lamest '80s music numbing your senses in every scene and you have "Youngblood". Oh, Keanu as a French Canadian, yeah, whatever. Gimme Dunlop, Braden and the Hansons anytime... ONE out of TEN. | negative |
Awkward disaster mishmash has a team of scavengers coming across the overturned S.S. Poseidon, hoping to loot it before it goes under for good. Irwin Allen's sequel to his 1972 blockbuster "The Poseidon Adventure" arrived in theaters SEVEN YEARS LATER! Never mind that nobody cared anymore, why give us such a shoddy production, filled with dim characters and miscast actors, only to trash the memory of your biggest hit? One might end up feeling really sorry for Michael Caine, Sally Field, Peter Boyle, Jack Warden, Karl Malden and Shirley Jones were it not for their lost-at-sea expressions (good for a few stray laughs). There's a moment when saintly Jones is tempted into taking some treasures just for herself and she timidly starts stuffing her pockets that is an unintended hoot. The film was a career bungler for all concerned, most especially Allen, who never quite recovered from this. * from **** | negative |
THE DEADLY MANTIS certainly won't scare any one, but as sci-fi programmers go it is better than most. A volcanic eruption at the south pole thaws out a giant, prehistoric preying mantis at the north pole. Military men go missing. Dr. Ned (William Hopper--Hedda Hopper's son and best known as Paul Drake on television's PERRY MASON) is called in to i.d. the creature--but by this time the creature has eaten up several Eskimo and is en route to the Washington Monument.<br /><br />About a third or more of the film consists of stock footage: old government educational films, military men in radar rooms, air planes--and would you believe Eskimos putting out to sea? Which explains, of course, why a tribe of Eskimo is attacked in the movie. ("Hey, Guys! Think we can work this in?") Mix in some negligible special effects, some clunky dialogue, and some sexist attitudes and you're good to go. Not as original as THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, but fans of 1950s "big bug" schlock will enjoy it--and the kids will have a good time throwing popcorn at the screen.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | negative |
Race Against Fear has to be one of the most moving TV movies I've seen for a long time. All of the performances from the main actors were superb, especially that of Ariana Richards (Mickey Carlyle), William Bullimer (Coach Kurt Ansom), and Susan Blakely (Margaret Carlyle). Ariana in particular put on an extremely emotional performance, with facial expressions to match. She portrayed the emotions that Mickey was feeling perfectly, and you could easily believe that she really HAD been raped, so realistic was her performance.<br /><br />RAF is an incredibly realistic movie, due to the moving performances from the cast. Bullimer came across as a rapist incredibly well, and you hated him more and more as the movie progressed. Blakely also put on an emotional performance as the mother of the raped girl (Mickey Carlyle), and you felt increasingly sorry for the Carlyle family because no-one believed them about the rape.<br /><br />All in all, RAF is a great movie. It is both moving and full of suspense, as you are continually unsure if Ansom would be prosecuted for the rape, due to the lack of witnesses, evidence, and belief in the claim. I thoroughly recommend seeing this movie. | positive |
It was inferred by a previous poster that the military would not be subordinate to the police in a disaster as depicted in the film. In fact the military role would be to supply aid to the civil authorities when requested to do so. The civil authorities would retain primacy. In practise the Army would need 48 hours or so to mobilise themselves, there not being much Army presence in London, especially with current overseas commitments. Even then they would be dependent on calling in the TA.<br /><br />As for COBRA, we were given the impression that it was a full governmental emergency department in its own right - even reference to a Met Police Cobra Division. In fact COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room "A". It's just the room where the PM or DPM meet their advisers to discuss the current emergency! | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.