Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.<br /><br />I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.<br /><br />Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling. | negative |
I cannot believe that the Indian film industry still puts out such third-rate dross as Waqt. For starters, the storyline is totally implausible spoilt son gets thrown out of family home so as to teach him some self-sufficiency. So what does he do? He promptly goes on to win some national talent contest by doing some star jumps in front of a panel of judges (I honestly am not joking here). In the meantime, his dad is dying of lung cancer, but keeps it a secret from the son, but he survives long enough to see his son become famous, to see his new grandson and also make a new toy giraffe with his own hands.<br /><br />The acting is cringe worthy in its hamminess no effort was made to try and act in any convincing manner by any of the main players in this film. As usual for Indian films, the family lived in a huge mansion and seemed relatively untouched by the concerns of the real world.<br /><br />To be honest, the main losers when such dire films are made are the intelligent viewers who made the mistake of seeing such a film. The actors, such as Amitabh Bachchan and Akshay Kumar, will still be revered as Gods by those people who have nothing but blind faith in Bollywood. | negative |
I just watched this, an early Harold Lloyd short film that featured his "glasses" character on Kino Video's DVD of "The Harold Lloyd Collection". He's actually a con man with Snub Pollard as his partner who gets discovered by Bebe Daniels who herself performs fake séances. What she discovers is that Lloyd and Pollard bilk many customers by dropping fake rings that are "lost". I'll stop there and just say this was quite funny especially when Harold and Snub enter the place Bebe works and encounter some creepy contraptions and put on costumes like Snub trying one of Bebe's outfits. Not too much slapstick but what there is of was also quite funny. So on that note, I recommend Are Crooks Dishonest? | positive |
Five years after the US Civil War, western folk are more concerned with the age old war between homesteaders and cattle ranchers. The cattlemen herd their wares, from Texas to the trail town of Abilene, Kansas. There, the cowboys find not only big money, but also big confrontation, with homesteaders. Tall in the saddle Marshal Randolph Scott (as Dan Mitchell) tries to keep peace in the town. Mr. Scott has experience mediating between trail hands and saloon patrons. He also juggles the town's finest looking women: sexy saloon singer Ann Dvorak (as Rita) and pretty church lady Rhonda Fleming (as Sherry). Boozy county Sheriff Edgar Buchanan (as Bravo Trimble) offers more comic relief than sharp-shooting assistance.<br /><br />"Abilene Town" begins with some promising symbolism and contrast: gunshots interrupt Scott and Ms. Fleming singing a hymn in Church; then, the camera switches to Ms. Dvorak sexily singing her saloon number, which causes a man to fire his gun in pleasure. After that, it really becomes quite a standard western; it is somehow duller than it should be, but not quite awful. Young Lloyd Bridges appears as one of the homesteaders. Dvorak's leggy costume is the film's greatest asset; in it, she is a real mover. <br /><br />**** Abilene Town (1/11/46) Edwin L. Marin ~ Randolph Scott, Ann Dvorak, Edgar Buchanan | negative |
This is a lame comedy.<br /><br />Here's why: A man and wife sitcom. Okay.<br /><br />The Husband is a douche bag. The Wife is the Einstein.<br /><br />How original is that? <br /><br />Jerry Stiller is just the same guy on Seinfeld.<br /><br />The gags are lame. No witty one-liners.<br /><br />I have had enough. Stop this now.<br /><br />The Last Word: Stupid. The destruction of the average white guy continues on ABC. The worst part? Kevin James is actually a funny comedian. He just isn't here. Leah Remini is great eye candy, but is unlikeable. Wasted talent is the word. Bad sitcom. | negative |
I only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't it? | negative |
In & Out is a comedy with a simple premise. It admirably succeeds in the mission of being funny and entertaining.<br /><br />The comedy in this film ranges from the ridiculous to the sublime, physical comedy exists alongside dry humor, with a nice veteran turn by Bob Newhart. Kevin Kline is predictably in excellent form in this film, alongside Tom Selleck not playing to his expected "square jawed" leading man type. Mr. Selleck plays his humor well and displays a nice sense of comedic timing. The cast makes this film successful.<br /><br />Not all films with homosexual themes are made to advance some sort of sinister, hidden Hollywood liberal agenda, in point of fact this film was simply made to entertain, and if any part of this films makes the viewer think, then it was a byproduct of the well-acted work by a terrific cast of professionals. Frequently tongue-in-cheek, I found myself laughing at the right moments. A solid "B." | positive |
SPOILER!! Terrible camera work, horrible writing, non-existent plot, and numerous plot wholes. Wonderful acting! Except for Julia Roberts. Who poorly plays someone who is impersonating Julia Roberts, poorly. Catherine Zeta Jones is adorable in this movie.<br /><br />During the movie, we repeatedly zoom in, on each of the twelve (!) characters. Twelve is too many, even for a classic like 12 Angry Men. And the problem is, we tediously zoom in on the characters, when all of them are in the same room, doing the same thing.<br /><br />Yep, Clooney's eating. Yep, Pitt's eating. Yep, the "Jew" is eating. Yep, the geek is eating. Yep, the bodybuilder's eating. Yep, Mr. Sensitive is eating. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep--Yep. Yep. Phew! This happens at least three other times in the movie. Yep, they're all sitting in cars, bored. Yep, they're all getting arrested, frightened. Yep, they're all being led out of a jail, depressed.<br /><br />But it wasn't until I was home that I realized how badly they'd "got" me on this one. This is a heist movie, right? That's what I went to see, right? But when I walked in and set my car keys in the change jar, only then I realized: NOTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN IN THIS MOVIE! That's right. It's a heist movie, where nothing gets stolen. Oh, they try. They go to try and steal some boring document or something, from some guy's house (whatever), and it turns out it's already been stolen. 20 minutes of my life, wasted. Then they try to steal some egg from some museum (YAWN!), and they screw that up and get arrested.<br /><br />Then we see how some fairy french guy stole the egg even before they did, and we get all the joy of "Entrapment", except this time the person inside the tight catsuit dancing around the fake lasers is... an ugly skinny french guy. Um.<br /><br />But it turns out he didn't actually steal the egg either. Actually, our heroes stole the egg, LOOOONG ago, in another movie entirely, which would have been a GREAT movie to watch, had they made that movie.<br /><br />Instead we see a 30 second clip in black-and-white about how they robbed some college student of his back-pack. You heard me... the daring caper, the ultimate heist-- the buildup of this 2 and a half hours of utter boring crap-- is them stealing a back-pack from a college student, by creatively getting into a fight over baseball teams and distracting him, and replacing his back-pack with an identical back-pack? What?? <br /><br />Ugh. I'm telling you, this was so bad, I didn't even realize just how bad it was-- just how badly I'd been robbed-- until I got home. | negative |
The Hindi version of the film is 121 minutes. Set in Bengal in the early 1900's, the film (based on Tagore's novel) draws an analogy between the British colonization of India and the subjugation of women. An educated and beautiful woman, Binodini becomes a widow within a year of her marriage, but she does not accept the constraints imposed on her as a widow by her society. The film has a beautiful look to it but perhaps Aishwarya Rai is out of her depth in portraying Binodini's strong character with its subtle combination of idealism and deviousness. Binodini's idealism does not come across, and as a result, the analogy between women and colonization remains somewhat buried. | positive |
This film is pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping "Was that it?!" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz | negative |
Perry Mason: The Case of the Fatal Fashion finds Perry and Della Street in New York getting an award from the American Bar Association. An undefeated trial record ought to get some recognition I would think. Anyway a friend of Della's, fashion editor Diana Muldaur gets herself arrested for the murder of a rival, Valerie Harper and in fact Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale witness a confrontation between the two at a posh eatery.<br /><br />These two rivals have a thing going that makes Hedda and Louella look like school girls. Of course Harper has a number of other people who loved her equally as much.<br /><br />The same perpetrator also ran down a fashion designer who could have exposed the individual. This throws Perry with his trusty investigative lawyer, William Moses in an alliance with some mobsters. Seems that the designer was a cousin of a mob boss who wants also to mete out some justice in their usual manner. <br /><br />One thing I could not get is when Moses and mobster Robert Clohessy track down the perpetrator I cannot believe that the police were also not vigorously pursuing the case. Of course Clohessy has some access to sources that the cops just don't have.<br /><br />But the best part of this particular Mason entry is Scott Baio as the young rather full of himself Assistant District Attorney introducing himself to Raymond Burr saying how he studied all of his cases and looked forward to beating him. Foolish Boy.<br /><br />In fact my favorite scene is Burr and Baio at a sidebar with the judge. Baio was wanting to reopen his case and add a witness and came ready and prepared with precedents. Burr catches him off guard and says he has no objection to the new witness and then proceeds to demolish the witness on cross examination. Absolutely priceless.<br /><br />Scott Baio is the best thing in this particular Perry Mason movie and it should be seen for him alone if nothing else. | positive |
John Van Druten's "Bell, Book and Candle" is a delightful and unexpected fantasy about a coven of modern-day witches living in New York City; it was obviously an attractive movie property. It had a stellar part for Gillian Holroyd, for her erstwhile book publisher enforced-sweetheart, Shepherd Henderson and her madcap family and circle, including Shep's bewildered fiancée, the hateful Merle Kittredge, against whose chances with Shep Gillian begins her magical spell-casting. It even had Pyewacket, a Siamese cat-familiar with well-timed miaows, Sidney Redlitch, a fake witch expert with atrocious pretensions and bad manners. In short, it seemed to its producer, perhaps, box-office magic. And so it proved to be. So many things were right about its production, it only had one element not perfect; but I found the rest to be amusing, charming and very consistently-entertaining. To begin with, the screenplay by Daniel Taradash kept the best qualities of the fine theatrical play but opened out its scenes to include Greenwich Village and other areas of New York's scene. The technical production was beautiful, with cinematography by the legendary James Wong Howe, a fine score by George Duning, more-than-clever sets by Louis Diage and gowns by Jean Louis. In the attractive cast were Wolfe Barzell, Howard McNear, Janice Rule as Merle, Ernie Kovacs as Redlitch, Jack Lemmon as Gillia's mischievous brother, wonderful comediennes Elsa Lanchester and Hermione Gingold as fellow witches and lovely Kim Novak in one of her most touching parts as Gillian. Jimmy Stewart was the imperfect element in my judgment; he did well with the comedic portions of his part, but he was never convincing as a New York book publisher, and a bit too-old for the part of Henderson anyhow. But director Richard Quine used subtle lighting, pace changes, and unusually-composed shots to indicate the oddness of the witch portions of the film, keeping the other portions very luminous but straightforward in their presentation. The plot's main crisis in the film comes to pass when in reality Gillian falls for Henderson, who does not believe in witches at all. She started out merely to alienate him from his fiancée, her stuck-up college rival. Later, when Henderson tries to walk out, he keeps coming back to her--and realizes he is under a spell, as she has apologetically tried to explain to him. ..Meanwhile, Sidney Redlich has been summoned by witching spell to come to New York to sell his book to Henderson. Of course he knows nothing at all of magic, but is quite puzzled and interested to find out why he had come anywhere at all; but Gillian's brother enlightens him. All comes out right in the end in this romantic satire as Gillian proves her love to Henderson by losing her powers--which is what happens to witches when they truly love a mortal. Of course, he never really wanted to resist her anyhow. The film has sprightly dialogue, charm, and a little "magic" of its own in the fey charm of the witches and the torments Gillian must undergo in her battle with herself, and to win the man she loves. A lovely ending to this beautifully-photographed and unusual romance makes its amazing realism, though a fantasy, just about complete in my view. Memorably delightful. | positive |
This movie surprised me in a good way. From the box I got the impression that it was an action thriller but it was too funny to be a thriller, even though it was somewhat exciting.<br /><br />There's a lot of nice one-liners and funny situations in this movie and James Belushi was born to do Bill Manucci, he does a great job. The rest of the cast ain't half-bad either and especially Timothy Dalton is a treat.<br /><br />The story can get pretty confusing at times as new characters shows up during the film. Things get more complicated as nobody seldom tells the truth about things. If you don't pay attention things might get a bit messy in the end but I really liked it.<br /><br />Louis Morneau isn't all that well known but he has done a perfectly OK job with this one and I never really grew impatient while watching the movie.<br /><br />Made men is well worth checking out. | positive |
In Halloween, three friends seek an ancient cemetery in the suburb for fun and remove a cross from a tomb, where Jack-O was buried many years ago by the farmer Arthur Kelly. The evil creature is unleashed, kills the trio and seeks the descendants of the Kelly family for revenge.<br /><br />The cheesy "Jack-O" is a combination of a terrible story with awful acting. I was curious with the name of John Carradine in the credits and I can not imagine how a relative authorizes the use of archive footage in such a bad movie, showing a total lack of respect with the name of this great actor. It is impressive how bad the acting is, shifting the film to a comedy instead of the proposed horror genre. This is the type of movie good to see with a group of friends, drinking beer, making comments and laughing a lot. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Jack-O Demônio do Halloween" ("Jack-O Demon of the Halloween") | negative |
The film revolves around a man who believes that all forms of media are obsolete. The idea behind his art project is to unmask the ridiculous culture that we are bathed in. Naturally, the film takes place in Los Angeles/Orange County. He attacks stand up comics (caw, caw, caw), rock bands, models, blockbuster Hollywood films, and touches on many other mediums. Eventually, he finds himself in the sights of the weapon he has set into motion. The film is five years old and rings more true every day. It's the best description of post-punk anger I've ever seen. It's also one of my top 10 favorite films. | positive |
I really enjoyed watching this movie about the Delany sisters. I knew of them, but that was all. This movie opened my eyes to their bravado and courage. What a pair. What sacrifices they made to live life on their own terms. This is not only a movie for African Americans, but for all Americans. It is sort of a history lesson and a documentary rolled into one and combined with an entertaining movie biography. The acting was superior by all included and we really do get a glimpse of the hardships these two sisters went through for many years. Both sisters are quite different from each other. They came from a very loving and very strict family with high, maybe even impossible standards of perfection. It is sad to see how Sadie's father refused to allow his daughter to continue to see her boyfriend due to a possible misunderstanding. I thoroughly recommend this movie and I am glad I caught it on television the other day. | positive |
I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another "Biblical" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it. | negative |
This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it .... | negative |
i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle! | negative |
The problem I have as a Finn is that most of the actors in this movie are in every Finnish movie. I have a feeling that Finland has only like five actors. I think that if you're not from Finland you really like this movie as a refreshing novelty.<br /><br />This movie is about a dreadful chain of events that affects a few people quite harshly. Alcoholism, cold climate and darkness may all be clichés but they're still very real in todays Finnish society. A lot of people in Finland have depression, especially during winter.<br /><br />The tone of the movie is very melancholic. I enjoyed it and Louhimes' directing was again very solid. I liked this movie a lot, only negative thing is that you see the same faces that you've seen over and over again. | positive |
I wouldn't recommend this unless you're keen on David Copperfield and want to "complete the set". There are some good performances (e.g. Uriah Heep) and well directed moments (e.g. the beating), but on the whole it really pales in comparison with the 1999 BBC version, as well as earlier versions. <br /><br />There are inexplicable changes to the story that really serve no great purpose except, possibly, to dumb it down (the stolen jewels being a case in point). The American cast were poorly chosen: Sally Field is a good actress, but she is wrong as Betsy Trotwood, and her English accent is only slightly better than Dick Van Dyke's cockney. I can see why Michael Richards was chosen to play Mr Micawber; he hams it up rather too much, however, and becomes irritating. He also speaks his lines in an accent that goes beyond eccentric and becomes simply preposterous. Anthony Andrews is menacing as Mr Murdstone, but one almost expects him to don a black cape and tie David's mother to a railway line (though this is perhaps partly the fault of Dickens). <br /><br />I got this for free with a newspaper. It helped pass a Sunday afternoon, but I felt more disappointed than charmed at the end of it | negative |
So far I disliked every single Jean Rollin movie I've seen, and that always bothered me because he's an acclaimed Euro-trash monument and extremely popular amongst many regular reviewers on this lovely website; people whose opinions I always value and usually concur with. Apparently everybody always appears to pinpoint some sort of gloomy and stylistic filming trademarks in his work that are completely lost on me. Rollin's movies are unimaginably boring, they all feature the same basic concept (lesbian vampires in various settings), the dialogs are incredibly absurd, the marvelous Gothic setting are always underused and the production values are cheaper than the price of a bus ticket. I had actually given up on Rollin's repertoire already (especially after enduring "The Iron Rose"), until I found out about "Night of the Hunted". Allegedly, this movie doesn't feature any lame lesbian vampires and stands as a bona fide horror movie with gruesome killings and macabre plot twists. And the verdict is
yes and no! On one hand, this is undeniably the most compelling and inventive Rollin film I had the pleasure of seeing thus far (and also the only one that I watching without dozing off
). On the other hand, it still remains a moronic movie with a nonsensical plot and emotionless sex sequences to compensate for the dullness. Jean Rollin heavily attempts to generate an atmosphere of secrecy and suspense, mostly through a lack of information and vaguely introduced characters, but barely manages to hide the fact he actually hasn't got a story to tell at all. The unearthly beautiful lead actress Brigitte Lahaie and the beautifully ominous musical guidance are the only elements that keep you hooked on the screen. During a nightly drive back home to Paris, a young man abruptly has to stop for a confused and scarcely dressed girl who comes running from the woods. Her name is Elisabeth but furthermore she can't remember anything about herself and from what or whom she was running away. Her case of amnesia is so bad she even continuously forgets who picked her up. The next day, she's kidnapped again by an old guy and taken to a sinister apartment complex where multiple people in the same bizarre mental state are held captive. Elisabeth knows nothing, but she does sense she needs to escape from here. Obviously I won't reveal the denouement, but I can assure you it is quite dumb, illogical and far-fetched. Apparently Rollin realized this as well, because the explanation is kept very brief and quick. There's a large number of overly weird and senseless sequences, the sex footage is dire and filmed without passion, the nasty make-up effects look cheap and randomly thrown without actual purpose. As said, the score is mesmerizing and Brigitte Lahaie's perfect body is addictive to glaze at. | negative |
Despite being quite far removed from my expectations, I was thoroughly impressed by Dog Bite Dog. I rented it not knowing much about it, but I essentially expected it to be a martial arts/action film in the standard Hong Kong action tradition, of which I am a devoted fan. I ended up getting something entirely different, which is not at all a bad thing. While the film could be classified as such, and there is definitely some good action and hand to hand combat scenes in the film, it is definitely not the primary focus. Its characters are infinitely more important to the film than its fights, a rather uncommon thing in many Hong Kong action movies.<br /><br />I was really quite surprised by the intricacy of the characters and character relationships in the film. The lead character, played by Edison Chen (who is really very good), becomes infinitely more complex by the end of the film than I ever thought he would be after watching the first thirty minutes. The police characters also defied my expectations thoroughly. In fact, the stark and honest portrayal of the seldom seen dark side of the police force was quite possible my favorite aspect of the film. I don't know that I would say Dog Bite Dog entirely subverts typical notions of bad criminal, good cop, but it certainly distorts them in ways not often seen in film (unfortunately). So many films, especially Hong Kong action films I find, portray police in what is frankly a VERY ignorantly idealized light. This is one of my least favorite things about the genre. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Dog Bite Dog actually had some very unique, and really quite courageous, ideas to present about the police force. There are negotiation scenes in this film that I have never seen the likes of before, and doubt I will ever see again, and am sure I will remember for quite a while. Also, the criminal characters are shown from an interesting perspective as well, there is some documentary footage in the film of Cambodian boys no older than ten being made to fight each other to the death with their bare hands, which I thought was one of the film's most powerful and moving moments. It says a lot about the reason these guys are the way they are, rather than simply condemning them. Also, the relationship between Chen's character and the girl he meets in the junk yard reveals a lot about his character. It wasn't until this element entered the film that I really started to see the film as an emotional experience rather than only a visceral one. There is something about most on screen relationships that doesn't quite get through to me, but for some reason this one really did. The actress does an incredible job with this role which I imagine was not easy to play.<br /><br />Dog Bite Dog also features some really breathtaking cinematography, all though it is unfortunately rather uneven. There were some moments that I found really striking, particularly in the last segment of the film, but there was also a good deal of camera work that was just OK. Another slight problem I had was with the pacing, which I also felt was uneven. I found a lot of the "looking for a boat" scenes to be a little alienating, all though it quickly picks up after that. The action scenes are short and not too plentiful, but are truly powerful and effecting, particularly towards the end. The fight choreography is honestly not all that impressive for the most part, all though to its credit it is solid and fairly realistic, but the true strength is the emotional content behind the fights. The final scene, while not a marvel of martial artistry or fight choreography, is one of the most powerful final fights I have ever seen, and I've seen quite a few martial arts films.<br /><br />I suppose the biggest determining factor of whether or not one will get much out of Dog Bite Dog is whether or not you can connect with the characters. All of them are certainly some of the more flawed characters one is likely to see in a film of any kind, but there was something very human about all of them that I couldn't help but be drawn to and really feel for them, particularly Chen's girlfriend. I should say that I doubt most people will like the film as much as I did simply because I imagine that most people will not like or care about the characters in the same way, but I still recommend it highly all the same. It is truly a deeply moving and effecting film if you give it a chance. | positive |
Wasn't sure what to expect from this movie considering its amazing collection of stars and directors but in the end it didn't disappoint.<br /><br />For me one of the highlights was the final episode with the American tourist speaking with a dreadful French accent (which made me feel better about mine) which was actually quite touching and a great way to wrap up the movie.<br /><br />The story of the paramedic and the stabbing victim was also very moving and for pure comedy the Coen Brothers and Steve Buscemi take the award. The Tom Tykwer clip was also impressive although rather ambitious in its scope.<br /><br />However, the Bob Hoskins segment was totally cringeworthy and the vampire story was completely farcical. The dialogue in Wes Craven's section also felt very forced and the Chinatown story was completely incomprehensible.<br /><br />On the whole this film is worth watching for the good bits and has a strong finish. It's not too painful to sit through the bad sections - they only last 5 minutes anyway.<br /><br />Ca vaut la peine!!! | positive |
This is quite possibly the worst movie of all time. It stars Shaquille O'Neil and is about a rapping genie. Apparently someone out there thought that this was a good idea and got suckered into dishing out cash to produce this wonderful masterpiece. The movie gets 1 out of 10. | negative |
I like Arnold, and I love the subject matter, but this was a very disappointing movie. When I first saw the previews, they were dark and ominous, and Arnold's name wasn't even mentioned. But I recognized him, which led me to believe that he was making a movie that had more of a serious, suspenseful mood. That it wasn't just another Schwarzenegger action vehicle (though I admit, most of his are pretty good!). He had, thus far, avoided movies with any real religious theme. And I was excited. I was wrong. This is just another action, explosion, gun fire movie. And it's a pretty bad one. | negative |
This is the greatest film I saw in 2002, whereas I'm used to mainstream movies. It is rich and makes a beautiful artistic act from these 11 short films. From the technical info (the chosen directors), I feared it would have an anti-American basis, but ... it's a kind of (11 times) personal tribute.<br /><br />The weakest point comes from Y. Chahine : he does not manage to "swallow his pride" and considers this event as a well-merited punishment ... It is really the weakest part of the movie, but this testifies of a real freedom of speech for the whole piece. The weirdest comes from the Mexican nearly conceptual-art film ... I am still not sure what A. Gonzalez Inarritu meant. The 9 others are perfect (K. Loach, S. Penn, S. Makhmalbaf, ...) or nearly perfect (C. Lelouch) and made me either smile, or cry or even left me stunned. I still don't know if S. Imamura's fable is really related or not to the September 11th catastrophe, but it is so pretty that its finale place deeply 'makes it'. | positive |
I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.<br /><br />John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?<br /><br />Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended. | positive |
... or should I say unintentionally hilarious? Either way, this is one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. I was laughing throughout at the antics of some of the dumbest fictional characters this side of Homer Simpson. It's just one forehead-slapping, painfully stupid scene after another as the clownish, dim-witted cardboard cutouts substituting for actual humanoid characters push, pull, and drag the "plot" to its inevitable and obvious conclusion.<br /><br />If I had to describe this movie to someone, I'd call it a mutated hybrid of Fatal Attraction, Dumb and Dumber, and the Three Stooges, with a "climax" uncannily similar to the episode of Family Guy in which the whole family gets into a knock-down fistfight in the living room.<br /><br />Advice to Benson family: next time you get a new pet, do the poor animal a favor and DON'T name it Fred! | negative |
ROMEO AND JULIET had been interpreted in so many ways, but very few of the versions captured the essance of the play. The ony ones I can think of that really nail the romance's spirit were WEST SIDE STORY and, beleive it or not, Troma Film's TROMEO AND JULIET. At first glance, this is another mere splatterfest, and many would think it bastardizes the Shakespearian classic. However, the film has an honest feel about it. Updated to appeal to the sick-minded youth of today, of course, but not without merit. Yes, the frequent dismemberments, body piercings, car crashes, lesbian sex scenes, masturbation and incest are in bad taste, but what's the harm when you have such a sweet love story as the foundation? As bad as most of the acting in this film is (I mean, it IS Troma, after all), the two leads have some genuine chemistry, more so than in big-budget monstrosities TITANIC and STAR WARS EPISODE TWO. There's a great deal of modernization, but much of the original text is in tact, especially when Tromeo and Juliet are together. There's a great scene where Juliet utters the famous, "Parting is such sweet sorrow," and tromeo quickly follows, in mid-nineties grunge fashion, "Yeah, it totally sucks." I think it's truly unfortunate that this film isn't going to get the recognition or the wide release that it deserves. I hop that people who see this on the video store shelves won't be turned off by the grossmess in the movie, because they'd be missing out on quite a subversive expereience. | positive |
I saw the movie in original Italian. It must be said that the acting and interpretation is most heavily polluted by the TV-generated trend to speak in a severely muffled voice, not moving lips, straining tones, as emerged in the "That's real life"-productions and "Let's-raise-our audience-with-a-few-tears"-screen-playwriting. The late Massimo Girotti towers upon the other characters for intensity, clarity of expression and intellectual honesty. The movie has some good hints, but (as in another comment before mine) it lacks a focal point and dribbles away in many plot-lets of lesser and lesser relevance, another trend dragged in from the TV productions, well known to Italians. A few drops in style could be spared to the public, such as the patisserie drag (Charm and aesthetics of cooking plus sensual payload of sweets, see Chocolat, Babette's lunch, Vatel etc.) Hammam and the Fairies are definitely more truthful, seems that Ozpetek has learned the tune of Italy in the early 2000s and is humming along... I'll give him a last chance though... | negative |
Late film critic Gene Siskel said that this movie shows how easy it is to make a movie. He was giving it a compliment even though now that might have been taken as an insult these days. Even though I didn't always agree with Gene Siskel, I agree with him here. Love Jones is a shining example of how a love story should be: realistic with real characters in real situations.<br /><br />The story chronicles the ups and downs of the relationship between Darius Lovehall(Larenz Tate) and Nina(Nia Long). Larenz Tate and Nia Long are more than just a beautiful couple on screen. These two actually have chemistry together. You can feel the vibe between these two whenever the are on screen and its fantastic.<br /><br />Bill Bellamy is pretty funny as the deceitful Wood and Lisa Nicole Carson is great as Nina's friend Simone. Isaiah Washington is just as great as Darius's close friend Savon and I sigh every time I see him in a movie. The guy is a great actor whose career is ruined by industry lowlifes and the childish games they play. You can believe that he called the little weasel on Grey's Anatomy out of his name but anybody that knows how Follywood works knows better than to believe any "official story" from the place of make believe. At any rate...<br /><br />Love Jones is a wonderful love story full of interesting and likable characters that are in realistic situations that anybody that has been in love can relate too. You love these people because they are believable and are not portrayed as gangsters and tramps. Not one obscene stereotype can be found here. Contrast that with the Romance movies of toady. Exactly. In closing if you love Black Cinema then you would do well to own a copy of this movie. | positive |
Even if I had not read Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" from the "Vampire Chronicles," I probably would still have thought this movie was just awful.<br /><br />It was tasteless, plot-less, it made absolutely no sense at all. I sat for a while pondering the plot disassociated from the book, and the longer I thought of it, the worse it was. To associate it in any way with the prior Chronicles film is ridiculous as it is ridiculously inconsistent with that movie, let alone the book. The bare few ideas taken from Rice's genius in "The Vampire Chronicles" were butchered and ridiculed.<br /><br />It is an absolute insult to Anne Rice fans everywhere and such a pathetic excuse for a legacy in being Aaliyah's last film. Truly, it's an insult to Aaliyah fans as well.<br /><br />Possibly the only compliment can be paid to the sound effects as well as some of the graphics. Good as they may be, it is still not at all enough to make me regret the time spent watching this movie. As a matter of fact, I signed up for this membership for the sole reason of communicating to people bothering to look at this film (7 years after the release, as it may be) to not waste their time or expect much beyond disappointment. | negative |
i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either. | negative |
In a lot of his films (Citizen Kane, Confidential Report, Touch of evil) Orson Welles gave him the role of an exuberant men. In "The Lady from Shanghai" it's the only time I see him holding the role of the victim. The role of the culprit, he gave it to Rita Hayworth, I guess it's because he was in love with her. Therefore, it's an interesting film. But I find the story excellent too. The direction is genius, as usual with Welles : two scenes are particularly brilliant: the one in the aquarium and the final one with the mirrors. This film is brilliant.(10/10) | positive |
I have seen this show when I was younger. It is a really good show to watch. It is very educational for children 1 to 8 years old. Barney is definitely super DE duper. B.J. is pretty funny. Babie Bop is very cute. The kids are very cool too. This show is about learning about numbers kinda like sesame street but different type of show and characters like Barney the purple dinosaur, B.J. the yellow dinosaur with a baseball hat on his head, and Baby Bop the cute green dinosaur with a pink bow. The first one that started was very old Barney and Friends show. But then the second one was different to be new episodes. Also the last one in the 2000 was new scene of Barney's park. They also have a show of Barney at Universal Studios in Florida where you see Barney, B.J., and Baby Bop and then when the show is done you get to go play, shop and meet Barney. It's a very good show watch this show when you learn about many things you will like it the movie, and the live show at Universal Studios Florida. | positive |
Gloria Victor and Dolores Reed in space girl costumes.<br /><br />I love 50 sci fi, I even love cheesy 50s sci fi, but this film is really, really bad. And not in a MST3K kinda way.<br /><br />Virtually unwatchable as a couple of bozos do their best "hip cat" impression of Abott & Costello.<br /><br />Chessecake can usually save cheesy sci fi, such as in "Cat Women On The Moon" but it can't in this case. This film requires a mute button and fast forward feature.<br /><br />That said, I could watch Gloria and Dolores walk around the space ship for about an hour or so. | negative |
This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked. <br /><br />What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor. | negative |
As soon as I knew Keira Knighteley being in this flick, I said "I have to watch this movie". She's the undisputed main character, Domino, a bounty hunter. Her "job", as the "no action" scenes would teach us, reflects her rebel, violent attitude to life. I have to admit that it's the very first time that I watch an action movie whose most important scenes are the one in which the guns are far away from characters' hands. So, this stomped me a bit. Anyway, for all the John Woo's fans, there are helicopters falling down, explosions, gunfire as if it would rain, and a lovely Keira that shoots with two machine guns, one per hand. The cast is absolutely brilliant. Going beyond Keira, which in this movie is a real tomboy, pretty much different from the lovely action figure we're used to see, Mickey Rourke is back, with his usual slap-throwing face and his potent body. Christopher Walken makes his job pretty well, as a reality show producer.<br /><br />Let's go to the contents: this movie has a journalistic shape. The talk show scene is "disgustingly" real. Anyone that watched that load of . . . you-know-what, can tell that this is the air that you breath in those situations. As well as the producer, when Domino's mom says that the reality that should show Domino's life is "trash; no offense", he answers "I don't take it like an offense". This movie portrays a difficult life. Domino, coming from a world that didn't want her, Ed (Mickey Rourke), a bounty hunter "not so bounty", Choco (the third guy of the band), which family is (using Ed's words), "the correctional institutes he's been", and Alf, the driver/bomber coming from Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This bunch of people represents in some way the humankind born "without the shirt"; unlucky, violent, and with nothing to lose, excepts their (as they would consider) miserable lives. The intro of the movie says that it is "inspired by true story . . . more or less", so I couldn't possibly tell you how much of this stuff is true. Anyway, going beyond explosions and dozens of weapons (which could have been "added" to make the film easier to see, and be classified as an action movie), the characters' story is too realistic to be "edulcorated". <br /><br />The interaction between the characters is various, well studied, and definitely not boring. What hasn't convinced me so much is the role of the psychiatrist (Lucy Liu, sober as never in her acting career). It represents only the reason by which Domino starts telling her story (and that's a story). Probably, the only "con", in a movie with a lot of "pros". <br /><br />All in all: This isn't "SWAT". The characters are crafted; they have an identity, a shape. They have a name and a surname (not just "Gamble" and "Street"). It's the case to say, it's the biography of a girl whose life went as fast as a bullet. | positive |
This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment. | negative |
The acting in this movie stinks. The plot makes very little sense, but from what I gathered it's supposed to be about this scientist who develops the ability to turn people's personal items into tiny steel balls that then fly into their mouths and turn them into zombies (or blow their heads up, whichever). And the effects are lousy, too. Most of the movie consists of bad music, with the actors dancing equally as badly to the bad music, interspersed with multiple boring sex scenes. This should be one of the worst things ever made, but for one thing. One element of shear brilliance that makes "Nightmare Weekend" stand above all others. And that special quality is the presence of George.<br /><br />George is the lovable interface device between the scientist's daughter, Jessica, and the home computer security system. With his green hair and nose, balding scalp, and heart-shaped mouth, George is the guardian angel/confidant to Jessica, who asks him for advice on how to meet guys in one of the most dramatic pieces of dialogue ever captured on celluloid. With his monotone synthesized voice, George tells Jessica what percentages of males prefer women in white dresses, and also that hitch-hiking is the third best way to meet guys after discos and bars. Of course, little Jessica just can't seem to stay out of trouble, causing George to execute "Emergency Program Code: Protection Jessica", which results in the violent death of Jessica's would-be assailant via one of the aforementioned steel balls.<br /><br />Kubrick was an utter fool for thinking he could give a computer personality using closeups of a red light. HAL should have been represented by our friend George in order to better translate compassion for his eventual demise. The light and sound show at the end of "Close Encounters"? Not bad, but how much better would that movie had been if the means of first communication with the aliens had been George the Hand Puppet. Bishop, Data, R2 kitchen appliances next to the Almighty George! He might only be in the movie for 8 minutes out of 90, but don't be fooled. This show is all about George. With even that limited amount of screentime, George joins the ranks of such luminous film characters as Hollywood Montrose, Majai, and Pappy from "New Moon Rising" as icons of American cinema. "George to Apache" you are my hero. | negative |
No one in this movie has very much to do. This is probably the longest 65 minutes I've ever spent watching a movie. The makeup effects on the pianist with macromeglia are pretty good, but that's the only thing that keeps this from being rate a 1. The doctor's assistant goes through extreme mood swings from passivity to hysteria in seconds and then seems to forget where she was in the next scene. The director assembled a lot of the right ingredients for a mad-doctor movie, but somehow forgot the skeleton of a story to hang them on. Unless you know someone in the cast or crew, I wouldn't recommend even sampling this one. | negative |
"De vierde man" (The Fourth Man, 1984) is considered one of the best European pycho thrillers of the eighties. This last work of Dutch director Paul Verhoeven in his home country before he moved to Hollywood to become a big star with movies like "Total Recall", "Basic Instinct" and "Starship Troopers" is about a psychopathic and disillusioned author (Jeroen Krabbe) going to the seaside for recovering. There he meets a mysterious femme fatale (Renee Soultendieck) and starts a fatal love affair with her. He becomes addicted to her with heart and soul and finds out that her three previous husbands all died with mysterious circumstances...<br /><br />"De vierde man" is much influenced by the old Hollywood film noire and the psycho thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Wells. It takes much time to create a dark and gripping atmosphere, and a few moments of extreme graphic violence have the right impact to push the story straight forward. The suspense is sometimes nearly unbearable and sometimes reminds of the works of Italian cult director Dario Argento.<br /><br />The cast is also outstanding, especially Krabbe's performance as mentally disturbed writer that opened the doors for his international film career ("The Living Daylights", "The Fugitive"). If you get the occasion to watch this brilliant psycho thriller on TV, video or DVD, don't miss it! | positive |
True, this is not John Sayles finest film (Brother From Another Planet) but it is not entirely forgettable either, if not for any other reason than its message. Like Batman, Wild Thing's parents were murdered in front of him, leaving him to fend for himself in 'The Zone,' a corrupt section of an unnamed city where greed and violence reign supreme. Instead of falling in with the likes of Chopper (Robert Davi) Wild Thing fights for justice, using his powers of Tai Chi and eerie cat impressions, occasionally lighting himself on fire. He becomes something of an urban legend, a modern day Robin Hood, and a hero for the ages. 1987 at its finest, WILD THING LIVES | positive |
for a lot of time I was looking forward to see this movie, here in Latinamerica japanese or any oriental movies have no distribution in theaters, we can find some of those movies in some underground stores, and I just found Avalon, I was expecting something good, but the only good thing in this movie is the first scene, the rest of the movie is boring and senseless, just plain stupid, with a lot of useless scenes, and a boring story. I am wasting my time even writing about this film. Sorry but is the truth. | negative |
A potentially good idea gets completely let down by a weak script which throws all credibility out the window leaving the actors very little to work with. Roth covers it up as best he can by being all mouth; Hurt has about as much menace as a fluffy bunny and Stamp can't seem to decide whether he's playing an ex-London crook or some toff straight off the playing fields at Eton. As for poor Laura del Sol she does what she can but her character is no more than every northern European's idea of the stereotypical Latino woman who's all pouts and hot temperament. If you're a fan of any of the main actors don't disappoint yourself or fool yourself (as I suspect many of the other reviewer's here have done). Watch it by all means but stay critical; you know these guys can do better. | negative |
Carmen is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's hard to say whose performance is best: Antonio Gades, Cristina Hoyos and Laura del Sol are superb.They dance their souls out. It's a beautiful tale of inseparability of life and myth; myth penetrates everyday life. Dance becomes life and entire life is danced out. Real people at one and the same time live their own lives and become somebody else, act out the parts of lovers of old. The magic is continuing. | positive |
Action. Comedy. Suspense. This movie has it all.<br /><br />The Plot goes that 4 would be professional thieves are invited to take part in a heist in a small town in Montana. every type of crime movie archetype character is here. Frank, the master mind. Carlos, the weapons expert. Max, the explosives expert. Nick, the safe cracker and Ray, the car man. Unfortunately for Frank, he is apprehended by 2 bumbling detectives ( portrayed very well by Ed O'Niel and Daniel Roebuck ) that have been chasing him from New Jersey write after he sends out the letters to the other 4.<br /><br />Our 4 characters meet up at the train station and from the beginning none of them like or trust one another. Added to the mix is the fact that Frank is gone and they are not sure why they have called together.<br /><br />Now Frank is being taken back to New Jersey by the 2 detectives but soon escapes on foot and tries to make his way back to the guys who are having all sorts of problems of their own.<br /><br />Truly a great film loaded with laughs and great acting. Just an overall good movie for anyone looking for a laugh or something a little different | positive |
Well, on the day that Rob Schneider plunges himself further into the black hole of notoriously bad movies by starring in the absolutely not-at-all-wanted "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" (hmmmm....wasn't there a film called Roadtrip which was followed by a sequel called Eurotrip? And now there's Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo followed by sequel Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.......I smell a pattern. Perhaps soon there will be Spiderman: European webs are Hotter.....or not) I am writing about this much maligned (at time of release) film. I was one of those maligners, I must admit. I turned my nose up at it even while Chris Farley shoved cocaine up his nose and the SNL cast struggled through one of the worst seasons in their history in '94-'95, the Norm McDonald anchorship notwithstanding. Films like Happy Gilmore, Tommy Boy, and Black Sheep came out in the couple years after this period and we realized there was a dark future for the caliber of Spade-Farley-Schneider-Sandler films. However I watched this film the other day, ten years after and 8 years after Chris died and could not stop laughing. Yes it's not particularly sophisticated. Farley does what Farley does (not unlike Manny being Manny) but his "Van Down By the River" motivational speaker shtick in which he laments that while he may not "wash enough" or "wear well-fitting clothes" or "use deodorant more than twice a week" translates well here as the ever self-effacing character who realizes he's not the brightest, not the best-looking, and could stand to lose a few pounds. All the same, he's trying his best to do what he's supposed to. And David Spade just tosses off his snide one-liners as he did for "Spade's Hollywood Minute" and basically stings Farley's self-esteem. There's really not a whole lot more to say than that. I love the one scene when Farley catches Spade spanking his monkey and then makes a couple quips about it. Can't remember what the first one is but the second one, they're lying in their hotel beds and Farley says to Spade, "Do you like baseball?". Spade mutters something inaudible in response and Farleys says, "the New York YANK-ees?" Anyway Farley does his awkward, painfully sensitive, frat-boy shtick. If you like, you like it. I couldn't stop laughing. | positive |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.<br /><br />This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. * | negative |
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS...BUT DOUBT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE SPOILT!!.<br /><br />Five Across The Eyes can be summed up in one word....Amateurish. This film tries it's best to be different from most films by the 'Blair Witch' type of filming....it doesn't work....it just ends up looking and feeling like somebody had a cheap video camera, a van and decided to make a movie. The story has no explanation, the protagonist is given no real motivation (and looks like a lesbian wearing a power-suit compared to the five girls) and there is no violence to speak of...just the sounds of screaming and crunching. The whole film takes place inside a van which means decent scenery is out of the question. The five girls really do their best with what they've been given but on the whole come across as pretty terrible actresses...although with the material given it's hard to judge if they can actually aCt....they spend THE WHOLE movie screaming, squealing and whimpering....so much that half the time it's hard to make out what was said and the cameras are so bad it's actually hard to tell who said it. This video paints itself as a violent torture film but is in fact just five girls in a van screaming in terror...that literally sums up the whole movie.....we then get to the end after what seems like 5 hours of constant screaming and all five girls are still alive... with one minus a finger. The only thumbs up(get it...finger....LOL) is for the poor actresses who tried hard and probably lost their voices(and their pride) after making this terrible movie. Do not judge this by the poster....you'll be very let down. | negative |
This was a "cute" movie at first, then then got too sappy and featured mediocre songs, at best.<br /><br />There is too much King James English spoken with is not only annoying in today's world but not always easy to interpret. Can you imagine young people of today trying to listen to this film? Forget it.<br /><br />Bing Crosby has some good lines in here and is likable as "Hank Martin." Rhonda Fleming ("Alisande La Carteloise") was, too, in addition to her good looks and beautiful, long red hair. <br /><br />It's a nice movie with a feel-good ending, and I can't knock that. Maybe this is worthy of a rental, for historical sake or if you're a big Crosby fan but, overall, it's not that much. | negative |
Lovely music. Beautiful photography, some of scenes are breathtaking and affecting. But the dramatic tension is lost in a film that is so poorly edited it is hard to know what exactly is going on. At times, the dialogue is incomprehensible. Then there is Richard Gere. He's supposed to be a factory worker who gets into trouble and gets work on a farm. We see dozens of farmhands sweaty and dirty in the hot sun. Then we see Gere, looking like he just wandered away from a Calvin Klein ad. Sam Shepard, another glamour guy, is supposed to be terminally ill. But he looks great. Nice try, but it just doesn't work. Brook Adams try hard but she gets lost in the scenery.The real star is the girl. | negative |
I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ("my" generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the "wrap-up" of a film. I remember yelling "wow!" when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!! | positive |
Once you can get over Nic Cage playing an Italian soldier who loves opera and believes in making love, not war, you can get down to enjoying this beautiful-looking film. This could be used as an advert for tourism in the Mediterranean. John Hurt is great and Penelope Cruz isn't bad, as you might expect. Christian Bale's character is somewhat one-dimensional, which is a shame.<br /><br />The main drawback of this film is the adaptation from the book - having been told subsequently the differences between the book and film plots, I feel cheated out of a much better and more convincing storyline. | positive |
Certainly the highlight of this film is it's cast.<br /><br />Diana Rigg, George C. Scott, Bernard Hughes to mention a few.<br /><br />I have accumulated more time in hospitals and with doctors over the years than I care to think about.<br /><br />This comedy attacks the pomp and pretension in all aspects of our society, through the setting of one of it's "Most Haughty" institutions... the Medical profession.<br /><br />The idea that such goings on could be possible, might be a shock to some, but is a delight to anyone with the perspective of experience.<br /><br />Dr Brock (Scott) undergoes a mid-life crisis of monumental proportions before our eyes as we, and he, become enamored with the prospect of his involvement with Miss Drummond (Rigg).<br /><br />The thread of the absurd is woven into this wonderful mix in the form of the irony that the Hospital appears to be killing it's own workers as they mismanage their affairs in it.<br /><br />The climax is unpredictable (unless you've seen it) and made even more hilarious if you happen to guess.<br /><br />It's not everyone's brand of humor, to be sure, and has uproariously funny "Dark Moments" if you're open to them.<br /><br />I loved every minute, and was delighted to see it out on DVD. | positive |
Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little "bleeps"? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense? | negative |
Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie. | negative |
All I have to say is one word...SUCKS!!!!. The only reason I gave this a 2 is because Josh Hartnett was in it and he's cool. Should have beat that Klein guys ass...stupid dumb and brainless. By the end of this movie you can't stand Klein and you really don't care what happens to Leelee. Hartnett was the only good thing about it. | negative |
I am a dumber person for renting the DVD REDLINE. Chicago Pictures who made this stupid movie never paid Palisades Media Group to buy web ads on various automotive sites including mine which has an ALEXA rating of 16K. They ripped me off on the deal and now I am out $16,000 and they wasted much of my personal time (peter rapport of Palisades Media) you know who you are!<br /><br />Please don't rent or buy this movie!!! It sucks and the people behind it are ripoff artists.<br /><br />REDLINE has a cast of losers and poor actors!<br /><br />This movie is a Joke | negative |
Director/lead Larry Bishop tried way, way too hard with Hell Ride. The movie wants to be edgy, witty, provocative, outlandish, biting all of this, seemingly in a Quentin Tarantino/Rob Zombie style. But it's not edgy. The references seem forced. The dialog tries to be clever and fails. The humor is never funny. Nice try setting a gritty tone but we'd have to care about the characters or the story for it to remotely succeed.<br /><br />What you're left with are cool Harleys and pretty girls surrounding a bunch of tired, old and out of shape "bad boys" in what looks like an attempt to do a modernized Sergio Leone western. If this movie can make newer generations interested in 60s and 70s films, kudos for it. But on its own, it is rather boring and irrelevant. I do believe there is a place for style over substance. But this movie is not it. | negative |
I saw Conrack on a night I couldn't sleep and I was never so glad to have insomnia ! This story of a young white teacher who takes a position teaching poor black kids on an island in the Carolina's is a great advertisement for teaching , and for simply helping each other .Set in the early 60s , with the civil rights issues , Viet Nam and all that came with the 60s ,it is forgotten that the Peace Corps and many young people struck out to make a difference helping the unprivileged .Conrack with his open style of teaching is interested in these kids as people , and encourages an honest interaction in his class that scares the power's that be .The greatest part was that Jon Voight said they had a 20 year reunion and 18 of those kids became teachers !! Its enough to make you think we as humans may have a chance to survive ourselves ,maybe , hopefully .See this film . | positive |
This definitely the most tension filled X-Files episode of the first season. this episode is what I think of when I hear "X-Files". the plot is simple but exiting. Our main cast plus a few scientist go to investigate an Alskan outpost in which it's research team appears to have killed each other. It turns out a small parasite that got dug up from the ice, had infected the research team. The parasite attaches itself to the brain and causes paranoia and insanity. Soon none can tell who they can trust, or who's infected or not.<br /><br />This episode was a direct tribute to John Carpenters great horror film "the THING". the Thing is set in Antarctica and a team of scientist find a destroyed outpost in which it's occupant have been killed or killed themselves. An alien that had been buried in the ice for a 10000 years had been thawed out. It has the abilities to imitate any life form. therefore the main characters can no longer distinct friends from foes.<br /><br />Believe me The THING is one of the most exiting, and tension filled horror movies you'll ever see. if you liked the episode ICE I advice you to see it. Or if you have only seen the THING I advice you to see ICE.<br /><br />ICE is the best direct tribute/homage to John Carpenter's The THING I have ever seen, and it lives up to it's inspiration as one of the best X-Files episodes. I give it a 10/10. | positive |
Although it may not be Cassavetes' best work, Minnie and Moskowitz is almost perfect in all its endeavours. The plot is whimsical and charming, and surprisingly dramatic with an impressive range of emotion -- much more drama than comedy, contrary to IMDb's profile. Yes, the story is whimsical, but not arbitrary; it succeeds as believable, albeit a tad forced -- which I will come back to. All of the artistic aspects are of true Cassavetes form: the cinematography and camera-work are delights, and the soundtrack -- albeit barely there -- is complimentary. Plus I believe I noticed some nods to Godard and such in the editing -- as I have in a few of Cassavetes' other films -- (namely the abrupt cutting of a song in one scene), which are interesting.<br /><br />I feel the plot is built up nicely, with the first half being particularly enjoyable. Seymour's conversation with Morgan Morgan (Timothy Carey) in the diner, for example, is wonderfully funny and fascinating, and sets the tone for the philosophical commentary made throughout the film. This philosophising -- a tradition in Cassavetes' films -- is what made the film for me. Seymour's amusing and profound monologues instantly eliminate the first impressions one may have of him as a hippie simp -- though his character is curiously similar to that of his in Faces (1968). This tipped me, however, (on second viewing) into the opinion that it stands up against Cassavetes' best work. I gained an affection for this film that I lacked on first viewing.<br /><br />There are, sadly, several aspects that make this film imperfect. I find the plot to be unbalanced. As I said before, it builds up nicely, but it wanes a bit here and there, particularly towards the end. Because of the spontaneous style in which Cassavetes worked, and particularly the freedom with which he allowed his actors to improvise, the quality of his product can easily go either way. In this case it's inconsistent. I assess that most of this film was improvised, and most of it beautifully. But one or two scenes, unfortunately, just don't work. In particular, the scene after Seymour fights with Minnie's work associate outside her house. During what is intended to be the most intense scene of the film, Cassavetes allowed his actors to run free with the dialogue -- presuming some was planned beforehand. This, I believe, was a mistake. One gets the impression Cassel doesn't quite know what to do, as he repeatedly fumbles in his speech, often not making sense, and overacts; all of this damaging the scene and the character development. I understand Seymour is intended to be a bit of a brash fool, but Cassel's attempts here are misapplied. Why does he cut his moustache off? These flaws are resulting from: a lack of direction on Cassavetes part; a lack of understanding and forethought on Cassel's part; a lack of rehearsal and preparation; etc. Evidently, Cassavetes didn't learn from his mistakes, as he allowed this same thing to happen in his next film, A Woman Under the Influence (1974) -- the committing scene, and ending.<br /><br />The flaws I mention are not minor, but they do not ruin the film. They simply make some scenes cringe-worthy and unrealistic, spoiling the flow of the film and compromising its potential. However, I am very, very fond of Cassavetes and all of his actors, particularly Cassel, in spite of the faults I mentioned. This is a very enjoyable film, although it proves the precariousness of Cassavetes' style. | positive |
Everyone is either loving or hating this film. I am going with loving. It is so well shot and so well acted. Beautiful. This film is for people who appreciate well crafted film making. If you are not a fan of well done films of course you would hate this. But if you like the tops of acting, photography, story and development, look no further then here. | positive |
Many people have the irritating habit of dying before completing a vital message, thus confusing the hero, not to mention the audience...<br /><br />Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and his wife Jo, a former musical star (Doris Day) are vacationing in Morocco with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen), when they meet Mr. and Mrs. Drayton, a British couple (Brenda de Banzie and Bernard Miles). They are also befriended by a charming Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin), who invites them to dinner but then cancels at the last minute...<br /><br />The MacKennas go to a restaurant and end up having their meal with the Draytons, when they spot Louis Bernard... <br /><br />The next day in the market place, they are caught in an assassination intrigue... While they are wandering in the local market, the crowds suddenly scatter to reveal an Arab fleeing from his pursuers... Dr. McKenna stands amazed as the Arab falls into his arms, a knife sticking out of his back... <br /><br />Gulping his last breath, the dying man mutters some words and collapses... Dr. McKenna is completely taken aback when the Arab's hood falls from his head and he is revealed as Bernard in disguise... McKenna is left knowing too little, but as far as the assassins are concerned, too much...<br /><br />To prevent Dr. McKenna from revealing what he knows, the conspirators kidnap his son as a hostage... The film is primarily concerned with the dilemma of kidnappinghow to get the little boy back safely... The subplot about the assassination is just the setup...<br /><br />The film is a breathless escapade... The death of Bernard comes suddenly and points out that death comes when we least expect it... <br /><br />Stewart is charged with emotion as the Midwestern doctor, accidentally involved in political intrigue... His perceptive facial expressions and indignant delivery made him convincingly humana person we could easily identify with... It is his temperament that actually sets the pace for the entire film... <br /><br />By 1956, the lovely Doris Day had won increasing esteem as an actress as well as a singer... She had been particularly strong opposite James Cagney in the Ruth Etting's biopic, 'Love Me or Leave Me,' but she was still unsure of her basic Thespian talents...<br /><br />The casting of character actor Reggie Malder as the assassin, is brilliant... The man looks like a menace and his effusive portrayal radiates evil... | positive |
My blurred childhood memories have kept the echo of the cult serie of Belphégor in the French 60's... so I was eager to see the big screen adaptation. I should have kept my money and gone for a stroll in the Louvre.<br /><br />The idea of the scenario is still very apt and interesting (the fantom of Le Louvre) but the adaptation is ridiculous. The dialogues hesitate permanently between French irony and serious "American business" without achieving neither but not without sounding asinine.<br /><br />Acting leaves somehow to be desired and special effects are meager compared to what one could expect (low budget ?).<br /><br />What is left of all that. Not much outside a few good shots of Paris ... which is seldom a disappointment.<br /><br />Belphégor was worth more than that.<br /><br /> | negative |
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.<br /><br />Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?<br /><br />We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move. | negative |
This is an apocalyptic vision of the hell of our contemporary world. The social criticism of our shallow, commercially oriented values is what makes this film an exceptional vision of the "war is hell" cliché, underscored by a mythical journey upriver to Cambodia by a special forces captain whose mission is to eliminate (with extreme prejudice) a rogue colonel, who's left behind the army's concepts of justice to create his own world. When I saw Apocalypse Now in 1980, I thought it was a deeply flawed masterpiece. In particular, I found the final segment of the journey with Brando, which encapsulates Conrad's Heart of Darkness, to be rather boring. I finally got around to seeing Apocalypse Now Redux and the flaws have been taken care of. Redux makes the movie an outright masterpiece, certainly among the top 100 films ever made. Brando's performance now seems full and complete, perhaps rather less mysterious, but much more profound. Martin Sheen is brilliant at the heart of one of the best acting ensembles ever assembled. It's great to spot a young Harrison Ford, Scott Glenn, etc. in early screen performances that suggest what fine actors they will eventually be recognized as. The work of Robert Duvall, Fred Forrest, Lawrence Fishburne and Sam Bottoms is greatly enhanced by the additional footage. If you've never seen this film, skip the original and head straight for Redux. I wish we could get a Gangs of New York Redux from Scorcese to fill in all the gaps in that deeply flawed potential masterpiece. | positive |
First off, to rent or watch this film you are expecting something in the B-horror range. What this film delivers for the astute fan of this genre is quite a hilarious romp via nordic flavor. At times reminding me of the humor of Jackson's Dead Alive and others of a Stuart Gordon flick this little find should have most chuckling throughout. <br /><br />The f/x reach a few highs of truly spooky (the first time Ed meets his nemesis) but generally have the feel that this film was put together by a f/x team that decided to use any and all props at their disposal from other films...gremlins, devils, slasher films, etc. to pretty good effect and worked in thru the use of hallucinations. <br /><br />The gem of the film is the humor. The gore works most of the time but more for laughs. At its heart its a parody and a fun one at that. | positive |
After watching some of HBO's great stuff - Band of Brothers, Rome, etc. - I must say I had pretty high expectations before watching the first episode of "True Blood". Jeez. Often the script seemed to be written by an 8-year-old, some parts are just horribly filmed, (The scene in which she "saves" Bill, I mean come on. She throws a chain at the guy and ow! it goes around his neck and it magically chokes him! That was pretty embarrassing if you want my opinion. Or a few moments before that scene, when she finds out that the couple is gone with Bill, ridiculous. She hears them plan their stuff, and like 5 seconds later, magic! The 3 of them are gone, and without any struggle or noise or anything!<br /><br />I mean the idea of the show seemed interesting, mysterious, intriguing, vampires co-existing with human in our modern society... but honestly I don't think they really wanted to make more of this than a petty soap show, that the average teen girl watches all the time but that nobody else cares about... Unfortunately, the script is written poorly, mediocre at best. It's shallow and extremely predictable. Often I thought that this was some kind of a joke or something. <br /><br />The actors deliver really unconvincing performances, if you want my opinion. They seem to take the show very lightly, as if it were some kind of a regular, low budget family TV show (well maybe thats what it is, if you take away the family part). The only actor that seemed somewhat good to me was Stephen Moyer in the role of Bill, considering the poorly written, extremely short replies he had to say "What are you..." "Can I give you a call sometime...", I think he did good in bringing out the somewhat mysteriously scary part of a vampire that anyone with a vampire role must have, actually. Anna Paquin was okay as well, but not more. But the guy, playing her brother though, jeez, he's horrible. The scene in which he gets arrested is just simply a shame to modern television. The acting is bad, the construction site looks fake to the bone, and the two other guys "Why is he getting arrested? Uh.. I dunno..." That was pretty embarrassing. <br /><br />Another thing that I think was completely missed was the way they presented Sookie's psychic powers. They make us hear what people think AND speak both at the same time and thats just wrong. Often it just seems unnecessarily chaotic, as if people's thought were some sort of an annoying radio channel, and that when she comes close to em she hits the right frequency level and has to hear everything that they think. <br /><br />And finally, the sex scenes are just plainly unnecessary and that vampire sex tape thing was just totally disgusting. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I wrote all these comments not because I thought the show was BAD, but because I was very disappointed. I expected quality stuff. I didn't think it was going to be like that. It's definitely not a GOOD show though. Mediocre at best. | negative |
This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.<br /><br />Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.<br /><br />Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).<br /><br />This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).<br /><br />Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there. | negative |
"The Dead" truly is a work of art. Clearly, John Huston meant to show that he was still "in the full glory of some passion" by making it, even as his body was failing him. This movie is powerfully affecting and lingers in the mind long after it is done. Reading the Joyce short story certainly adds more depth to the characters, especially Gabriel's inner turmoil, but the essence is all there in this film. As a statement by an artist of his love of life and his craft, "The Dead" stands alone. | positive |
Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies "hottie" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.<br /><br />If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear! | negative |
With few exceptions, most of George Bernard Shaw's plays have virtually disappeared from the theater these days. Too arch, too talky appears to be the general verdict. This BBC version of one of Shaw's funniest plays doesn't refute that verdict. It is certainly arch and talky, but it is also wonderful. And because of the quality of British theater, it is perfectly cast with actors whom -- with the exception of Helena Bonham Carter -- most of us have probably never heard of. Carter is splendid as the Bulgarian girl who shelters the professional "chocolate soldier" (Pip Torrens) and later falls in love with him. One might quarrel with the especially ridiculous interpretation of Sergius (Patrick Ryecart), the Bulgarian cavalry officer who led the charge into the enemy's lines and succeeded only because the enemy had the wrong ammunition for its machine guns. However, the role invites over-acting and Ryecart was obviously told to over-act. The other players are letter perfect. Carter as the self-dramatizing Bulgarian "aristocrat" and Torrens as the Swiss soldier-of-fortune are at the play's center, of course, and they are wonderful. Yes, "Arms and the Man" comes across as a filmed play. But you're unlikely ever to see a Shaw film that doesn't betray its origin. The plots are generally clever. However, Shaw is all about the dialog. The action is minimal (even in St. Joan) and the sets are immaterial. Enjoy this for what it is. | positive |
This is a really really bad movie. That may seem like an oversimplification. A fickle, childish retort comparable to a petty unsubstantiated insult. The truth is, there is not enough I can say about the confusing senseless plot, the really atrocious acting (I'm talking nasty here folks), or the random images of violence toward women that make up the chaotic pastiche of radically horrendous film-making mistakes that propel this affront to all that is good and decent in the world of cinema, nay, human culture. Please, take my word for it, don't watch it... ever. I'm serious. Stop. You'll thank me for it later. | negative |
What a horrible comedy. Totally lame. The supposed "humor" was simple and stupid. Stanly Tucci (a great actor) had the only parts worth chuckling at. And he was tied up and gagged at the time. Don't waste your time with this one. It deserves a 0/10. | negative |
This is an unfortunately unrecognized classic.<br /><br />The look is superb, the design, costumes etc are flawless, the post battle scenes and the cavalry charge are both chilling and exciting.<br /><br />The characters are vivid and really human. Ardent is right and Fabrice Luchini as the lawyer Derville steals the movie with his clever pedantic rodent-like performance, delighting in the ups and downs of others' misfortunes. Depardieu is good but perhaps too large a presence for this role.<br /><br />Where the film really excels is the story and also its changes from Balzac's novella. Those changes are editorial in that Balzac has lots of discussion on society and this film breaths with characters. Nevertheless Yves Angelo has retained the key ingredient, not just the missing man trying to regain his place in society but every character has to find their place in society: the Comte Ferraud is trying to buy a peerage, his wife (Ardent) comes from a lowly birth and when she was married to Colonel Chabert they achieved their position in the turbulence of post-revolutionary France. Everyone has something to lose in terms of status and that makes for a good drama as their objectives are in conflict with each other.<br /><br />It also feels very modern: money is critical to buy status to reach power, but someone can go down as quickly as they go up. Derville enjoys the strategy, he has seen the worst of people he says to Chabert when he takes the case. This speech's original place is at the end of the novella as Balzac sums up the human comedy with huge irony. | positive |
The father of the Who's alcoholic drummer, Keith Moon, was named Arthur. I found so many similarities between Dudley Moore and Keith Moon in this movie. Liza Minelli, who usually OVERACTS, did quite a good job in this one, and was able to turn cheek on Dudley Moore in every turn. Yes, I agree, Sir John stole absolutely every scene. It was a very "different" movie, enabling the viewer to have a glimpse into another life. We often try to catch a rerun of this movie on satellite. God rest Dudley Moore; this was such an enjoyable movie. Much satire and thumbs down to the rich and snobby/affluent. The close friendship between Moore and Sir John is rather endearing. | positive |
With NBC's "Thank God You're Here", the network may be trying to replicate the successes of ABC's improv sitcom, "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" in which host Drew Carey would judge the performances of a handful of cast regulars asked to improvise scenes of some kind. In the NBC show, Dave Foley and co-host Dave Alan Grier oversee a handful of notable comedians who must improvise their way through various scenes which all begin with "Thank God You're Here." It takes itself far too seriously (why must viewers be repeatedly reminded that the actors have never seen the sets before), both co-hosts seem less then enthused. After watching the continuously sub-par, unfunny attempts by the actors to solicit some laughs, I am left wondering whether the live audience is genuinely laughing at what transpires, or whether they, too, are improvising. Expect this time slot filler to be a very short-lived one. | negative |
The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser. | negative |
I understand what this movie was trying to portray. How the old are often ignored and treated like a bother, which means they end up feeling unappreciated and like their lives are empty.<br /><br />I do not have a problem with this message, but I just feel that it could have been put across in a way that is not so painful to watch. I enjoy a good art movie but when a movie becomes too self-consciously arty (as in this case) the result is often frustrating. Including shots of a person packing a suitcase slowly that take 5 minutes try to make a point but just end up annoying the audience.<br /><br />The female characters are very weak and you end up wanting to just tell them to pull it together. This is a movie you feel you should enjoy or rate highly and certainly has its' merits but I was just too frustrated watching it to ever recommend it to someone else. It might have a deeper message than other Roger Michell movies (for example: 'Notting Hill') but at least that was a movie you could enjoy watching. | negative |
I know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone really hate celebrities and spoof them in every single episode of South Park (if not showing them, then mentioning them) and they love to mock and joke and make fun of themselves too, but I felt this mockumentary went too far.<br /><br />For one thing, the most common running theme in the "documentary" is that they're episodes are meaningless pieces of crap they put out just for the money. Obviously, that's completely untrue if you even bother to watch any episode, and the constant "You know, I learned something today..."'s said at the end of almost every episode by the main characters. The creators are also depicted as pompous, arrogant asses who only care about money, including a supposed-to-be-funny-but-isn't scene involving Isaac Hayes delivering lines for Chef (over the phone) and Trey Parker yelling and screaming at him for sucking and hanging up. I guess it's supposed to be funny, but the pretension in it just really made it... cringe.<br /><br />The way they interview employees working for Trey and Matt shows the duo as tyrants who push their employees to the limit, all just for money, in the end. Completely untrue, obviously, and all a joke, but it's just not funny. It's disturbing, even though it's just a joke. | negative |
So bad, it's entertaining, especially during cocktail hour, and believe me, you'll need a beer, a drink, or whatever to get through this turkey. Where do they get the financial backing for such paint-by-the-numbers "horror" flicks? The fun in this movie is predicting which characters will get eaten and in what order, and trashing the so-called "uniforms" the "military" jokers wear. The raptors, by the way, are not the same raptors we met in "Jurassic Park," but a cousin species. (Sorry, no spoilers here. You'll have to watch it to find out for yourself) Don't expect the plot to make sense, simple as it is, just go along for the ride. You could make it a game... take another drink each time you hear a certain sound... or better yet, every time someone gets crunched by a "raptor." With a little luck, you won't even remember having seen this "C-grade" made-for-TV movie! | negative |
I bellied up to the bar expecting this to be a hot beer on a sweltering Texas day but was pleasantly surprised. After suffering through "Saturday Night Foolishness" I had no desire to see a re-make in some south Texas barnyard....and I didn't. John Revolta was good as the jealous redneck, Scott Glenn was well cast as a thuggie ex-con, and Debra Winger was, as always, a delight. *Love that woman* Plus, the soundtrack was dynamite [and this comes from a guy that can't stand the sound of country music]. A fun film all the way. | positive |
It's all about Mitzi. I loved her in this. And didn't she look fantastic?! I love these Lifetime Sunday afternoon popcorn movies. This is like one of those nailbiters where they always go to commercial at the most annoying times. The Richard character was completely creepy. I've dated guys like that. Well, not totally like that lol. I wish Zack hadn't have gotten killed. He was a cutie and very easy on the eyes. I LOVE these stalker type stories. It always makes me get up and make sure my doors are locked. My husband doesn't usually like these types of movies but actually sat through the entire thing with me and actually enjoyed it. I can't wait to see what Mitzi does next! | positive |
This is easily one of my favorite musicals of all time. Bette Midler comes as close to real magic on screen as anyone has in her turn as Gypsy Lee's blustery, bosomy, brave and very scary mother. She evokes a sense of desperation that is at times both comic and tragic but always genuine and quite beautiful. Such charm and grit she is indeed a pioneer woman without a frontier. That frontier is discovered for the children. Who in turn must forge their own in a world ruled by their domineering mother.<br /><br />This particular version is, as I understand it, in it's entirety including the brilliant choreography of Jerome Robbins, as well as the original stage directions. | positive |
I think it's one of the greatest movies which are ever made, and I've seen many... The book is better, but it's still a very good movie! | positive |
This is beyond stupid. <br /><br />Two high school graduates travel to Nantucket for the summer and find situations there that are absolutely revolting.<br /><br />Demi Moore co-stars in this one. As the film was in 1986, was Ashton Kutcher just a babe in the woods at that time?<br /><br />Moore's grandfather has died and his home is on the verge of being sold to ruthless people with a father and son who bring a new meaning to the term mean.<br /><br />Bobcat Goldthwait, with that obnoxious voice is in the film, as well as two brothers, who make dumb and dumber look more and more intelligent.<br /><br />The writing is absolutely ridiculous. Highlights of the stupidity are where one person says to the other: "Did you ever notice that when people die, they go alphabetically in the papers?" <br /><br />I rest my case. | negative |
This movie is simply far too long, far too repetitive, with the male nudity and sexuality being (as this is said as a gay with my own collection of adult titles) far too gratuitous and unnecessary. Much of the first third of the movie could have been cut down to ten minutes and been equally as effective without trying the patience (and stamina) of an audience.<br /><br />I saw this movie on an early Saturday afternoon, with a film festival audience; the type of crowd that tends to be more adventuresome, interested in more experimental or atypical films, such as one without much dialog, shorts, foreign films. The near sell out crowd in an approximate 275 seat theater started to dribble out within the first half of the movie and while the great majority did stay for the "pay off" (which never actually arrived), I have never, in about 14 years of attending any number of film festivals, experimental, gay and otherwise, seen such a large number of people walk away from a film. <br /><br />This movie could easily have been cut down by more than half and been as effective as it was. It also could have gone in different directions, still with a shorter running time, and been far more effective.<br /><br />As it currently exists, this is not something that one can readily recommend or one I would have any desire to watch again. | negative |
Traffik is an excellent miniseries dealing with drug trafficking in Europe. This is the European produced PBS series on which the Oscar-nominated movie Traffic is based on. If you loved Traffic then Traffik is a must see.<br /><br />Overall I would highly recommend this miniseries to anyone that is interested in seeing drugs from a social point of view. The screenplay is exciting and unexpected as it weaves through the lives of drug dealers, traffickers, farmers, policians, and police officers. Unlike other movies that sensationalize the issue of drugs, Traffik presents it AS IS. | positive |
I enjoyed every moment of this movie, even though I knew they could never really be together. With the life expectancy of a Bomber pilot being only six weeks, It made me feel for all of those women and men back in the 1940's who must have lived this story. | positive |
I've seen plenty of Sci-Fi Channel Original movies ever since I started watching them back in 2002 (My first one was Sabretooth - which actually is one of the more entertaining Sci-Fi Channel features in my opinion). Their quality varies. Some of them are average but decent (Sabretooth, Dragon Fighter, Never Cry Werewolf, Swamp Devil), some are laughably bad, and then there are some that are truly terrible. Raptor Planet lies in the latter. <br /><br />Raptor Planet, a loose sequel to the 2004 Sci-Fi Channel Original Raptor Island, is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. The effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as CGI and stock footage from Raptor Planet) are some of the worst looking effects I've seen in a low budget film. The gore effects are even unconvincing. <br /><br />The plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (I forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. That's right folks, the dinosaurs are aliens. Dinosaurs in outer space. What's next, sharks in space?!? The rest of the plot is simple. The human cast are picked off and eaten. By now, we've come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released, but this is the first killer dinosaur movie I've seen where I actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks.<br /><br />There are a few chuckles in it though. There's one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a Carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. Also, a bit of trivia, this is the scene where Steven Baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie. <br /><br />While Raptor Island wasn't a good film to begin with, its a masterpiece compared to its sequel.<br /><br />Believe me when I say, this is quite possibly the worst movie Syfy has ever aired. It's darn near unwatchable. | negative |
Occasionally I accidentally leave the television on after "South Park" and I end up catching some of the train wreck of middle school humor that is "Mind of Mencia". It's the only time I wish my room was cleaner because I'd be able to find the remote that much faster. The truth is Comedy Central was in need of a replacement "Chappelle's Show", and what they got was a show that appeals to idiots that either miss Dave so much they'll cling to any minority variety show, or are satisfied with the plain "Mexicans love tacos" jokes that Carlos Mencia shovels in every week. I am to understand, though, that there are some people out there that actually find Mencia *shudder* funny. I firmly stand by my words when I say I believe these people to exist only in myth. However, if you are indeed out there, I ask only that you never enter into my housing district, and read these major differences between Carlos and "Chappelle's Show": <br /><br />1) Dave was funny. You may want to highlight this one. <br /><br />2) "Chappelle's Show" was FIVE TIMES as edgy as Mencia could ever hope to be. Yet every time a promo for his little show airs, it's all about him, tooting his own horn about how he's nothing we've ever seen before. You've got that right, Carlos. And not in a good way. Chappelle didn't need to tell people he was edgy and funny. We all just kind of stuck around to watch the show to find out for ourselves.<br /><br />3) Chappelle actually had race jokes that dove into some depth of the different cultures- things that some people didn't know about. Like his "I know black people" game segment. The grand prize was some hair cream that black people use. That's deeper than Mencia would ever dare to dive. So how dare he call himself edgy? If Mencia were writing that sketch the grand prize would have been fried chicken and kool-aid. And my accusations have some merit. I saw a promo for his show (which I have affectionately come to call 'My T.V. Monitor Taking A S--t For Thirty Minutes') a few days ago and it was some stereotype olympics sketch, which i admitted to myself was a pretty funny concept. Then I saw that the Mexican that won received a green card as a grand prize. That's it?! That's as close to the fire as you wanna get? Who COULDN'T think of that- back in 7th grade? For you fans of the show, if you're ever watching and you miss one of his punchlines- perhaps because you and your friends were discussing how "Duh-De-Durr" never gets old and is in no way the part of the joke where someone funny would have something clever to say- just remember that there are only five possible choices for punchlines anyway: green card, tacos, border jumpers, lawn mowers, and of course, duh-de-dur. Just remember-whichever it was, it was screamed. Enjoy!<br /><br />4) Kind of relating to number two. Every time he says something that gets a laugh, he'll pause to tell people (while laughing at his own joke) that he thinks he "went too far with that last one". Then don't say it for God's sake. Or let the people decide by themselves. He and Comedy Central keep shoving this tripe down my throat that he's this tell-it-like-it-is show that is more controversial than "The Da Vinci Code". You're not. You never will be. <br /><br />I've never been offended by the show's content. I would never give it that much credit. I'm offended that Carlos Mencia is given thirty minutes to scream unnecessarily. Yeah... I'm literally offended by that fact. | negative |
The young lady's name is Bonnie (Polay). She's attractive, is apparently living a pretty decent life, but all of a sudden is inexplicably snatched from her home and life by Evil Dude and the Various and Sundry Evil Henchmen. Now she has no idea what the hell is going on, only that a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth people apparently want her dead...and she's going to die not even knowing why.<br /><br />God, I hear the whining all the time. Now that content is so cheap to produce and people can create their own movies/books/comics/internal organs, there's going to be nobody to ensure that there's a standard of quality! We're going to be drowning in crap! The only people who actually think this are people who haven't watched any movies or read any books recently-- because we're already doing a dead man's float in crap. It's folks like Ferrari and Rodriguez who put the lie to these ignorant so-and-sos by throwing $8K on the table and making...well, what I would say is a better action flick than anything you've seen in cinemas this year...but you haven't seen any action flicks in the cinema this year. I've seen the box office. You're staying away in droves. You would do better to snag a copy of this, spend twenty minutes being entertained, and get on with your lives.<br /><br />It's sheer entertainment. You enter, like Bonnie, with a lot of questions and where the whole thing ends up is nebulous. The whole conceit has been done before in multiple ways but not in such a compressed amount of time and not without such concentrated tasty gunplay. You're there for the atmosphere, the mystery, and the guns. That's it--that's all the filmmakers promise, and they deliver.<br /><br />It warms the black pits of my heart to think this was made on such a budget. We get passed a goodly number of indie films around here, but seldom do we see anything as polished as this short is, and we've never seen one done in the action genre that looked this good. Hell, you could hand these two guys MI: 3 and it might draw me into watch it. The Bond franchise. Hell, anything. No, in fact, better yet: I'd like to see these guys make a feature on their own and stay the hell away from Hollywood. Whatever's out there killing the movie industry is no doubt infectious.<br /><br />Best indie we've seen in a while and the most effective indie calling card we've ever seen. The DVD's $20 and has bonus features out the ass. Go take your movie ticket budget and put it towards this instead. | positive |
A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.<br /><br />Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening. | negative |
This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common. | negative |
I have made it my personal mission to go after those responsible for this film. I even got the rental company to give me my money back because I argued that they perpetrated false advertising.<br /><br />It's not enough that the movie itself is a p.o.s., but the cover art is what sold me. I've done better make-up effects on my children at Halloween than what the movie actually depicts versus the cover art. Can you say "raccoon eyes?"<br /><br />I'm not going to waste more of my time by going into the full details, but come on, the movie's main character is an L.A. cop who was born and raised in Alabama - but has a German accent!?! It's beyond insulting. | negative |
Sadly, this movie is relegated to 'curio' status it seems. Many people that I've asked "Did you know the Monkees made a movie?" usually answer 'No.' That being said, if you are one of that large number, I recommend you see it, but with the following caveat(s): If you expect Monkey style humor, it is in there. It's just not all over the place like the TV shows.<br /><br />Yes, they are trying to break their TV mold a bit by poking fun at it like a bunch of no-longer-teenagers who have been on the short end of a lot of sticks.<br /><br />No, you don't have to be inebriated to enjoy it.<br /><br />No, you don't have to be inebriated to understand it.<br /><br />If you like classics, you'll love the interspersed clips throughout.<br /><br />If you like the psychedelic era, you'll love some of the cameos.<br /><br />If you are a Monkees fan, you might recognize some of the jabs they are taking at the heavy commercializing of the band.<br /><br />In the nigh-immortal words of one of my best friends after seeing 5 minutes of it: "This is a weird movie, man." In fact it might be better if you don't try to understand it, just sit back and react to it. It's weird, it's funny, it's a bit surreal, it's experimental (still)...it is many things. Overall, it is an experience. | positive |
I love horror movies. I can even appreciate most cheese (face it, 9 out of 10 horror films these days ARE cheese), but this was just ridiculous. Terrible acting, terrible writing, completely hollow and unbelievable characters (no Meisner actors here!) and a total lack of sufficient body count. I wish I could SALVAGE the 79 minutes of my life I just wasted. At least the Crook brothers are aptly named. The only good thing about the whole film was watching the Alicia Silverstone wanna-be get punched in the face. How this EVER made it to Sundance is completely baffling to me. Most of the plot was absolutely unrealistic, even by slasher film standards. I mean, COME ON! Who would rush out to get a cheap earring 10 seconds after a creepy stalker guy just left their doorstep? Lame. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.