Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I loved this show so much and I'm so incredibly sad its canceled i thought it came back too, but just two stupid weeks. Thats terrible. i hate how we never find out how everyone ends up. it sucks. Bring it back! ABC has stupid shows like Supernanny and whatnot but doesn't give time to good ones like Six Degrees. If they're complaining about ratings it was probably because they had a bad slot because this was truly a good show, something I could relate to and anticipated. JJ Abrams delivered, he's awesome, I wish ABC could just trust him enough to complete the story. I loved the entire cast too. I couldn't wait to see how everyone would someday meet each other at once. Everyone's story is now left incomplete, now I'll never know if Steven and Whitney would get together or Carlos and Mae. I wanted to see what would happen to Laura or Damien and everyone else. This is really such a downer. | positive |
To keep it as simple as possible. This is a very good show. That is well written, and has a fantastic cast. It's not loaded with blood and guts. And centers around a disgraced cop and his relationship with his ex-wife, his son, his former partner (Andre Braugher), his childhood friend, now a priest (George Dzunzda), and lastly the person who happens to get into his hack in that episode. Are you likely to find something like this going on in your city NO. Is this still a good story YES. And it's nice to see a man portrayed as good father in spite of his flaws. Watch more then one ( 2-3) and you'll see why a lot of us are hooked on this show. And thank you David Morse for making this character so interesting. Another good job! | positive |
Of all the directors ever to sit behind a camera Wellman could break your heart quicker than anyone. Even Ford. But this is one of his worst. Even he seemed to know it, probably from its jejune treatment, not much above a Bonanza or Big Valley. <br /><br />Yet there is one moment, typical Wellman that comes out of nowhere to shatter you, the death of the Indian wife of Gable. She has gone to give her baby some water and WHAM is killed by an arrow instantly. No warning. Nada. <br /><br />One of the most shocking, unprepared for deaths in all cinema. Particularly after investing a whole hour of love for the lady in what looked to be a sappy western. Of course the treatment of her afterwards is laden with Wellman's total indifference, apparently, to the film. Even so it is a reminder of the power he has always had at his best. | negative |
Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery. <br /><br />Washed-up hit-man Armand "The Blackbird" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses. <br /><br />Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.<br /><br />The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing. <br /><br />- The Massie Twins | negative |
WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS deserves to be a better known film directed by Otto Preminger, the man who gave the world LAURA. And this time, he's got the same co-stars: DANA ANDREWS and GENE TIERNEY. It must be said that Tierney here is under-used in what amounts to more of a supporting role while the spotlight goes to Andrews.<br /><br />He plays a tough, hardened cop used to dealing with a bunch of thugs in too vigorous a way until one night he accidentally kills a man in the process of arresting him. When suspicion falls on a cab driver (TOM TULLY), he goes along with the investigation into the murder but starts to feel guilt because he's in love with the cabbie's daughter (GENE TIERNEY). Tierney, by the way, looks a little too elegant for the girl she's playing here and doesn't seem to fit into the squalid background elements of the story.<br /><br />The story takes a grim turn as the investigation goes deeper and it's discovered that the murdered man had a silver plate in his head from his service as a war hero. By the end, it turns into a morality tale with Andrews developing a conscience over his crime.<br /><br />It's fascinating as film noir with capable performances from a strong supporting cast. A good entry in the field of noir, forcefully directed by Preminger and nicely played by Andrews and Tierney, despite the slight miscasting of her character. | positive |
How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie! | negative |
This is the first non-zombie subgenre review ive done but this movie is worth doing a review for. Dinocroc is a good movie in general but unfortunately it is still an obvious b-movie. The Dinocroc itself looked great but i thought the movie itself needed a little bit more weight as in action and violence because whenever the croc is shown or is in a fight scene not very much goes on except the croc is shown and the croc either kills or runs off in a repeated process. Jane Longenecker was hot which is a plus and the acting was better than average and the most surprising thing is that the croc looked fleshy instead of like a cartoon coughs* curse of the komodo*coughs. I enjoyed this movie enough to be glad that there is going to be a sequel which is more than what i can say about some movies in general. Overall 3/6 stars and worth a watch. | negative |
After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch. <br /><br />The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.<br /><br />Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.<br /><br />On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice! <br /><br />If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else. | negative |
Philo Vance had many affinities with Bulldog Drummond
He was a gentleman with the kind of polish and elegance only usually associated with the British upper classes and he was also independently wealthy
<br /><br />But there were vital differences
Drummond was an adventurer, charming, gallant, lively
Vance could be pompous, slight1y dull and self-righteous
There was a hint of fundamental cruelty in his manner
<br /><br />"The Kennel Murder Case" is the most impressive of the 14 Vance films made between 1929 and 1947
The story of a murdered collector of Chinoiserie, it has all the ingredients of the classic private eye mystery exotic setting in the blue nose Long Island Kennel Club, three killings for Vance to solve including a baffling "locked room murder," the key to the whole affair, and plenty of suspects
<br /><br />Usually, a detective story setting have proved too static and talkative to make convincing movies even though they work well enough on the printed page, but here Michael Curtiz's direction and the fine editing give the film a pace and urgency that make it altogether different from similar films of its type
<br /><br />William Powell's elegance and suavity made him the perfect Vance and although a year later he switched studios, he stayed in the same genre with the enormously successful and popular "The Thin Man" at MGM
| positive |
Plot is not worth discussion even if it hints at corruption, murder, power and the rest of thriller related topics. Characters are interesting though sometimes. Not realistic but interesting nevertheless.<br /><br />Development is slow like tea drinking ceremony. Visuals not stunning, but good enough to ease the eye strain. Good movie to watch after dinner before going to bed - nothing shocking too much, nothing overexciting. Movie sitcom style.<br /><br />I liked Woody - excellent performance. Had to fight the plot inadequacy and did the job pretty good. The rest are bearable though very predictable. The whole is watchable and better than most TV shows. | negative |
The main problem with "Power" is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere. <br /><br />Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with "12 Angry Men" and "Fail Safe". It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman. <br /><br />3/10<br /><br />* / * * * * | negative |
Julie Waters is outstanding and Adrian Pasdar a revelation in a very warm, very real, and extraordinarily entertaining look at the complications gender dysphoria and transvestism cause in a young executive's life. At the heart of this movie is the very real truth that you must accept yourself before you can hope for others to accept you. | positive |
Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.<br /><br />Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;) | positive |
i'm really getting old,,am in the midst of watching this 40 year old flick,and wonder what my grandchildren will be watching 40 years from now,,its an old saying,,but they don't make em like that anymore..it's not only the story,its the music,the acting both by young and old..the cast ,it would seem,were born to play their roles,,young oliver,,old Fagin..too many to mention them all,the role played by the judge oliver stands before,i've seen in other roles over the years..the artful dodger,,Ron moody as Fagin,,Mr and Mrs bumble,,the movie not only won 5 Oscars,,but took a few golden globe awards too..if you decide to see this film..do yourself a favor,,take a few if not all the children,to see this masterpiece | positive |
Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made. | negative |
Following the whirlwind success of The Wrestler (see my review), Mickey Rourke had this "gem" head straight to video. Every copy was rented for months and I even heard some good buzz around it. So months later I caught it on a movie network and sat down to watch it. First of all...one of the locations in the film (Walpole Island) is a place I used to visit on a regular basis as a child because we lived very, very close to the reserve. Cool huh? That's about where the coolness ends with this dud. I mean the story is decent enough to warrant a four and even the direction is not bad but the performances are just awful, and downright ridiculous with some truly wasted star power and Mickey $%#@*&! Rourke playing a Native Canadian/American hit-man?!?! What in the Lord's name were they thinking?? He doesn't even resemble Native blood and his attempt at the generic Native accent made him look even more ridiculous. They could have went anywhere with this story...they could have hired a Native actor, or changed Rourke's character, how about a white man raised by Native parents? Instead they made Killshot a complete and utter joke.<br /><br />As you may have caught Mickey Rourke "stars" in Killshot, I use that term loosely. I have never liked Rourke much although his Oscar winning performance was decent enough. This shows and confirms my dislike for him. He looks bored, constantly bored, and his lame attempt at portraying a Native is bordering on insulting I would think. He makes a decent cold blooded killer but then the story never explores that part of him which is totally backwards to the story. Diane Lane, although well respected in Hollywood, turns in another drab performance. She has had her moments but overall she just usually doesn't take off in any one performance. She looks like she is going to be great but then when she isn't, its even more disappointing. Thomas Jane plays her protective husband. I've always felt Jane deserves a bigger career than he has. I think he's got action star in his blood. All said and done his performance in Killshot is actually not bad. He doesn't take things too far and he's tough and almost heroic in a way. Him and Lane manage to have decent chemistry but he doesn't get a lot in the way of his character. I have absolutely NO idea why Rosario Dawson A) did this movie and B) had a character at all. Her character is absolutely useless and had no point to the plot or story making any performance she would give equally as bad. I have rarely seen a character who is supporting so incredibly useless. The only redeeming character and performance in this film is that given by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the deranged mini killer who wants to team up with Rourke's hit-man. Gordon-Levitt is over the top crazy and entertaining and his character is actually engaging. If this film had been entirely about him it would have been a smash. He literally saves this from utter crap. His performance is almost worth watching this drivel for.<br /><br />Oscar nominated director...whoa wait? Yes Oscar nominated director John Madden (I think the football coach could have done a better job) helms this mess. I have actually never seen Shakespeare In Love, but I remember the critical acclaim it received and it surprised me because the direction in this film and with the characters was downright awful. Screenplay writer Hossein Amini has done nothing I recognize but apparently has been slated to write the next Jack Ryan movie and after this mess I can't even imagine why they'd want him. I understand this is based on a novel and I really hope the novel is worlds above this mess. A little bit of action and some sort of hokey attempt at an emotionally charged story of a hit-man and his partner and the mess they get involved in. Unfortunately unless you're a HUGE Rourke fan or really love Joseph Gordon-Levitt then there is no reason to put yourself through this pain. I did it for you and I still feel the pain. 4/10 | negative |
The Man from Snowy River II doesn't reinvent the wheel but is a crowd-pleasing beautiful film that hits some great notes.<br /><br />For those fans wanting the elements that made the original Man From Snowy River film a hit, (breathtaking scenery, sweeping score, sweet romanticism and cracking action) this film really delivers. This story picks up a few years from the end of the first, Jim (Tom Burlinson) has been away gathering his fortune in a brood of stock horses. He returns to pick up where he left off with his pluckish well-bred sweetheart Jessica (played by Aussie divine lady Sigrid Thornton) who is still attempting to break out of her corseted upbringing on her feather's cattle station (Harrison is now played by American Brian Dennehy). The foil to Jim and character that shakes the plot is the well-to-do upper class snob Alistair Patton (Nicholas Eadie) who has his sights on Jessica. Add to the mix some social tension surrounding landholdings and the stallion with a bad attitude from the first film and that's the plot.<br /><br />The best thing about this film is the acting. Tom Burlinson fits snugly into Jim's wide brim hat and laconic humour. Sigrid Thornton is a lovely heroine and the two manage some real chemistry on screen. Filling the solid shoes of Kirk Douglas was never going to be easy and Brian Dennehy stomps and shouts but never feels very authentic in this part.<br /><br />The music is sweeping and lush and the cinematography could be a roll from a Victoria tourism reel. There are moment however that feel very self-indulgent, like the director wants just one more helicopter shot of the riders to show how gorgeous the landscape is without some personal human drama. A little more grit would have sufficed here, we are Aussie's, we can take it!! There are some very JAWSish moments with the stallion that defy belief. However the funny thing about this film is that in amongst some glaring clichés, there are some really inventive and touching scenes. Jim putting the saddle on the stallion (VERY Horse Whisperish before its time) Jim and Jessica setting up home, the fabulous scene where Jim shows up Alistair's riding with his trusty whip. I can see why this character is such an icon.<br /><br />Altogether a very pleasing sequel. Here's hoping everyone involved wants to make another. the Man From Snowy River III: The CRAIGS. I'm sure we'd all love to see how Jim and Jessica are doing on their farm.<br /><br />The Aussie DVD has a couple of extra scenes in it. Worthwhile if you are already a fan. | positive |
The comic banter between William Powell and Jean Arthur is the highlight of this murder mystery, which has one of the most bizarre and unlikely plots ever. Powell is probably the most suave detective of the 30's, and Arthur has a unique voice which often sounds like a succession of tiny tinkly bells. They are extremely fun to watch, so take the brashness of the plot with a grain of salt and just enjoy seeing it unfold. Eric Blore also has some comic turns as Powell's butler.<br /><br />Powell's contract with MGM included a clause which allowed him to reject being loaned out to another studio, but he wanted to work again with Arthur and he liked the script, so he eagerly accepted the assignment. They had worked together in two 1929 Paramount films, The Canary Murder Case and The Greene Murder Case, both in the Philo Vance series. | positive |
That's what the title should be, anyway.<br /><br />This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an "action" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.<br /><br />What happens in the movie? People die.<br /><br />Is that it? Yes.<br /><br />What is the plot about? What plot?<br /><br />What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.<br /><br />What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.<br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.<br /><br />If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard "entertainment", then "Made Men" is not for you.<br /><br />To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.<br /><br />This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't "Made". | negative |
Very interesting to find another reviewer who had the exact same reaction to this movie as I did: It was a heck of a lot better when I was 10 or 11 years old.<br /><br />Seeing it more than 30 years later, it's still okay, but it only mildly held my interest. What seemed hugely funny back then was only mildly amusing.<br /><br />Also, things that were astonishing to me as a 10-year-old came across as just silly. For example, in one scene Trinity is walking along and fires his revolver behind him and kills two men without even looking. In fact, he doesn't even bother to look and see if they're dead, because he knows he hit the mark. Um, yeah, right.<br /><br />In addition, a lot of the dialogue sounds quite wooden. Sorry, but 35 years later, it hasn't really aged that well.<br /><br />Although it's been a long time since I've seen that one as well, probably a better Terrence Hill film than this one would be My Name Is Nobody. | negative |
The movie was awful. The production company should be required to pay a fine for wasting electricity transmitting this nonsense.<br /><br />There were too many holes in the plot. Why would the DOJ send a killer out to assassinate a world leader? If they weren't the DOJ, why would they send someone they thought would not do the job? To quote Butch Cassidy, "Who are those guys?" Apparently, the director does not know either because he never told us.<br /><br />The characters were unbelievable. They did not behave in any way that seemed to fit who they allegedly were. With the exception of the doctor, none of the characters were particularly compelling or likeable.<br /><br />If you want to waste money on the electricity required to watch this movie, feel free. Otherwise, run the opposite direction. | negative |
A young woman, Jodie Foster, is witnessing a mafia murder, reports the killing to the local police, and becomes herself a hit target by the mob operatives. A professional killer, Dennis Hopper, hired by mafia, is stalking her to prepare for the hit, but eventually he falls for her. Then, as a parody of the Stockholm Syndrome that defines a case when an abducted hostage begins to like and cooperate with the kidnapper, Jodie Foster falls for her abductor too, make love, and both prepare for a getaway.<br /><br />Denis Hopper, the actor, tries to align himself with the creative ambitions of Dennis Hopper, the director. The result is disappointing, and fails to keep pace with the artistic level of a great performer as Dennis Hopper is. There is no real thrill and the script is sometimes naive and predictable. The film is saved to some extent by the performance of Jodie Foster who is not at her best, but still shines with her talent, beauty and gift. Of historical interest is the short appearance of Vincent Price, and, in a small act, of Charlie Sawn known from his great part in "Wall Street".<br /><br />If you decide to spend the 116 minutes to see the film, it is not a complete loss; this movie offers easy entertainment, but we would expect much more from the director of "Easy Rider", and the actress who gave us the character of Sarah Tobias in "The Accused". | negative |
Someone asked why it was canceled I tell you why Because "reality" makes money. the show surface was canceled so that they could replace it with a "reality" show, this will haunt NBC, I and about half of my high school, about 1000 people total have vowed to boycott NBC, until they bring this show back. in my area (I don't know about other places) but they had a great thing going with the Sci-Fi channel where the Sci-Fi channel would show last weeks episode at 7:00 and then NBC would show the week's new episode at 8:00 this was great because it gave you a little refresher as to what happened in the last episode. I was so angry when I learned that the show was canceled and they were going to just leave them on top of the church like that! | positive |
One of the first OVA's ("original video animation") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.<br /><br />The "heroes" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a "if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase "loose cannons".<br /><br />Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.<br /><br />The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.<br /><br />The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...<br /><br />Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended. | positive |
The plot of this boils down to Ah-nuld versus Satan, and what I remember most about the movie is a lot of explosions, gunfire, blood, noise, and let's not forget that flammable satanic urine. The story is nonsensical, utterly predictable, and so full of holes I couldn't take a bit of it seriously. Stick to "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist" if you want to see a really good devil movie and....um, well, I can't think of any good "Action" movies at the moment (probably because they're so far-and-few-between), so you're on your own in that category. This flick does get a 3 out of 10 rating from me for its camp value, and for a pretty-good performance by Gabriel Byrne as that old debbil Satan! | negative |
This is superb - the acting wonderful, sets, clothes, music - but most of all the story itself.<br /><br />I am amazed there aren't more reviews of this movie - certainly one of the best of the 1980s.<br /><br />It's also a wonderful movie to see in tandem with the great "Random Harvest" which has much the same opening crisis <br /><br />-- a middle aged, unknown English W.W.I officer is in a hospital toward the close of the war, suffering from shell shock and complete amnesia without any idea of his name, origin, or anywhere he belongs - he proves to be a very wealthy established man - when he "recovers", he will not remember the years before the war -- <br /><br />But there the movies' resemblances end.<br /><br />My warmest thanks to all who participated in the movie - particularly the actors Ian Holm, Alan Bates, Ann Margret (what a great and surprising casting choice), Glenda Jackson, Julie Christie.<br /><br />This one stays with you forever. | positive |
This film could cure sleep disorders, thats how bad it is. The story dragged, and the bad guy is not that scary. You will not even see this one on TBS reruns. This film made me wonder about Chuck film choices. He work on a real dog with this one. | negative |
Last time I checked, the Nazis didn't win the second world war - not that you'd sodding notice. After all, the Third Reich was pretty big on issuing orders and demanding cold, robotic obedience from the populace, and that's pretty much what we're saddled with today. But the way the orders are delivered has changed. Instead of being barked at in a German accent through a loudhailer, they're disguised as concerned expert advice and floated under your nose every time you switch on the TV or flip open a newspaper There's a continual background hum, a middle-class message of self-improvement, whispered on the wind.<br /><br />"You eat too much. You eat the wrong things. You drink. You smoke. You don't get enough exercise. You probably can't even *beep* properly. You'll die if you don't change your ways. Your health will suffer. Have you got no self-respect? Look at you. You sicken me. I pity you. I hate you. We all hate you. God hates you. Don't you get it? It's so sad, what you're doing to yourself. It's just so bloody sad." That's the mantra. And it goes without saying that the people reciting it are routinely depicted as saints. Last year, the media dropped to its knees to give Jamie Oliver a collective blow job over his School Dinners series, in which he campaigned to get healthier food put on school menus. Given the back-slapping reaction, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd personally rescued 5,000 children from the jaws of a slavering paedophile.<br /><br />Anyway, the series was a huge success. In fact in telly terms there was only one real drawback: it wasn't returnable. After all, when you've saved every child in the nation from certain death once, you can't really do it a second time. The only solution is to find a new threat, which brings us to Ian Wright's Unfit Kids (Wed, 9pm, C4), a weekly "issuetainment" programme in which the former footballer and renowned enemy of grammar forces a bunch of overweight youngsters to take part in some extra-curricular PE.<br /><br />It's essentially a carbon copy of the Jamie Oliver show, with more sweating and fewer shots of pupils mashing fresh basil with a pestle: an uplifting fable in which Wrighty shapes his gang of misfits into a lean, mean, exercising' machine - combating apathy and lethargy, confronting lazy parents, and attempting to turn the whole thing into a nationwide issue that'll have Range Rover mums everywhere dampening their knickers with sheer sanctimony in between trips to the Conran shop. Oh isn't it simply terrible, what these blob-some plebes do to themselves? Not our Josh you understand: he eats nothing but organic spinach and attends lacrosse practise six hundred times a week.<br /><br />Bet he does, the little sh1t yes, it is heartwarming to watch flabby, inconvenient kids transforming themselves with a bit of simple activity... but there's something about the underlying eat-your-greens message that really sticks in my craw, in case you hadn't guessed.<br /><br />What happened to the concept of CHOICE, you *beep* So a bit of jogging might increase your life expectancy - so what? That just equates to a few more years in the nursing home - whoopee do. And besides, I'd rather drop dead tomorrow than spend the rest of my life sharing a planet with a bunch of smug toss ends trying to out-health one another.<br /><br />In episode two, video games and the internet are singled out as villains in the war on flab: they make kids too sedentary, you see. Oddly enough, TV, which is equally sedentary, and unlike those two activities, actively encourages you to let your mind atrophy along with your physique, escapes without a rollicking. Funny that.<br /><br />Well listen here, Channel 4 - instead of forcing kids to eat bracken or do squat-thrusts, how about teaching them to think more expansively, so they reject the sly, cajoling nature of programmes like this? Or would that be a campaign too far? | negative |
I truly was disappointed by this film which I had high hopes for. It seems to have been rushed out to take advantage of the success of screwball comedies at the time (including MGM's own "Libeled Lady", which featured two of the same stars) and the success of William Powell and Myrna Loy. Three years into their pairing, they were still attractive to watch and filled with fire in their scenes together, but a weak screenplay and rushed premise destroys any chance of it being a great followup to the previous year's "Libeled Lady" and the two "Thin Man" movies they had done prior to this. "Double Wedding" tells the story of a clothing store manufacturer, Myrna Loy, who is intent on dominating the life of her sister (Florence Rice), future brother-in-law (John Beal), and her own servants (which include Sidney Toler and Mary Gordon). When the independent spirited William Powell comes into her life, having distracted Rice and Beal from Loy's constant control, Loy meets her match. Sounds good so far, right? Yeah, an interesting premise falls short, sad to say, because Loy's character is so one dimensional it is hard to even like her let alone see Powell fall in love with her, which we know will soon happen. It's another attempt to put a career minded woman in her place by changing her views on her what kind of life she has been leading, something Hollywood did often during its golden age. When Loy says she doesn't have time to both run her business and have a man in her life, its a groaner.<br /><br />Fortunately, other than Powell, there is free-spirited Jessie Ralph on board. A salty wealthy older woman who helped Loy start her business, she has an acquaintance with Powell and can see immediately through Loy's cool claims that she loathes him. Rice and Beal are a boring couple, and the whole premise of Powell getting between them is senseless. Then, an ex-wife of Powell's shows up, which really isn't necessary at that late point in the story, and the final wedding scene (where a crowd of people try to get into Powell's tiny trailer) is a weak attempt to bring some farce. (It is funny though, that Powell keeps getting hit by items meant by Loy to hit Edgar Kennedy with; Those chuckles are most welcome, since there are so few others.) Powell and Loy would do better in two later screwball comedies, "I Love You Again" and "Love Crazy", which are sophisticated, witty, and fun. This film attempts to be all three, but ends up a sophisticated bore. | negative |
Visually disjointed and full of itself, the director apparently chose to seek faux-depth to expand a 5 minute plot into an 81 minute snore-fest. <br /><br />The moments that work in this film are VERY limited, and the characters don't even feel real. How could you feel invested in a main protagonist who was made so surreal? <br /><br />Substantively AND stylistically, it all feels like a quirky dream sequence. Jarring irregular camera work, awkward silences and gaps in action, and what's with the little spider image crawling across the screen? Whoever thought of that needs to go back to film school. It added no meaning, just cheese, and didn't even stylistically work with the rest of the film (assuming the film even had a style, which is a close call). What a flop. | negative |
my wife is a fanatic as regards this show. That being the case I bought her seasons one through three and season four is on order. I personally think the show is one big farce the cast is equally bad. Alyssa Milano should have stuck to the other trash movies she made such as Poison Ivy, Embrace of the Vampire to name a few, the other female supporting cast members are equally inept in their portrayals. I've seen better special effects in the old Republic Pictures serials I saw as a child. I can understand why the male leads remained on the show for such short periods of time even though I don't know if it was their own choosing or not. Please. please don't renew for another season as enough is enough, Bob | negative |
Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, but by then, almost all of Europe had fallen under the advance of the Nazi war machine. Entering the war, Britain virtually started from scratch, with scarce supplies and with an air force that was outnumbered by Germany ten to one. But the will of the Brits was firm, emboldened by their new Prime Minister Winston Churchill who declared - "We shall never go under".<br /><br />On August 8, 1940, the Battle for Britain was on. However for the first time since Hitler's declared stance to conquer the world, he hit a wall. Though massively outnumbered, the British Royal Air Force went on the offensive, and in the span of twenty eight days in September and October of 1940, German Luftwaffe casualties climbed to two thousand three hundred seventy five lost planes and crew. Hitler's rage was seething, but he had to call a momentary time out. Responding later in the year, Hitler launched a massive fire bombing of London on Christmas Day of 1940. When I say that there has never been a disaster movie to rival the real live footage of London in flames during this assault would be an understatement. Perhaps the most surreal effect of this chapter in the "Why We Fight" series would be seeing British citizens emerge from their underground shelters following the bombing raids to resume what was left of their life above ground. Even as you watch, there is no way to comprehend the living horror these people must have gone through, as the city of London was left in virtual ruin.<br /><br />Yet the Nazis were stunned and stymied as well. Everything Hitler wanted to believe about freedom and democracy was now turned on it's head. Instead of being weak willed and complacent like the French, the British were not going to give up without a fight. And fight they did, taking the air battle to Germany and responding in kind with attacks on the German homeland. It was a turning point, forcing Hitler to rethink his strategy. | positive |
This is no art-house film, it's mainstream entertainment. <br /><br />Lot's of beautiful people, t&a, and action. I found it very entertaining. It's not supposed to be intellectually stimulating, it's a fun film to watch! Jesse and Chace are funny too, which is just gravy. Definitely worth a rental.<br /><br />So in summary, I'd recommend checking it out for a little Friday night entertainment with the boys or even your girl (if she likes to see other girls get it on!)<br /><br />The villains are good too. Vinnie, Corey Large, the hatian guy from Heroes. Very nasty villains. | positive |
I love the TV contest. Hate to see it end. There are so many talented contestants. It's a shame that only 2 will be picked. I love watching the judges also. At times they are as entertaining as the contestants. I have been watching the show faithfully every Sunday night. Wouldn't miss it for the world. It's the best reality show that's ever been on television. Good luck to all the contestants, though I have already chosen the two who I would like to see play Danny and Sandy on Broadway. I am anxious to see if my decisions are correct. I am not aware of how long the contest will go on until a Danny and Sandy are chosen but I will keep watching until the end. | positive |
Jim Carrey is good as usual, and even though there are quite a few "Jim Carrey moments", it's definitely not a "Jim Carrey movie".<br /><br />It's targeted mostly at children, and I managed to enjoy it as such movie. It was promoted in Israel as another Jim Carrey movie, so those who expected a weird over the top comedy were disappointed.<br /><br />The movie has nice moments and works well as a movie for kids. I can't say I LOVED this movie, but then again I'm not its target audience! | positive |
Boston legal has turned its tail and is headed for the barn door and th pig slop it has created! When this show first aired almost four season back it was a humorous slap at the legal system which all actors seem to take pride in portraying. It was funny, diversified, and to some extent factual. The characters portrayed were acceptable and to an extent real in their portrayals. The sexual comment and activity were limited and humorous. Julie Bowen is and was beautiful as in other series she participated but is now dragged to the lower depths of Media programming of sex and violence. Julie is an excellent actress and needs a more stable platform than this "production". Rene Adjurdubois Is an excellent actor who has from the days of "Benson" to this production held his own in the field of entertainment, always showing the humor and respectful acting of the production. Captain Kirk "is". Funny and humorous is Candace Bergan and is to be admired for her continuing in this production and is a good actress. James Spader, there is no doubt in his acting ability, however he should go back to his XXX origins such as "Crash" as it appears he has much talent and inclination in that direction. We ask that this series be trashed as it already is and its really starting to smell!!! | negative |
I am currently 22 years old, and remember seeing this movie in the theatres when it first came out. You heard me right, I was 5 years old, and yet I can still distinctly remember what I saw that afternoon so many years ago. Was it a mystical trip through the fantastic world of Mark Twain's creativity?... No, on the other hand, it was a quite creepy film about Mark Twain's dark, depressed, and in fact suicidal side. One scene that still bothers me was a particularly strange scene in which Mark Twain is playing the organ at his own funeral.<br /><br />Would an adult enjoy this film? Well, this movie quite possibly features some interesting viewpoints that a person with a working knowledge of Mark Twain's writing might enjoy; but trust me on this, "Adventures" is NOT the film you want to use to introduce your young children to Mark Twain. | negative |
I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.<br /><br />All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas. | positive |
The blame of this terrible flick lies with the director, Martin Campbell. After viewing a few of his credits in later years, this must have been one of his first directorial gigs. He had a more than decent cast to work with but unfortunately he had no idea what he was doing. There were scenes that made absolutely no sense at all. Where was his head...............was he on drugs? I was looking forward to this movie just because of Oldman & Bacon. Maybe it was a short shooting schedule and Campbell just had to "bang it out". I can't imagine that the story that Campbell directed even came close to the story that the writer wrote. Oldman & Bacon, along with the rest of the cast, must have slid under their chairs if they went to the screening. As one poster pointed out, Karen Young did do a pretty good fight scene with Bacon. She really did 'let loose'. It's unfortunate that I have to fill in more space just to stay within the guide lines of what the IMDb requires because I really don't have anything more to say about this uninspiring film. One does not have to be forced to be a 'windbag' when criticizing a terrible flick and wish that the IMDb would change the amount of words to fill up a critique. | negative |
I just came back from the Late-night cinema and it was indeed a silent way out as most of the audience pondered though the real-life black & white images of the partition,the freedom movement,etc which was very much reminiscent of the lives' our forefathers faced! Amidst this backdrop,mind you,there was no tel/fax/internet in those times but for the very voice of Truth & Non-violence, the cinematography infused some spirit of stark reality of adversity amidst the strict Raj.<br /><br />Gandhi shown as a hardworking Attorney in South Africa,who stood for his basic ideologies and gave every degree of conviction to spread awareness of the same with humility and sainthood which to the uttered speech of general Smut was shown as a nice farewell on screen.It had the best drafted speech with a subtle humour & a veiled threat to the British raj in India!There was a nice remark when he said we pray in silence to the British in India now that Gandhi,the politician is set for India(towards sainthood).<br /><br />The very backdrop of a big family with many kids needs the mention of an obvious divided attention and love which had to cast it's spell on the unfortunate kid's psyche who was left alone to aspire for unrealistic ambitions.Little did Harilal knew about his aptitude and he gets emotionally carried away with small pleasures in life and fails in front of the huge idol of his father.He tries to do away from mentor-ship which is the basis of any success which had to be seen by those fortunate neighbours in the streets of Gandhi's residence when Harilal vents out his frustration in open.This means he becomes mentally weak and gets psychologically deranged to an extent that he is forced into religious conversions and alcoholism ,with debt and dis-obedience fuelling his negative thoughts.He still had shown the sincere love for his mother through touchy scenes and even Gandhi's humble expressions form Harilal to forgive him didn't meet any conclusions in his mind as he always feared the Father,Gandhi.<br /><br />he couldn't digest the fact that Gandhi couldn't share his love with him as he expected & was driven to rebellion when he couldn't understand the equal-merit based delivery of scholarship money by his father to his cousin where he saw a failed opportunity to study for barrister in england.<br /><br />This had to take it's toll in him thrown to the streets as a beggar when the whole of India was celebrating the Indepedence!The life of a destitute never changes come what may but the manner in which the sad death of Kasturba & Gandhi himself is shown brings in an emotional silence.Finally the last turbulent thoughts of the dying Harilal is shown as a flashback to keep the audience gripping and wondering where did the father of the nation go wrong? was he clever enough to be mentally strong to lead an-one man army & use his brave soldier-son as a weapon to show to the British & rival forces that when it comes to the interest of the nation,nothing comes in between.Sadly though that to read a Mahatma's heart one has to live outside his family and see which the emotionally naive harilal couldn't see living inside....<br /><br />A pity that such naive harilal's are still ruining the efforts of many Mahatma-like fathers in many families in todays' life and have taken to drugs,alcoholism and God knows what thoughts!!Here's a message to all those brave sainik(soldier)-sons please respect the father of the nation!Please Obey and happiness shall be bestowed or else it's a disaster in waiting,isn't it? | positive |
I saw Winnie's Heffalump a couple of days ago. A nice story based on well known characters created by A.A.Milne. Although Winnie, Piglet, Tigger and Rabbit are all present in this animated feature, the main character is Roo this time. He befriends with scary Heffalump who proves to be not scary at all and shows everybody that friendship knows no boundaries and everybody wants and deserves to be happy. I love this film and I would love it even more were I 10 or 15 years younger. Alas, I would like to become a kid again to enjoy this Heffalump story much more but all I am left with is a sense of sadness at the loss of a sort of childishness and innocence of which this movie is full
I was glad to hear Carly Simon sing, Joel McNeely provided great score. | negative |
I think I usually approach film festival comedies with the low expectation that they will invariably be "quirky," and that any intended humor will be derived solely at the expense of the characters' simplicity in the face of a complicated context. What was exceptional about Big Bad Swim was that the director was able to maintain the integrity and development of his characters in his film while still finding laugh-out-loud humor in scene after scene. There was a sophistication, maybe due also in part to the sharp work of the DP, I've rarely seen in an indie film, and even more rarely in a comedy. Of special note here: Paget Brewster's turn as Amy the math teacher. After seeing this performance I cannot understand why Brewster hasn't been "discovered" by a larger audience. She brings the necessary mix of anger and likability to the role that really helps this picture reach its potential. This is a terrific work deserving of a larger audience. I look forward to more from the director and this cast! | positive |
This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.<br /><br />Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.<br /><br />The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.<br /><br />The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest. | positive |
The Hollow is a wonderful murder mystery that provides all you can expect from Agatha Christie and of course Poirot. It' s set on a country house on a weekend. As always all the guests are suspects and it's up to Poirot to figure out the truth. With movies like this it's always best not to give too much away so I'll stop here. What I loved in the `Hollow' was that it's a mystery the old fashioned way. When Poirot arrives everybody is around the body for example. Everybody seems to be the culprit. There's that suspicious look and the atmosphere is just perfect for the story.<br /><br />You can expect a wonderful time giving guesses as to whom did it and how and why and maybe in the end even be surprised. A cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter night and you got a pretty enjoyable experience.<br /><br />The actors are all very good. As a curiosity notice Edward Hardwicke who played Dr. Watson in Sherlock Holmes. Nice to see him after a few years. Suchet is amazing as always and fortunately is on screen most of the time.<br /><br />I did find out who the murderer was but still it's not predictable and It's also very believable.<br /><br />So in conclusion a great movie and as always a pleasure.<br /><br /> | positive |
The main problem I see with this film is its score, which screams with every note, "This is a cheap-ass movie." There's not much more to say here. The score just plain sucked.<br /><br />The second problem, which I see as quite severe as well as it involves the unwinding of the plot near the end of the film (one of the the money shots, if you will), is the dialogue between Martha (Adrienne Barbeau) and the sunflower man (Richard Ziman), in which Martha is revealed to be the leader of the experiment. At all times during this dialogue, the viewer is very much aware that s/he is listening to a movie dialogue. In other words, suspension of disbelief breaks down here. The integrity of a believable dialogue between two people is sacrificed for a willy-nilly stuffing of information the movie makers wish to impart to the audience.<br /><br />The third problem was the casting of Adrienne Barbeau. While I honestly believe her to be a fabulous actress within her oeuvre, I feel that this part may have been too much of a stretch. The main point of her performance that didn't seem to mesh was the spectrum across which the character moves through the film from a loving mother of a troubled family to an almost Rambo-like woman on a mission. This aspect of the script would obviously have been a stretch for any actress, and one cannot place too much blame, therefore, upon Barbeau. To the degree that she fairly competently acted her part, however, I would only call this a moderately severe problem to the film as a whole.<br /><br />Finally, the film did a wonderful job in the first half building a creep factor, most notably during its horror flashes. I feel that the film would have benefited by more of a commitment to these flashes as a mechanism for preventing a fizzling of the creep factor in the second half of the movie.<br /><br />So what's my holistic grading of this piece? I'd give it a solid C+ to B-, depending upon how much credit you're inclined to give the makers for producing this film on a limited budget. Even with two severe and two moderately severe problems, the film is premised on the solid plot of the Jungian side of Nazi mysticism. I see no problems with plot development or coherence; the dialogue, with the noted exception above, is downright brilliant in places, especially the all important keystone scene between mother and daughter at the beginning of the movie; as mentioned, the creep factor was well crafted, if a bit fizzly in the second half; and Nicholas Brendan, who also associated produced, delivered a wonderful performance.<br /><br />All in all, this film is definitely worth the view---see it with a Nazi you love. :) | positive |
THE JIST: See something else.<br /><br />This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy "noir" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.<br /><br />This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge. | positive |
"The Honkers" is probably Slim Pickens best performance of all time. When we were shooting, everyone connected with the production figured that Slim was Academy Award material. Unfortunately, United Artists had a James Bond picture in release at the same time and did not devote much attention to "The Honkers". I personally feel this film was under-rated by most critics. Sam Peckinpaw's "Junior Bonner" was out at the same time and seemed to impress the critics more than our film. Also, Cliff Robertson had a rodeo film out a few months before our release and that might have hurt us, too. The picture is worth watching, if just for the rodeo footage--some of the best ever filmed--shot by James Crabbe. The director and my co-writer, Steve Ianat, died a few weeks after the picture's release, cutting short a promising career and leaving behind his lovely wife Sally, his daughter, Gaby, and newborn son, Stefan. Please give this movie a shot. I'm betting that you'll say it was well worth while. I thank anyone who has taken the time to read this. Stephen Lodge | positive |
My family has watched Arthur Bach stumble and stammer since the movie first came out. We have most lines memorized. I watched it two weeks ago and still get tickled at the simple humor and view-at-life that Dudley Moore portrays. Liza Minelli did a wonderful job as the side kick - though I'm not her biggest fan. This movie makes me just enjoy watching movies. My favorite scene is when Arthur is visiting his fiancée's house. His conversation with the butler and Susan's father is side-spitting. The line from the butler, "Would you care to wait in the Library" followed by Arthur's reply, "Yes I would, the bathroom is out of the question", is my NEWMAIL notification on my computer. "Arthur is truly "funny stuff"! | positive |
It's astonishing that some people saw this as art. We saw it as a poorly filmed (shaky hand-held camera and all), (generally) badly acted, unscripted mess that seemed more like a high school film project with the kids experimenting in black & white film making. Injecting mounds of poetry in place of a story does not an art film make. When we watched this in the theatre, people were starting to have fits of the giggles (us included) at the endless stupidity of this self-indulgent, meandering mess. And believe me, it does seem endless. Had we finished our candy and popcorn, we too would have walked out of the theatre with the other two dozen people who packed up and left looking for something more interesting to do! | negative |
It carries the tone of voice that narrates the book into the jungle of Vietnam and into the wild-eyed look of Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper and the mystical morbidity surrounding Colonel Kurtz.(I don't say Marlon Brando because after watching the documentary, "Hearts of Darkness," I am skeptical as to how much credit Brando is due for that quality). The tone of voice I'm talking about is brooding and dramatic without being overbearing: "Everybody gets what he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one. They sent it up with room service." It is indulgent without being narrow and alienating. A good example of is Hopper's indulgence into aphoristic madness, generously installing lines written by T.S. Eliot and Rudyard Kipling into his stony monologues: "I mean, the man's a geniussometimes he'll walk right by you without even saying a word, and sometimes he'll grab you by the collar and say "did you know that 'if' is the middle word in 'life'
if you can hold your head while all around you they are losing theirs" and then "I mean he's a wise man, he's a great man; I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas" (The first one's Kipling, the second one's Eliot. | positive |
The first Disney animated film without the strong involvement of Disney himself, this film suffers from the fact that the story is not particularly original or interesting (this is, I believe, the only animated Disney film since the 1940's which is NOT based on an earlier book or other work, but is rather an original story). As others have noted, the plot is essentially a cross between the romance in Lady and the Tramp and the kidnapping/journey home story in 101 Dalmatians.<br /><br />But to overcome this flaw, the filmmakers have successfully used many of the better features of most of the Disney animated films of the previous 10-15 years: Phil Harris (from The Jungle Book) voicing one of the main characters, follows his duet with Louis Prima in the previous film with another here with Scatman Crothers. The quality visual look of this film is virtually carried over from "Dalmatians" (with some nice nods to French Impressionism, it appears), and the villain here (the butler) is strongly reminiscent of the henchmen in that film as well. (This is probably one of Disney's least memorable villains.) The main story goes back and forth between the cats, and the butler's ongoing difficulties with two rural hound dogs (with great voice work by Pat Buttram and George "Goober" Lindsey"). The various animal characters are similarly familiar to those who have seen "Tramp" and "Dalmatians." The cats' owner, while bearing a striking visual resemblance to the wicked stepmother in Sleeping Beauty, bears none of that character's nasty traits and comes across as very warm and generous.<br /><br />The real strength of the film is the voice work; after first going toward the use of mostly familiar actors in The Jungle Book, the tactic is continued strongly here with Disney veterans Harris and Sterling Holloway from The Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor (who would do a very similar character in the later film The Rescuers), as well as Crothers and Nancy Kulp. All are excellent here, particularly Harris and Gabor in the leads. The character animation is as excellent as one would expect, showing a variety of emotions well.<br /><br />Smaller children may be upset by a few brief episodes (an escape from the path of a speeding train, a near-drowning by one of the children), but these are not presented in a particularly frightening or dark manner and are over very quickly. Overall, there's very little of the type of more frightening scenes found in many other Disney classics.<br /><br />One minor oddity is the way some visual aspects of 60's culture are depicted among the jazz-performing cats in supposedly 1910 Paris; one can't help but wonder why the story wasn't set solidly in the present, other than the great deal Paris had changed much of its appearance in the intervening time. It really would have made more sense that way.<br /><br />The songs, while being pleasant and sometimes very enjoyably performed, are not particularly memorable. Nonetheless, the general energy applied here, the excellent voice work and fine animation all contribute to overcome the relatively few and minor weaknesses. Far from the greatness of classic "10"s such as Pinocchio or Aladdin, and not quite up to the "9"s one might give to Sleeping Beauty or 101 Dalmatians, this is probably a rather marginal 8 of 10; perhaps a 7. | positive |
I've had a morbid fascination with tornadoes for more than 40 years, since my 5th grade teacher, a native Texan, told stories of ones he saw in his youth. Fortunately, I've lived my whole life in the middle Atlantic states, where tornadoes are rare and usually not as violent as the ones in the Midwest, but I have had two close encounters, one in PA and the other in NJ, in the past decade.<br /><br />I enjoyed the family scenes, particularly the conflicts between Jack and Dan Hatch. When the tornado was close, Dan knew most of what he had to do, and he probably learned this in school, since I know that tornado safety is an important subject in parts of the U.S. where these storms are more frequent. However, characters in the movie did two things that some people think are supposed to be done or are safe to do in tornadoes but are actually not supposed to be done or are unsafe.<br /><br />When the siren first sounded, Dan and Arthur went through the house and opened the windows. For years, this is what people were told to do, but tornado safety web sites now advise against doing this. Also, people were shown hiding in a highway underpass. This method was made popular by an early 1990s video made by a T.V. crew during a relatively weak twister in Kansas. However, in the most serious tornadoes, people can be sucked out from these underpasses. This happened during a May 1999 outbreak in Oklahoma.<br /><br />The tornadoes in this movie hit in the fall, which is not a common time for them to happen. (Then again, one of my close encounters took place in late September.) Also, they traveled from northwest to southeast, while most such storms in the northern hemisphere go from southwest to northeast. However, this is not all that unusual. A famous tornado that struck Joliet, IL, in the early 1990s traveled in that direction (as did the one involved in my other close encounter).<br /><br />I think that the movie should have been set in the spring. This movie was based on a book that in turn was based on an actual event that happened on June 3, 1980. But it was still a compelling story. | positive |
The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie! | negative |
Well, I notice IMDB has not offered any plot info...that's because it's not possible to do that without sounding vile and disgusting...because that's what this movie is...VILE AND DISGUSTING !! I watched it because I am a humongous Fan of Chris Noth, whom I have met in person and he is a great guy...but if I ever meet him again, I will have no qualms about asking him whatever posessed him to star in something so awful. He plays a former child prodigy who is now a brilliant doctor, who spends his spare time running over small children with his car, with the intent of maiming and crippling them...this is not a "spoiler", because all this is made very clear from the begining...sickening enough?? Oh, it gets better...he is manipulated into doing this, by his incestuous sister, who threatens to with-hold sexual favors from him if their latest victim fails to die...even Clive Barker couldn't write anything so hideous. Please, if you want to see Chris Noth in something worthy of his talent, rent "Teddy Roosevelt and The Roughriders" | negative |
GLORIFYING not GLAMORIZING World War II.<br /><br />We've had quite a few documentary series about World War II on the regular Television programming. Without looking up any information in some encyclopedia or film book, it seems that this old memory can recollect most names entirely on it's own.<br /><br />There was CRUSADE IN EUROPE,which was the title of the war memoirs of one General of the Army and later the 33rd President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It told the story of the conflict in Europe as viewed by the Supreme Allied Commander.<br /><br />Then there was a CRUSADE IN THE PACIFIC(subject matter self-explanatory),which I don't remember much about. Newspaper Man/Author, Jim Bishop was the host/navigator of BATTLELINE.<br /><br />And there was the excellent WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS.* The Series was a co-production of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Company. It first aired in 1960-61 season here in The States and boasts of having Richard Burton's speaking the words of Sir Winston.<br /><br />It is the 1952 NBC Television Network's Production of our subject matter today, this VICTORY AT SEA that wins the cigar, hands down.<br /><br />To begin with, this had to have taken the production several years of carefully and literally sorting through thousands of hours of film. The movie footage referred to here was the official filmed record taken by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, independent newsreel film, Motion Picture Record of our other Allied Partner Nations,as well as captured Axis pictures from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.<br /><br />Once that was accomplished, the various corresponding film had to be cut and edited into a series of 1/2 hour installments. This was done with great skill, being that there were so many scene changes, whether done abruptly or as a dissolve. The look of ever episode appears as smooth as if it had been a single motion picture project.<br /><br />The writing of the Spoken Word to accompany this finest of real life film was no less amazing and unique. The highly polished and meaningful eloquence wastes not a word and at times even understates the description of action, rather than exaggerating it. The narration goes to Mr. Ralph Graves, who was a talented Actor of Stage, Film, Radio and Television. He certainly gained a measure of immortality by way of his golden toned voicing of the written episode descriptions.<br /><br />Lastly, VICTORY AT SEA enjoys the luxury of having an original score, both opening theme and incidental music, penned by Richard Rodgers of Broadway fame.(Rodgers & Hart, Rodgers & Hammerstein) His compositions are intricate, full, variable and even "classic" in the true sense.<br /><br />The Classical Arrangement was played by the NBC Sympphony Orchestra under the Direction of Robert Russell Bennett and as a soundtrack record/cassette tape/compact disk, it has been continually available and in demand ever since its first release, 55 years ago! And, really small wonder, for it is this musical score that is so mesmerizing to the viewer/listener. It truly puts the frosting on this cake.<br /><br />* SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE VALIANT YEARS also had a beautiful and highly memorable original score. This also was composed by Mr. Rodgers.<br /><br />** We had in additional "Ace in the Hole" in our house in the person of our Father, the Late Clement J. Ryan(1914-74). Dad had been in the U.S.Navy during the war, being inducted in 1943 or'44. Our Pop was always on hand to explain and further elucidate any of the situations that were depicted in the series.<br /><br />He and our Mother the now 90 year old Bertha (nee Fuerst)Ryan already had my older sister, Joanne(1942-90)as a Dependant. | positive |
I attended a screening of this film. Travolta came to do a Q & A after the film ended. It was a small screening room in Tribeca. Out of courtesy to him I did not walk out which I wanted to do. This is film-making at its worst. To start the script was poorly written. The writer writes in one voice. The dialogue was stilted and clichéd. How this writer/director got Scarlet Johansen, John Travolta and Lions Gate Entertainment to back her on this is the only brilliant thing she accomplished in this fiasco.<br /><br />I do in fact recommend this film to all aspiring screenwriters, directors and filmmakers. Because when you are told that you are wasting your time and it will be impossible for you to reach your goals. Hey...just look at this crap and say to yourself...if they can make this then anythings poosible.<br /><br />PS- Travolta did a great Q&A though...he was at ease, spoke freely and was a down to earth nice guy. The director/writer stood on the sidelines. When John tried to engage her in the conversation she stood back like a piece of wood and never joined in. I looked at her and I thought...how was this person able to successfully "pitch" to agents, studio execs, top talent ...when she can't open her mouth at a screening of her own film. The conclusion from a few of us in attendance was that she must have strong family connections in the business.<br /><br />After you watch this you should follow it with Guy Ritchie's zero star masterpiece "Swept Away" with the most unintentionally funny and worst performance by wife Madonna. She's so bad and looks so bad in this film I figure this was her his way of getting back at her for all the abuse he takes from her at home. | negative |
Saw this last night at the 7th Annual NYC Home Film Festival -- a rather tumultuous venue that quieted down for this sweet and touching two-woman film.<br /><br />The relationship between the two -- one, older and blind, the other, a twenty- something who helps her with her mail -- is established deftly, and its depth is readily apparent.<br /><br />There are no car chases, explosions, or mind-boggling special effects -- just the sometimes difficult but rewarding task of humans reaching out toward each other to help and be helped.<br /><br />See if it you can! | positive |
This movie may be the best ever if you like watching movies and laughing and then subjecting your friends to watch those movies too. If you're anything like me, and you probably are, you'll be laughing for years to come at the jokes in this movie. One of the funniest parts is when Gus sharks some money off a guy with kids and then the guy takes those kids into the forest like Hansel and Gretel then he and his wife go home with them. The soup scene kitchen is rife with comic genius of buffoonery: "Inspection officer -- Here!" and the lines to follow will stay in my mind forever probably. When I have shown this movie to my friends, they usually say "What was that?!?" so if you're in the mood for one of those types of movies, yippee! This movie is so OOP it's not funny anymore, so probably the easiest way to get it would be online auctioning. The first time I saw it was from a rental. | positive |
Paul Mazursky's Tempest - Interesting,odd and strange movie about a mid-life crisis.Set in NYC and a remote Greek Island with John Cassavettes as world renowned architect who decides to drop out.He is accompanied by his daughter(Molly Ringwald) and a lounge singer(Susan Sarandon).A beautiful transfer of this 25 year old movie on the DVD- but without any extras-not even the theatrical trailer.Tons of great scenery and razor-sharp dialogue make this 2 and a half hour movie an interesting trip.Raul Julia and Gena Rowlands round out a strong cast.A good drama mixed with comedy and tension and near insanity.This recent DVD release is worth renting. B+ | positive |
Giorgino is a long, excruciating journey from bad to worse in the life of protagonist after whom the movie is named. Young demobilized, gas-poisoned First World War lieutenant of very delicate health, who previously was a doctor in an orphanage for children with some mental deprivations, goes in a search of their new location and finds much more than he ever intended to and quite of a different nature. Depressive atmosphere of ultimate despair, where the insane ones are much less horrible than the sane, where the madness is a kind of poetry, will hold you hypnotized from the very first frames of this film to the last. And all the beauty: beauty of the winter and mountains, beauty of snowy landscapes and wild woods, I don't even know how all the sorrow and sadness of last days of war could be made so beautiful. | positive |
A tedious effort from not-yet great director Budd Boetticher and pretty but not-yet un-bland actress Nina Foch, this movie is, as one of the other reviewers notes, is the quintessence of a certain kind of B movie. It's just not the good kind. And a promising premise and an overactive fog machine is wasted.<br /><br />Basic plot -- Nina, a nurse on leave from wartime duties on account of her nerves, has a nightmare. She meets a dashing fellow at the resort where she's giving her nerves a breather, and realizes he's in the dream, even though she's never met him before. Meanwhile, it turns out our dashing guy is working as a spy, and is about to go on an-extra secret, hush-hush mission that must not fail.<br /><br />Of course, there are Nazis. And plot holes. And smart people acting in a fashion most likely to get them into entirely unnecessary scrapes, so that the running time can be spun out past an hour. At the end, the movie becomes a contest between which group of spies can act more foolishly. If the FBI and OSS had acted like this crew, we'd have lost the war in '42.<br /><br />The movie itself is rather flatly shot (despite the best efforts of the fog machine) and the acting -- as it seems to be in many of the Columbia Bs TCM has been showing lately -- is curiously unengaged. It's less stylized than what one might find from a similarly budgeted Warner Bros movie, but also less fun to watch.<br /><br />Boetticher's strength, of course, is a rather matter of fact style which allows the strong stories and acting in his Randolph Scott westerns to come to the fore. Maybe the problem here is that such a style is not going to work when the script is lousy and the actors tired from their five film a year schedule. | negative |
I feel the movie did not portray Smith historically. The goal of this movie was to tell Smith's life in a way that would be "comfortable" to the LDS Church leaders, historical accuracy seems to have been of little concern. The movie was designed to be a "faith promoting" experience, not a balanced view of Smith "as a man." I have taken it upon myself to study Smith's life and have read both LDS works and none LDS works. The movie, like most LDS projects, was beautifully filmed and well acted. However, this was not a realistic portrayal of either the beginnings of Mormonism or Smith's relatively short life.<br /><br />A significant period of time was given to reenacting an accident that Smith had when he was seven. While this event was no doubt important in forming his mental outlook, it appears that the main reason for including it in the film is to help establish a sympathetic view of Joseph Smith. Another point is in portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Another problem is while the movie shows Joseph Smith good-naturedly entering into wrestling contests, it fails to show how he sometimes lost his temper and became violent.<br /><br />I could go on and on. This movie was not historical in any way and should be considered a fictional movie about a man. I would not recommend seeing this movie for any other purpose other then entertainment. | negative |
Flat out the funniest spoof of pretentious art house films ever made.<br /><br />This flick exposes all the clichés, and then some! Excruciatingly bad (Downs-Syndrome!) actors. Terribly heavy self important dialog. Scenes that are supposed to shock but fall flat. Jarring editing. Pointless plot points. All wrapped up in a kind of smirky miasma of disrespect for the audience and vague psych-drivel.<br /><br />It achieves exactly what it was designed to. A hilarious satire of those tedious movies made by spoiled teenage trust-funders, to show to their parents when they ask them what they've been doing for the last two years! After "What Is It?" received its Cannes award, presenter Werner Herzog was rumored to have been told that the film was in fact a spoof, in part of his own films! He supposedly blew up at the info. To this day he refuses to discuss the incident.<br /><br />Anyway, see it and laugh, this will be a classic of humor for many years to come. | positive |
Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.<br /><br />I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.<br /><br />It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.<br /><br />Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.<br /><br />Don't watch this film. | negative |
This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The fact that it has a flimsy storyline is bad enough, that they've hooked it around the subject of football violence makes it 100 times worse.<br /><br />I had severe doubts about the premise of this film even before I started watching, but went into it open minded enough even to accept the way that the writers saw fit to introduce Elijah Wood's character Matt into the hooligan scene.<br /><br />But the film throws up inaccuracy after inaccuracy, to the point that by the middle of the film each one makes you cringe harder than the time before.<br /><br />Let's clear up a few things: Hooligans don't tend to virtually smash up their own pub before a run-of-the-mill league game; they don't set out to kill each other; they don't ONLY wear Stone Island (and others in the crowd, hooligans or not, do). They most certainly don't, when having taken exception to a new firm member, trot off to their rival firms territory for pie and mash. And I'd love to meet the hool who would go and grass on his firm's top boy to the rival firm. (Although you can scratch what I said about setting to out kill each other if one does exist).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong,I'm yet to see a film on the subject that doesn't contain some fantasy whims, but this is on a par with The Firm for cluelessness.<br /><br />I found it ironical that Wood's American nemesis is morally condemned by his character for being a cocaine user, when this is part and parcel of the British hooligan scene. The film chooses not to challenge Wood's morals and instead steers clear of any of the firm using coke.<br /><br />I could go on, but I think I've made my point.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's highly unimaginative, and I'm sure if I hadn't spent the entire film bemoaning the points, and more, made above then I would have guessed what was going on sooner than I did. And believe me, I was well in front.<br /><br />I get the distinct impression this film is aimed at men, with the hope that women will enjoy the injection of emotional issues that are raised.<br /><br />If I'm right, then the makers have failed completely. It's too unrealistic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows about the scene, and I can't believe the kind of female who looks for emotive films would give a damn about any of the characters given their violent tendencies.<br /><br />Are there any good points? Maybe the fight scenes are well choreographed and filmed, but I'm rarely impressed by slow-mo action, certainly not when it's a fight as the point is a ruck is rousing enough anyway.<br /><br />There are some funny, if unrealistic moments. Wood's trip to school did raise a smile for me. But a few mildly funny moments hardly make up for watching two hours of complete fabricated dross.<br /><br />If you're British avoid like the plague, if only not to further develop misconceptions of the scene if you're not in the know. If you're American, you may enjoy it, as it's clearly tailored to the market. But no one can deny the plot is flimsy, predictable and ultimately over the top. | negative |
Shakespeare Behind Bars was a strangely uplifting documentary despite its content. Convicts at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky who have raped, murdered etc
and surrounded by bad people in an obviously depressing environment find something they genuinely enjoy and can become important, popular and celebrated in acting. There are paralleled themes to 'Shawshank Redemption' with their institutionalised natures and search for forgives and redemption for their past lives. As we follow a generous, non judgemental Director, who gives up his time each year to Direct certain inmates in a chosen play by William Shakespeare (this time around, the 'Tempest', that was cleverly portrayed with the inmates who could relate to it so much with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption in which they confide and relate to) we are introduced to each actor in formal interviews that are nicely paced with break up footage of them rehearsing. Each actor has their own story and tell of their regrets and reasons why they are there in emotional fashion with melancholic music over each in a traditional documentary sense. The strongest and most respected inmate (it would seem) is Sammie. The Director appears to immediately realise who the most interesting inmates were in Sammie (and later, Hal) and allows a longer, more in depth observation into the man and his personality. His presence is felt on screen and his personal revelations come as a shock to the audience, but give him such appeal in his emotional personality and a particular empathy is felt toward him. Hal is the same at the beginning of the film. He has other things that he does to pass the time that's shown as a comfortable hobby as it were in running an on site news broadcast programme. Again, through personal interviews and revelations self admitted by Hal (and nicely shot cutaways of Hal's body language, not the close-ups of his uncertain hand movement not only observed with him but others as well,) in particular his heart felt story about being unsure and scared of his true sexuality in a society that purely would not accept him as a homosexual until later on in the film where he is shown to be quite snide and rude to other inmates involved in the play as though he deems himself above all of them, in particular to Ron who already has a frustrating temperament in his acting. The relationship between all of the inmates involved in the play is shown as one of respect and unity to achieve something great for themselves. With nice (if not clichéd) motions of time passing by with titles etc
everything seems to go right in the first act, and then on the build up to the public performance, things predictably go wrong. An induction of one of the actors being transferred and his character being replaced by a younger, newer inmate gives the narrative a nice subplot into someone who promises big, but in the end disappoints all and does not live up to their expectation. One inmate in particular (Big-G) welcomes the new inmate actor (Rick) with an evident will to nurture him into their beloved practise and hopefully become a good role model. The film seems to capture each inmates passion so well with something the audience can relate to especially when Rick is put in the 'Hole' for getting new tattoos (something nicely hinted upon earlier in the film when the warden stops a random inmate in the yard and asks him when he got a tattoo that's on his arm and we learn it's a punishable offence in the facility) and Big-G's disappointment is understood deeply. A happy ending? It all looks great when they are performing successfully (even being invited to perform elsewhere) and a sense of real unity echoes around them, but in the end, the film brings everyone back down to earth that this is short lived and everything they ever had or wanted was and will always be taken away from them. It is back to prison to pay for their crimes and no matter what redemption they seek in acting these plays, they won't be free men, their proud performances and recognition is undermined by the fact that they are the lowest of the low criminals and a nice halt in the uplifting music that plays in a shot of a long corridor that coincides with the lights turning off and doors shutting is a powerful image of their oppression. The Director seemed to be aware he was watching likable people in the documentary by given additional information at the end of the film into each actors future from the end of the film about where they are and what's happening to them now. | positive |
I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film. | positive |
I saw this short film on HBO the other day and absolutely loved it. Eight different characters, eight different perspectives. At first I was confused by the way the story was moving along, but then I realized that it was just one scene being shown over and over again, just to show us the different perspectives of the characters.<br /><br />At first, you think the clerks are yelling at the teenager for stealing. They speak in their own language, which I (and Chris the teenager, played convincingly by Eleonore Hendricks) cannot understand. The perspective of the clerks dispels that view. I didn't realize how wonderful the short really is until the last two scenes.<br /><br />Excellent short film. Hopefully, the director James Cox can turn the short into a feature length film with the same cast, or win us over with a whole new film.<br /><br /> | positive |
Burt Kennedy both wrote & directed this western taken from a novel. Kennedy was a well known good writer & director, mostly westerns.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum was a star for over 20 years when he made this. This role was like many he had made already,One can see why he was a big star for so many years.<br /><br />He filled this role easily like a well used glove.<br /><br />The title character is played by Robert Walker Jr. (his father a fine actor Robert Walker--died tragically at age 32---his mother is noted actress Jennifer Jones).<br /><br />Robert was of slight build & even though he had talent only made a few films. (he was in Rita Hayworth's near last film.<br /><br />ROAD TO SALINAS ---the same year & was very good).<br /><br />He looked very much like his father, but seemed to lack his fathers charm. He made only a few more movies. He is still living & I wish him well.<br /><br />Most of his scenes are with another son of a Hollywood great. John Carradine's son David, who is still making movies. they made a nice team.<br /><br />In westerns you always have a female character & usually she is a dance hall performer. (today they call them hookers), Angie Dickinson assays this role nicely. also featured are western stalwarts, John Anderson & Jack Kelly.<br /><br />It was film in Old Tucson )outside of downtown Tucaon Az,. & the scenery is gorgeous.<br /><br />Typical of the older westerns, there is not too much action,there is some good humour & the usual ending shoot out.<br /><br />It is a fast enjoyable 89 minutes.<br /><br />Ratings: *** (out of 10) 84 points(out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10) | positive |
The film made no sense to me whatsoever. Good actors(SergioCastellittoaparticular favourite; he was great in "Uomo DelleStelle"/"TheStarmaker"but that was made by Giuseppe Tornatore, a great Italian director as opposed to the mediocre one who made this effort),but awful, rambling script, terrible editing,and a director who seemed to have no idea of what he was trying to say, and ended up saying exactly nothing. Apretentious load of rubbish, but the sort of film that certain Italianpseudo-intellectuals whom it was my misfortune to have known in the dim and distant past would have loved it, and unfortunately Italy has no monopoly on these, they can be found everywhere and probably acclaim this as a great masterpiece. I never thought much of Bellochio as director. I remember seeing his first film "PugniNella Tasca"/"Fists in the Pocket" (or some such title) in Rome when it was first shown close on 50 years ago (I was living thereat the time). All the usual pseudos raved about it, but it left me pretty cold. I didn't think he was much of a director then, and still don't. Age has certainly not improved him, and this film must rank as one of his worst. | negative |
Tycoon will never be listed as one of John Wayne's better post Stagecoach film. It's good in spots, has some fine action sequences in the cave in and also in the flood at the climax. But the plot leaves a lot to be desired.<br /><br />What we have in Tycoon is two men who thoroughly dislike each other and that dislike prevents them from working as a team. Multimillionaire Cedric Hardwicke has hired John Wayne and James Gleason to build a railroad. But then he refuses to give them the needed funds to do the job right.<br /><br />Things get really complicated when Wayne falls for Hardwicke's daughter, Laraine Day. After a night when they have to spend time alone in an Inca ruin, by convention in South America, Wayne and Day get a shotgun wedding even though nothing happened.<br /><br />What should have happened is these two should have been locked in a room for 24 hours together to work out their differences one way or another. Their petty spites cause some fatalities among Wayne's crew.<br /><br />But what Tycoon is most known for is another piece of pettiness. Laraine Day was married to Leo Durocher the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers when this was being filmed. He was a constant presence on the set, insanely jealous of John Wayne who he thought might be having an affair with his wife. Nothing to it, but he made his wife's life miserable.<br /><br />Not one of the Duke's better efforts. | negative |
This film illustrates the worst part of surviving war, the memories. For many soldiers, men and women alike, returning home can be the beginning of real problems. I am reminded of my father and his brothers returning from WWII. For one of my uncles the war was never over. He survived the D-Day invasion, something akin to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For him the memories not only lingered but tortured him. He became an alcoholic as did several of my cousins, his sons. Jump ahead 60 years and place the soldiers in a different war, in a different country, the result is the same. When I saw this at the KC FilmFest, I was reminded that there are somethings about war that never change. The idealistic young men and women are not spared the emotional torment of what happened in Iraq, and especially if you are against the war you will come away with more compassion for the soldiers there trying to do what they believe or have been told is right.<br /><br />The tag line from the Vietnam war film Platoon says it all. "The First Casualty of War is Innocence." | positive |
First, the obviousas a cop drama crossed with a funny melodrama, QUAY
is disconcerting ,straightly independent and a menace to banality. Jouvet's aplomb is put to good use in a tough cop performance immediately noticeable by its vigor and exuberant force; his Antoine is not so much a man of intellect, but a man of vast life experience and earthly instinct. QUAY
is not subversive in the sense that today's (and already yesterday's ) philistines enjoy using the word. It is Clouzot's most playful hour. He tended to adapt Steeman's books in a satiric note. (It's said that Clouzot was a big reader of detective novels.) As a director, Clouzot's firm hand is successful. <br /><br />It is not a mystery or a thriller,but a satirical look at a Parisian couple and at the police's proceedings. Those accustomed with Clouzot's masterpiece LES DIABOLIQUES might find slightly disconcerting the multiplicity of things, styles, elements in QUAY
.Here Clouzot speaks about many things, about a couple, and a hidden love story (Simone Renant's for Blier),about the entertainment's world and about old spinsters, about police techniques and an old bitter cop with a boy to raise, etc.. There is a note of exuberancenot only in Jouvet's performance, but also in the film's conception. <br /><br />Quay is a realistic crime drama made as a satire. It offers an outstanding performance by Jouvet as a tough police inspector. Antoine is an old cop with an adventurous past (he fought in Africa ,but did not climb the ranks' stair because of his independent behaviors); he lives with his son, a schoolboy; at work, Antoine is tough and merciless, an able inspector, bitter, intelligent and harsh. It is a role of great gusto, very picturesque. Jouvet composed his character of several defining traitshis clothes, his expression, his funny accent, his brutality, and that mocking air
.Antoine is not made to look more clever than plausible; when he interrogates Blier, Antoine makes mistakes ,and his talent is presented like the talent we meet in real lifemixed with errors and lacunae and defects. Antoine's talent is one that comes also from experience, from daily observationit's not the almost supernatural _divinatory genius of almost all the famous detectives.<br /><br />QUAY
is multifacetedit is a realistic crime drama, and also a satire and a melodrama. One can consider it among the first _filmic forays into the legendary toughness of the French police. Long ago Eastwood's and Wayne's harsh cops, there was Antoine. <br /><br />The title is interesting, suggesting that this is a movie about the police, not about a case or a mystery. <br /><br />As craftsmanship, Clouzot was perhaps the best and sharpest in France (in the way that Welles was). QUAY
is very true to Clouzot's naturea sardonic comic, sharp observations, much psychology, sharp, unsparing irony. The man was firstclass when he filmed somethinghe knew what to shoot, what to choosesee the introductory scenes of this film, with Jenny Lamour's great stage success. Each scene is memorably, _exemplarily shot. Clouzot's technical, stylistic aptitudes were amazing. His style is inventive, satirical, sharp, extremely limpid, ingenious. <br /><br />Jouvet's style was exuberant, powerful, vehement. (Some disliked it precisely for these features. As he had been a great stage actor, his movie style was deemed as too theatrical, etc..) His Antoine is a fine example of what was meant by composing a role, by a composition. <br /><br />Jouvet had a very peculiar physiognomymuch like a menacing bird of preysomewhat like Van Cleefyet much subtler, nobler and more intelligent and distinguished. Jouvet had this predatory, ferocious air, and it is useful here, as he performs an old tough cop. One of QUAY
's sides is that it is a Jouvet recital. He is immediately recognizable, identifiable by the quality of his play (I see that many, watching this flick, do not know it is a Jouvet moviewhich is an astounding quality in itself). <br /><br />Fresnay and Jouvet are the two French actors that I admire the most; the first one was revealed to me by a Renoir drama (the famous one), while Jouvet by a Carné comedy. I was charmed to see that Clouzot gave leading roles to both of them.<br /><br />To end, a word about Steeman; he wrote the novel used by Clouzot (who had previously adapted another Steeman novel, as a Fresnay comedy). Steeman was an old school mystery writer, in the Wallace vein. He became quickly outdated with the new hardboiled fashions. When I was 11 I have read one of his thrillers, and liked it much. | positive |
The worst film I have seen in the last 12 months. The plot of the story was uninteresting, the movie ended when he became gingesh khan, i always thought there happened something really interesting afterwards. i knew that Mongolia and all the areas where the movie played have beautiful landscapes but the movie didn't profit from that. The jokes where really poor. The narrator, gingesh himself, could have told a bit more about Mongolian history, traditions etc. My co-viewer knew nothing about that at all so he was a bit lost. I was so looking forward to see this film but was really disappointed after all. It was one out of 3 movies I have ever seen in cinema where I considered to leave before the end. | negative |
I don't know how to describe this movie. It's definitely one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a long time. It is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. The scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who's into gore & splatter. I found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. The clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and The Dentist is therefore quite unsettling.<br /><br />The humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. But if you're a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for.<br /><br />If you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment, give it a try!<br /><br />My rating: 4/10 (maybe a little too weird for my taste) | negative |
OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.<br /><br />I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.<br /><br />I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!! | positive |
I just didn't get this movie...Was it a musical? no..but there were choreographed songs and dancing in it...<br /><br />Was it a serious drama....no the acting was not good enough for that.<br /><br />Is Whoopi Goldberg a quality serious Actor..Definently not.<br /><br />I had difficulty staying awake through this disjointed movie. The message on apartheid and the "tribute" to the students who died during a student uprosing is noted. But as entertainment this was very poor and as a documentary style movie it was worse.<br /><br />See for yourself, but in fairness I hated it | negative |
I wanted to like this film, yes its a SAW, blah blah blah ripoff but I like those films. If done well this had all the ingredients of being a good, not brilliant, but good film....unfortunately those ingredients had gone off! The acting was terrible, and this was first seen when the captives are introduced with their captor one by one (hoods taken off), the remarks and one liners are just terrible, yes I know, bad writing....but this is more than that, it was bad writing coupled with bad acting. Two of the captives had been in a relationship with each other and did not even acknowledge this until a lot further into the film.....<br /><br />Sorry, Im even wondering why I am bothering to review this movie at all.<br /><br />I will end with PLOT HOLES, PLOT HOLES & MORE PLOT HOLES! DISAPPOINTING! | negative |
Barely three and a half years after just scraping out a month's run (7-31 Oct. 1953) at Broadway's Coronet Theatre (on west 49th Street; since renamed the O'Neill), MGM relied on the earlier solid London success of the play to lavish a wonderful cast and - for the most part - carefully "opened up" production on a sadly trimmed down screenplay of this slyly subversive boulevard comedy and were rewarded with a modest hit.<br /><br />Ava Gardner is the increasingly frustrated wife of Stewart Granger, an internationally successful and entirely complacent "workaholic" (before the term had been coined) using the perpetually frustrated David Niven to attempt to rekindle passion in her spouse. When the "second honeymoon" cruise Gardner inveigles Granger into leaves the trio (and Granger's dog) marooned on a south sea island (were there other survivors? That's for later plot developments), Granger continues right on managing the world around him - building a big hut for himself and his wife and a little one of the title for Niven - or the unattached male.<br /><br />The core of the actual plot of the play only gets going about half way through the film when Niven proposes that Granger and he alternate as tenants of the Little Hut - sharing the only female on the island as Granger has been willing to share the only pair of shoes (his).<br /><br />Reason (which Granger considers his strong point) reigns and frustration reigns supreme - for a while.<br /><br />David Niven and Ava Gardner are superb in their appointed roles of suave would-be seducer and seductress, and Stuart Granger - usually called upon merely to be handsome and virile in action roles and the odd miscast specialty (a crowing pretty-boy as Apollodorus in Shaw's CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA in 1945) - gives one of the better acting performances of his film career as the husband who may actually be as smart as he thinks he is. 33 years later he would again show this suave urbanity opposite Rex Harrison in Granger's first (and BOTH their last) Broadway engagements in a hit revival of Somerset Maugham's THE CIRCLE which only ended with Harrison's death. We'd be far richer if Granger had used these skills more often.<br /><br />As promising as the menage is, this is, after all, a very British Boulevard Comedy AND Hollywood in the 1950's which is to say that (unlike the source play) very little sex actually goes on. To be frank, if you don't give yourself over to the ideas driving the contrivances it does get a bit silly (the same basic plot is far more satisfyingly developed three years later in the Cary Grant/Deborah Kerr/Robert Mitchum/Jean Simmons (Stewart Granger's actual wife) THE GRASS IS GREENER, based on an even less successful play, but for some reason that superior trifle failed at the box office).<br /><br />As lavishly as MGM set the piece, there were unfortunate lapses - the silliness which ends the stay on the island is cartoonishly presaged in what should have been a moment of genuine excitement - the sinking of the yacht that PUTS them on the island. Ultimately we only get about three quarters of an hour of the real Little Hut, but ninety good minutes of David Niven, Ava Gardner and Stewart Granger that make the film a fun diversion. Not high culture, but a worthy guilty pleasure.<br /><br />We even get some very nice garnish in Walter Chiari (reputed to be Ava's actual lover at the time). As one of his better speeches goes: "Boola, boola!" | positive |
This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull. | negative |
This movie is a shame especially considering Andrzej Wajda is not an amateur, but professional director. However this movie fails to deliver anything you could expect.<br /><br />First of all -- I am Polish, so I can tell all the background story, because I read books. But how can you tell there is even a war from this movie -- bunch of people are going back and forth, some soldiers are shouting... This is really The Second World War or soldiers are on vacations?<br /><br />Acting and dialogs -- poor, miserably poor. A.Żmijewski, D.Stenka, M.Komorowska, W.Kowalski, A.Chyra fit in their roles, the rest of (Polish) cast is out of the place (most notably M.Ostaszewska, one of the leading characters, what an unfortunate choice). 99% of the dialogs are not spoken, they are just put there, actors had difficulties to perform and it is no surprise considering what odd things they had to say.<br /><br />And this leads us to the most disappointing issue -- you can't feel it. Everything is so theatrical, artificial. There is no real life, there is no feeling in it. There are a lot of original footage from the WWII and, guess what, the material is much more powerful, dramatic, than what A.Wajda did.<br /><br />I can see only one positive -- despite historical mistakes (like acronym ZSRR; it was made for post-1945 propaganda purposes, to please Polish that ZSRS was gone, and now there was ZSRR, but in 1940 there was no ZSRR!), luckily it is undoubtedly shown killing in Katyn was done by Soviets (yes, it is a fact, not some controversial gossip). Great, two hours for 5-10 minutes scene.<br /><br />Anyway -- time and potential wasted. This is tragedy of epic proportions, will to fight in 1939 (barely shown), not declaring war against Soviet Union by Polish authorities (sic! not shown here), imprisonment of soldiers shortly after, living in the outrageous conditions (not shown here), hope and fear what will come next (barely shown) , and then... extermination. Hand to hand with Germans -- Soviets were exterminating Polish nation, aimed at people who constituted the backbone of Poland. Unfortunately they succeed, and the results are still visible to this very day. | negative |
I've always been a fan of Chuck Norris for what he's accomplished and his movies. For while I had been meaning to watch this film, but for whatever reason didn't have chance. Apparently I didn't miss much. This has to be one of Chuck's worst films. So this trucker, Billy Dawes (Augenstein) is given the chance to make his delivery, but on the way he is detoured and forced into a jerkwater town where a foolish local corrupt Judge Trimmings (Murdock) who runs the whole town, has him arrested and phony charges brought up on him. He denies the charges and makes a run for it. The local hick cops beat him and he disappears. But now his brother JD John Dawes (Norris) another trucker goes looking for him. He soon finds that the town is run buy the loser judge and that his brother is nowhere to be found. Not long after he begins to beat off just about everyone in town. In the meantime the female of the film calls on local truckers on a CB radio, and they all come rushing into town demolishing it. LOL with there big rigs. Eventually Norris finds his brother and beats off more thugs.<br /><br />This movie was pretty bad. It actually starts off OK and you feel great when Norris starts to smash some of these local corrupt cops, because there such losers. But there is virtually no story, the acting is bad, and the ending
..well it doesn't really have one. The Judge has his house rammed into by a big rig and you never know what happens. Does he live? Norris never even gets to trash him. In the meantime Norris takes on some thug cop at the end. Who cares? Norris also manages to take on everyone in town, gets his hand broken and shot in the side and goes on to keep fighting. Come on! This movie was apparently made to cash in on the CB craze of the time, why there was one is beyond me. They barley even use the CB's in the movie. Adding to this, the movie near the end seems to drag on and you wonder why it's not over yet. This movie is bad, but if you're bored and need something to watch it will pass the time. As far as Norris he went on to make much better films than this. 3 out of 10. | negative |
I laughed so much when I saw this film I nearly soiled myself !. Awful acting, laughable effects (super imposed explosions), and dodgy slow motion fighting.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've ever seen !. | negative |
I had to stop watching this film (a pseudo-intellectual product for pretentious film viewers) twenty minutes into it because it was mediocre and dull enough to inspire yawns, not to mention that I was soon near tears over the $3.99 I had wasted at Blockbuster. Joanna Pacula's acting and her awfully rendered Slavic accent are sufficiently terrible to set one to gritting one's teeth. I knew that two hours of her would be two hours too many. Both Breuer and Nietzsche are played by unremarkable actors of strikingly few talents. While we're on the topic of talent, Breuer's supercilious assistant appears to have been pulled out of a local acting troupe. She clearly has not learned her craft. In fact, she's really quite awful. All the public scenes looked staged, with the extras walking mechanically about in their Sunday best. Turning this film off was far more satisfying than turning it on. Don't rent this terrible movie. You will be sorry you spent your money. | negative |
1937's "Stella Dallas" with Barbara Stanwyck hasn't exactly aged well--how anyone thought a semi-updated version of the story would work now is a real puzzler. Perhaps they thought jaunty, cheerfully brash Bette Midler could make something out of it, but this hoary script defeats her. Plot about a female bartender having a baby out of wedlock, and years later giving the young girl over to the child's wealthy father so she'll have a shot at a better life, can't escape tatty, old-fashioned trappings and sentiment. Midler works best with a movie director who can control her excesses, but that fails to happen here; Stephen Collins is stolid as the man who changes her life, but Trini Alvarado is well-cast as Midler's daughter. This is what used to be referred to as a "woman's picture", a wallow, but it doesn't pass muster because it stays too faithful to its 1930's origins. *1/2 from **** | negative |
After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the "Panzer Cop" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series. | negative |
This German horror film has to be one of the weirdest I have seen.<br /><br />I was not aware of any connection between child abuse and vampirism, but this is supposed based upon a true character.<br /><br />Our hero is deaf and mute as a result of repeated beatings at the hands of his father. he also has a doll fetish, but I cannot figure out where that came from. His co-workers find out and tease him terribly.<br /><br />During the day a mild-manner accountant, and at night he breaks into cemeteries and funeral homes and drinks the blood of dead girls. They are all attractive, of course, else we wouldn't care about the fact that he usually tears their clothing down to the waist. He graduates eventually to actually killing, and that is what gets him caught.<br /><br />Like I said, a very strange movie that is dark and very slow as Werner Pochath never talks and just spends his time drinking blood. | negative |
With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it. | negative |
A few weeks ago the German broadcaster "SAT1" advertised this movie as the "TV-Event of the year" - sorry, but I've seen better things on TV this year.<br /><br />I didn't thought much of the movie but I soon reminisced about two other horrible movies when I watched the commercial - namely Titanic and Pearl Harbor because the picture looked so familiar: The "heroine" (if I can really call her that) in the middle and her two "loved-ones" next to her - Pearl Harbor, anyone? In fact the love-story is a poor man's version of the one in Pearl Harbor and that one was already poor!<br /><br />But as I like watching movies and analyzing their patterns I eventually decided to watch that rubbish. The movie begins with a doctor leaving his family for the military strike against Russia near the end of the Third Reich promising his wife that he will return. Now fast forward to Spring 1948: Germany lost the war and the allies & Russia captured the country and they both try to eliminate each other for world power and their ideologies: capitalism versus communism. Well, I guess you already know the story because you have to know it - The movie doesn't really bother with it so much and literally takes a dump on historical facts. The movie tries to depict the US government as angels and completely ignores the contribution of other countries during the airlift especially Great Britain who was responsible for nearly a quarter of the rations despite having their country bombed from a country that they're trying to help.<br /><br />What was also pretty annoying were the historical remarks the people said in the movie like when the heroine's mother tells her daughter that Germany might be parted in two with a response like: "That's impossible!" Or when Stalin (where the director thought we just stick similarly looking mustache on the actor and he WILL look like him) says that Russia has to stop "Coca Cola" from spreading in Germany. Yeah right, if Stalin has ever said something like this. Or there is this one US pilot who tells his fellow of a bread with meat and everything possible in it - please! Burgers were invented WAY before that time.<br /><br />In the movie you once see a map showing the airlines, funnily enough the map looks like it came straight out of a laser printer - in '48. The US general Lucius Clay who's main idea was to stay in Berlin is portrayed as a guy who is mean and grumpy and all the ideas he historically had like for example the airlift and improving on that idea came from the fictive character Phillip Turner, the love interest of the main actress which leads me to other aspects: Not enough African-American soldiers in the movie, there were like two in the whole film! Also relationships between US soldiers and German civilians was not allowed and by a revealing of such a relationship the US soldier would've been sent home. I don't want to say that there were no relationships at all but in this movie there was a couple that almost got married, If it wasn't for the death of the pilot in his fake CGI plane which looked terribly unrealistic especially the CGI fire!<br /><br />If it wasn't enough all Americans in this movie spoke accent-free German although they only were in Germany for a couple of months - look I'm also American living in Germany for my whole life and even I have a little accent. Notably bad was also the child acting - the kids had like two expressions on their faces: "Normal-I-look-monotonous-like-a-robot" and grinning.<br /><br />All in all the movie was boring from beginning to end moving way too slow especially the love story which was the same as the one in Pearl Harbor just with half of the dialogue. The sad part is that the movie was very successful - 8.97 millions watched the first part and 7.83 millions the second part the day after thus SAT1 receiving two consecutive wins in the overall market share and a whopping win in the commercial relevant group. But like I always think: The biggest pile of bull-crap is where the most flies go to. | negative |
This movie had a lot of ups & downs...The storyline is strong, while telling the saga of Ma' Barker growing up, & then her misadventures with her boys and the FBI..Theresa Russell is very talented and her beauty even shines through, as Ma' Barker, in Public Enemies. The Direction of Mark L. Lester, while not as good as in "85's Commando was still very interesting.<br /><br />Eric Roberts, plays a short-lived part as a security guard, turned thug(and Ma's Lover), and Alyssa Milano plays a prostitute, who hangs with the gang. Frank Stallone, plays a thug who helps out the gang, & while one of his exploits, gets one of Ma's boy into trouble, he gets himself out, in a final way, so to speak...<br /><br />I was perplexed, intrigued & captivated, throughout this movie..So it makes me wonder what movie all these others who voted it so low watched!..For all those wondering..Umm the FBI was actually that bad in the beginning, didn't have tommy guns like the outlaws had, & were thus at quite a disadvantage, whenever they did get into shootout's with gang's of that era..Since everything I saw represented the 30's, I felt it was more realistic than many other movies made portraying that era...It is in may ways like a train wreck happening..You don't want to watch, but JUST have too..Enjoy!!! | positive |
Dad (78) and I (46) both had a good time watching the flick today. For a guy primarily known for serious roles, De Niro is a heckuva comic actor. Of course, it helps to have his past film images to play against. Consider that one of those roles, 15 MINUTES, was a cop having to deal with the interference of the mass media, and you have an interesting set of compare/contrast performances.<br /><br />Murphy plays another of his Axel Foley sort of characters. Shatner plays a burlesque of himself, a parallel world self who was best known for TJ HOOKER and not STAR TREK.<br /><br />It's interesting to watch how the film comments on the contrasts between the reality of police work and its fictional counterparts in TV and film. Shatner lectures on the proper means of sliding across a car hood; De Niro points out holsters scratch the hood finish. Ironically, as the film progresses, De Niro's character begins to incorporate the illusions of TV-cop reality into the real world case he's working.<br /><br />The film draws its inspiration from a gamut of sources, so one could make the comment it is derivative. Well, so what? Satire needs to derive its humor in order to exist. And besides, the film does have quirky moments of originality. For example, I'm reasonably sure the method of the villain's death has never been done before. <br /><br />One quibble about the reality of the weapons involved-- shouldn't those guns have had some kind of recoil? In order to penetrate steel, those bullets had to have enough inertia to penetrate. And any bullet's highest level of inertia is at the moment of firing. So.... firing a volley of these tank-killer bullets should have driven the shooters back onto their butts. Oh, what the heck... it's a satire. Maybe the guns' lack of recoil is itself a satire on the B-F-Guns used so casually in thrillers. <br /><br /> | positive |
I saw this on cable recently and kinda enjoyed it. I've been reading the comments here and it seems that everyone likes the second half more than the first half. Personally, I enjoyed the first story (too bad that wasn't extended.) The second story, I thought, was cliched. And that "California Dreaming," if I hear that one more time... Chungking Express is alright, but it's not something that mainstream audiences will catch on to see, like "Crouching Tiger." | negative |
You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.<br /><br />Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.<br /><br />The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying "Just kidding."<br /><br />But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.<br /><br />It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.<br /><br />Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself. | negative |
Slow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's "Wuthering Heights" or the early 1980's BBC version of "Jane Eyre". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies. | negative |
Wow! i think they made this movie to torture people. there are no words for how much i hated this film. I could have been cleaning my room instead. i love bad melodrama as much as the next person but....come on! | negative |
Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary. | negative |
Francis Ford Coppola's first 'personal' film, completed and released in 1969, was the last movie he made as a mostly unknown, up and coming director before The Godfather, and is in stark contrast to both that film, and the rest of his uneven career. It's ostensibly a road movie involving a disconnected young woman bored with domestic life, and pregnant with a child she isn't sure she wants, fleeing the trappings her dull marriage and hitting the open road in search of freedom. Along the way she befriends a nice man, an ex-footballer player that suffered brain damage from a traumatic head injury, played in unexpectedly subtle fashion by a young James Caan, and decides to 'help' him, despite becoming frustrated with his simple ways. Her efforts to rid of him always fail, either by guilt or chance, and eventually lead her directly into the hands of an emotionally wounded cop(Robert Duvall), who has ideas of his own. The plot is threadbare, but Coppola does a great job at detailing the emotional life of these characters, and uses editing techniques to relay back story that were not at all common in American films of the time. Shots are simple, yet extraordinarily effective, conveying both the moody desolation of the open highway, and the emptiness of American suburban life, infused with a gentle melancholy provided by the film score. Coppola also deserves credit for addressing the issue of domestic discontent from a woman's point of view in the culturally turbulent 60's. Overall, a fairly low-key film that is not what audiences have come to expect from Coppola, but one that is a minor triumph in its own quiet, unassuming way. 7.5/10. | positive |
Entertainment Tonight has been going down hill for the last few years, but as of last night (Aug 17th 2006) they reached a new low.<br /><br />In an effort to try to hype up their broadcast, they decided to post actual photos of JonBenet Ramsey's body in their teasers last night ...saying "Pictures from the case you have never seen before". The two photos were graphic and very disturbing. One was of the side of her face and head/neck and you could clearly see the cord that was used to strangle her around her neck, and bruising on her face. This was so hideously awful, I could not believe it. How has this got to do with ANYTHING remotely related to Hollywood Entertainment?? Nothing!! They have dropped their level of dignity and values to a new low....and it shows. This used to be THE premiere show to watch...and it's just garbage now.<br /><br />I will watch Access Hollywood from now on. | negative |
when i was a child this was the movie i watched. i think it is a great movie for the kids to watch and parents don't have to be afraid of any violence or obscene images. rainbow brite is a cheerful young girl and she is trying to make the winter go away. she finds that something or someone is trying to steal the source of life and keep it for themselves. i love this movie and i think that even adults can enjoy this movie. | positive |
When I saw this film at a festival years ago I was very impressed and I started to looking for it. Nothing to do, not in the cinemas, nor on DVD neither on Blue ray. Absolutely nothing!!! How it's possible this could really happen??? The direction is IMPECCABLE, the story is intriguing and has been filmed in a very original way the music it's perfect and James Franco is hot as hell!!!<br /><br />Please release this master piece and allow it to have it's proper life!!!!!!!!!! This is really a very great movie that people should see and it deserve another chance!!!!!! <br /><br />Edvard | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.