Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
One of the most excellent movies ever produced in Russia and certainly the best one made during the decline of the USSR. Incredibly clever, hilarious and dramatic at the same time. Superb acting. Overall a masterpiece. Score it 10/10. <br /><br /> | positive |
I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.<br /><br />This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.<br /><br />Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.<br /><br />To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects. | negative |
This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.<br /><br />If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons. | negative |
This movie is good for what it is, and unpretentious; I wouldn't watch it twice, however: I am a Peter Cushing completist and that's why I watched it. The best asset of this movie is: BREVITY and EFFECTIVENESS. Compared to other similar movies, it does NOT drag its feet forever as each of the four (plus one) segments lasts under 30 minutes, with the last under 10. Good uncanny vibes. In the first segment, horror writer suffering from 'writer's block' relocates to secluded old house seeking inspiration. He finds even too much of it when he starts to visualize one of his fictional madmen. Plot contrivance similar to PREMATURE BURIAL. Good use of the point-of-view twist: is the writer getting mentally ill...or (as the ending shows) his trophy wife wants her lover to play along with the husband's phobias to drive him mad & secure his estates...yet will the scheming bimbo survive to enjoy the fruit of her ingenious plan?<br /><br />In the second segment two long time lost friends get together in the same secluded old house but cannot seem to help visiting a bizarre horror museum featuring the wax statue of the long lost love of their youth, which had once separated them. From the Gothic museum keeper they learn the woman portrayed is a deceased ax wielding murderer...or was she?<br /><br />The third segment was the less interesting to me.<br /><br />The fourth shows a horror movies actor -who thinks he's the best of all- sunken to the depths of low budget C movies. Seeking a costume to lend more credibility to his fictional vampire, he gets the real deal. This segment also lacks the solidity of the first two.<br /><br />Acting is fair, with the 2 initial segments contributing the bulk of it. Good movie, taken with a grain of salt. Not the best Cushing, nor Lee...but worth watching. | positive |
Some may feel that the rating i have just given is a bit generous, but for what this film is i think the directors have done a good job with that they had available to them, this is also a film a film of an acquired taste! <br /><br />my immediate thought was the direct connection to the classic cult film 'The Thing' i.e the parasitical aliens from outta space, infesting human host to then reek havoc wherever possible!<br /><br />You can see how this film pays homage to such a film and others of the horror/gore genre, however cleverly maintains its own originality, well these things fight each other for one and then continue to eat then fallen rival! Only killing and picking a human when it needs a new host! To then pick another fight with another infected host! And this film even throws in a love story but i wont say no more otherwise it gives too much away.<br /><br />GREAT! But like i said of an acquired taste, so don't be surprised if you don't like the film. It is low budget and yes it is blood thirsty, with the creatures/aliens/things morphing their limbs into crude looking weapons, i.e saws, drills, blades and even the odd gun to all but decimate there opponent. I found myself cringing at what i was being shown but at the same time glued to the screen wondering what was going to happen next!<br /><br />So if you like gore, you like aliens, you like fighting and even maybe a little bit of love thrown in somewhere, then i must recommend this film as a must see. I just wish i came across this earlier then i did! | positive |
I truly enjoyed this film. The acting was terrific as was the plot. Jeff Combs has more talent than he is recognized for. The only part of this flick I would change was the ending. The death of the creature was far too gruesome for the Sci Fi Channel.<br /><br />There were some interesting religious messages in this film. Jeff Combs obviously played a Messiah figure and the creature (or shark if you prefer) represented the anti-Chirst. There were some particularly frightening scenes that had that 'end of the world feel'. I only noticed this after my third viewing of this classic creature feature. I know many people won't get the references to Christianity, but if you watch close you'll get it. | positive |
I caught this for the first time a few nights ago on television. I expected to only tune in for a few minutes, but found myself intrigued by the movie. I ended up watching it all and found it surprisingly compelling. The acting by the three American leads was quite good, especially that of Alex Cord. He plays a gunslinger with quite a degree of vulnerability. Very different from how most of them are portrayed in westerns. He ended up in several situations where he was at the mercy of the bounty hunters. The final shootout between the three leads and the bad guys was very good, as was the scene where the doctor digs a bullet out of Clay McCord. Somewhat gruesome, but realistic. I must admit that, despite my initial misgivings at watching a "spaghetti western", I ended up enjoying this film quite a bit. I would recommend it to anyone who likes westerns. | positive |
Imagine the scenario - you are at the movie theater only because you are in Washington for the weekend and it's raining and you're finished with the Museums. You think you might go see the Sarah Marshall movie as the trailer look so so and you don't have to engage your brain. It's sold out. Options? - The Bank Job, In Bruges, The Leatherheads or Prom night. You've seen the Bank Job (suprisingly decent heist movie that) and In Bruges (again, pretty good) so you're down to two. You don't fancy watching Clooney or the nice one from the Office run around in 1930 football uniforms, so you go see Prom Night right? Wrong. You take the $8.50, walk up to a stranger in the street and ask him to punch you in the face for $8.50. It would be money better spent.<br /><br />It actually plays like more of a comedy than a horror/thriller or whatever it is supposed to be. If I was financing that movie and they showed me that as a final cut I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both. An insult to anyone's intelligence... my roommate was laughing out loud most of the movie, as for the acting, they might as well have cast robots (or maybe dogs) in the roles, they would have been more realistic. The detective has to be possibly the worst actor I have ever seen (Ben Affleck and Hayden Christansan (I hate his acting so much I don't care how you spell his name) you are relieved on your title(s)) <br /><br />So in summary 'not good' | negative |
My original title for this review was going to be, "Ending disappoints, Film triumphs." But I actually thought about this one on the way home. It is not the fairy tale most of these films are, it takes turns that are different and while its ending is at first disappointing, it slowly sinks in and hits the core on a satisfying tone.<br /><br />The plot follows a man named James Aaron(Curb Your Enthusiasm's Jeff Garlin, who also wrote and directed) a struggling actor who lives in Chicago with his mother and deals with both his obesity and his inability to find someone to love.<br /><br />Yes, it sounds corny, but it experiments with elements that make it somewhat unpredictable, and actually makes you wish it were longer. The ending came kind of abruptly and had me saying, "that's it!?" But once it starts to take it's toll, it really makes you smile.<br /><br />It does have many tones of seriousness throughout, but fear not, for it is also very funny. Some scenes offer huge laughs, and those who have seen Jeff Garlin's stand-up will recognize a couple (Primarily when he gives a speech at career day for his niece's kindergarten class and bombs). It begins on somewhat of a serious note that you do not expect, but what follows is very funny, entertaining, and quite poignant as well. It is the kind of movie that you keep watching and always enjoy. And as I said before, while the ending may seem absurd at first, once you take time to think about, it is a true joy. | positive |
I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the "missed" category.<br /><br />Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html | negative |
A lot of people say the end did not make sense, but it did. With the female vampire dead the link to earth was broken and the ship took off, having picked up a lot of Lifeforce from hundreds of thousands of souls. Enough to re-energize those hexagon cells and create new bat creatures. It seems they do not have carnal sex, like vampires of legend. <br /><br />vampire bats from outer space may be ludicrous, but killing them with with a shot to qui force center below the heart is consistent. All you can ask for is consistency. The viewer has to suspend disbelief, even for scifi. <br /><br />The only problem is having to be a sword or stake, not bullets. That puts in a supernatural twist that does not fit with sci-fi. So that is a problem. <br /><br />The only major inconsistency I found is killing the male vampires with the sword, but the soul of the girl and Carlsen go up to the ship. I assume the males souls also went up the ship, but not shown. <br /><br />What about all the humans killed? Do their qui forces ("souls") go up to the ship as discrete entities, are does all the lifeforce get merged into one, for use as ship sees fit? In other words, all the human souls that went to the ship could be re-incarnated as bat creatures. <br /><br />The basic concept is no more ridiculous than Star Wars "Force" or even re-incarnation. <br /><br />This movie was over the top, kitchen sink (Dawn of the Dead meets Alien meets Dracula), but in many ways profound. It was also a beautiful love story. The beginning and end were ethereal. It both began ("what is happening to me") and ended as a love story. <br /><br />Most of the criticism of the movie is about its being bizarre.So what? Bizarre is an art form. As far as being ludicrous, it all fits. The plague concept is much more interesting and subtle than the Aliens just killing people. Maybe they didn't need Patrick Steward's blood to form an image of the girl, but it was a very far out, surreal, scene. <br /><br />Another reason the movie is hated is because of the end. But the end fits perfectly with the beginning. People are so wrapped up in the nude girl that they miss the movie's core. Its a lover story,from start to finish. It starts with Carlsen and the girl on the alien spaceship and finished same way. So it fits perfectly. Most people are fixated on the hero killing the monster, and this movie did not end that way, which is precisely why I love it. <br /><br />Instead, it has a happy ending, with the 2 of them going back to ship, to be reborn. Way cooler than the hero kills monster end, but that is exactly why it bombed. It was not a straight-up horror or even scifi/horror at all, but a love story, with a beautiful beginning and end. All those souls twinkling on the ship. And the crystal room pulsating with new life. <br /><br />Most people can't deal with a love story that is also Alien meets Dawn of the Dead meets Dracula. | positive |
There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.<br /><br />I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.<br /><br />I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least. | negative |
What an incredible story and what a beautiful film! Hat's off to Ben Daniels, Lavinia Currier and the great Honore de Balzac. This captivating film conveys the passion experienced by the characters so effortlessly and yet so powerfully. I watched it mesmerized, almost holding my breath as the story developed towards its inexorable end. This film's execution was almost flawless: simple and pure, it plays with our hearts, guiding us in understanding the strange platonic, absolute thus possessive bond between two creatures not meant to be part of each other's world. Both are capable of affection, yet ironically, it's the more "evolved" one who becomes dependent and possessive, unable to accept the other's freedom. It's one of the most fascinating and intriguing look at the many forms of love, and an incredible study on how oppressive and destructive human love can be sometimes. <br /><br />Only a rudimentary mind would associate this story with any kind of bestiality. | positive |
Our family (and the entire sold out sneak preview audience) enjoyed "The Guardian". Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher gave convincing performances as the fictional helicopter rescue swimmer characters Ben and Jake. After seeing this movie, you can't help but imagine how difficult it must be to graduate from the USCG helicopter rescue swimmer school and one day take part in real rescues.<br /><br />Even though this is a fictional movie, it delivered rather convincing virtues of team spirit, dedication and bravery exhibited by all the members of the actual U. S. Coast Guard.<br /><br />The special effects used to create the rescue scenes were incredible. You actually felt like you were taking part in a real rescue.<br /><br />I feel the movie could have been made without the "Hollywood" bar scene (when you see the movie, you might agree) since the real Coast Guard does not condone such behavior. <br /><br />Very entertaining, very action packed, definitely worth seeing. Thank you, U. S. Coast Guard and the REAL helicopter rescue swimmers, "So Others May Live". I'd highly recommend this movie to everyone. | positive |
I don't understand the many good reviews, here. I found the photography and scenery beautiful, and the two lead actors appealing, but there's little else here to recommend this movie. Most annoying are the fake Southern accents and badly written dialog. These do not sound like real people to me. Although it's refreshing to show men exploring various forms of sexuality without the usual labeling and stereotypical character traits, most of the story is without motivation or logic. The only thing that makes very much sense is the responsibility Griffith feels toward his mentally ill Aunt, grossly over-acted by Karen Black. Lee is an interesting character who would have been more compelling had the dialog he was made to speak been more natural and his motivations more clear. Yes, I understand that he's a drifter, but his actions as the movie draws to a rushed conclusion make no sense at all. This movie is worth a look, chiefly because it has a nice atmosphere about it, but it's slow moving and deeply flawed. A serious rewrite and better editing might have saved it, as the premise and story outline are promising. | negative |
Here I thought "Nanook of the north" was the last word in archaic semi-doc 'eskimo' movies. How wrong! As an avid sea-kayaker I stayed up till 330am to watch this hoping to get a glimpse of some hand-made 'skin-boats'. The movie did not let me down. Any student of kayak/umiak construction should have a look-see here. (Note to fellow SKers: they appear to be using Norton Sound kayaks with single blade paddles).<br /><br />But the film went way beyond this admittedly narrow interest. Even though there were as others have noted some little back-shot-fakey-bits the movie has so much heart they are just a minor annoyance. It was (from this very amateur anthropologist's viewpoint) probably the perfect time to make this movie. Early thirties: the 'talkies' are so new that they (including Louie B. Mayer!) actually let the Inuit speak in their own tongue. And there is so much that was still, despite the infused melodrama, authentic. They are really whacking that polar bear, that whale and those caribou. A fifties version of this film would have been so cheesy with 'stars', Technicolor, etc. to gum it up. The seventies version? Don't even. A very good companion piece to this excellent movie is "White shadows in the south seas" (1928) Geograpically the mirror image to "Eskimo" it also deals with the relentless and profound disruption of Western culture/technology on an unsuspecting people. | positive |
The novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.<br /><br />However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.<br /><br />It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD. | positive |
Minnie and Moskowitz is the most pathetic and ungraceful love story I've ever seen. Between Minnie, a disillusioned museum curator whose abusive married boyfriend dumps her and leaves her even more uptight and confused than she already was, and Seymour Moskowitz, a parking attendant so desperate for attention that he spends his nights going to bars and restaurants aggravating people, there is a chaotic and disenchanted match from the start. Just like so many pairings that we see every day.<br /><br />In nearly every love story, there is a man and a woman, the man being confident, funny, either classically hot or attractive in his own way, whose shortcomings are charming, and the woman a wounded soul who could have any man she wants who chooses this guy because there's just something about him. These movies make everyone feel so good because the characters embody what every man and woman wants to be, not what they are. Minnie and Moskowitz, instead of indulging in any hint of fantasy in the realm of romance, depicts people who may just be more common than the attractive, confident people with so much experience playing the field. What's the story behind the love affairs of the ugly, alarmingly awkward man with no life and no job that we all run into, or the woman so crippled by insecurity that it's difficult to talk to her?<br /><br />This film is not as fascinating as Cassavetes's Faces or Opening Night, but it has that riveting quality that Cassavetes always fought so hard to render, which is an unbridled depiction of people underneath the ego that hides behind itself in nearly all other films. Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassel, delivering startlingly pitiable people, are hardly likable. Moskowitz nearly drives us mad, let alone Minnie. He imposes himself so forcefully in her life, the dates are an explosion of the inner voices of ours that respond to the screamingly inept uneasiness on dates we've all been on, rejections we've all swallowed, and arguments we've all had that we know were our own faults. I admire a film like Minnie and Moskowitz because, as the trademark is with the films Cassavetes helmed himself, it identifies with us in 100% honesty. Our egos play no part in company with his characters, thus a tremendous achievement per performance by actor. | positive |
Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.<br /><br />How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).<br /><br />Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.<br /><br />Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.<br /><br />As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled. | negative |
Tipping the Velvet (2002) (TV) was directed by Geoffrey Sax for BBC television. The basic plot is a coming-of-age story for the protagonist, Nan Astley, played well by Rachael Stirling. As a teenager, Nan works in her family-run oyster house. Everyone expects her to stay at home, then marry an appropriate husband, and settle down to family life. Nan expects this too.<br /><br />Everything changes when Nan meets Kitty Butler (Keeley Hawes) a beautiful and talented performer who dresses in men's clothes and captures the hearts of her audience. The audience includes Nan, who is sexually attracted to Kitty in a way in which she's not attracted to her boyfriend. <br /><br />The remainder of the film follows Nan to London and through her ups (sort of) and her downs (horrible) as a lesbian and sometimes male impersonator. <br /><br />As is typical for the BBC, every role, no matter how small, is performed by an excellent actor. The BBC has a depth and breadth of performing artists that is truly marvelous. None of the supporting actors stands out in my mind--they were uniformly good. Both Stirling and Hawes are wonderful, and their acting carries the film along.<br /><br />It's always sad to be reminded of how difficult life can be for someone who doesn't fit society's mold for what is normal. I know it isn't easy for lesbians even in the U.S., even today. Imagine the obstacles to love and happiness for lesbians in Victorian England. We've come a long way, but we still have a long way to travel. | positive |
i loved this movie. you have to respect midgets that dressed up like tiny Martians. Sure the story may have been thin at times, but you can't take away from the way it was done. i used to watch this over and over again when i was 8. its a kids movie, and besides, it has some of the greatest quotes ever. Blanzee's "Home on the Range" rendition is awesome. <br /><br />very well done if you ask me, 8 of 10. | positive |
Not having seen the 1936 version of this story, I cannot offer any comparison there. I can, however, state that Stephen Sondheim's musical treatment of this story is absolutely genius. Only Sondheim could come up with music and lyrics that are stellar in their own right, yet perfectly suited to the very bizarre subject matter. If anyone needs an explanation of what a dark comedy is, they should see this (and "Dr. Strangelove" as well). When Mrs. Lovett goes from having the "worst pies in London" to a booming business with high acclaim, we aren't talking "Soylent Green," - but the ingredients are similar. Particularly brilliant is the song where Mrs. Lovett pitches her idea to Mr. Todd. Even in the introductory number, the line "...they went to their Maker impeccably shaved..." gives a great indication of the premise, the drama, AND the comedy to come. Outstanding! | positive |
I don't get it! The teenage leads in "Horror Star" supposedly all are devoted horror fans, yet when their favorite idol (Conrad Radzoff) passes away, they dig up his corpse and do all sorts of disrespectful stuff with it, like disco-dancing it around the house and throw food leftovers at it. That doesn't sound like something real horror fans would do, now does it? I'm a big horror fan and I immensely idolize departed icons like Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Boris Karloff, but it would never come to my mind to ridicule their memory. No wonder Conrad comes back from the dead admittedly, after a séance to wipe them all off the face of the earth! Mr. Radzoff already wasn't known for his friendliness in life, since he occasionally killed the directors that disagreed with his visions, and even after his death he suffers from a tremendous ego. Even inside his tomb there are video messages to petrify possible visitors and the group of teenagers will vividly experience that he also enjoys the murdering business outside his film sets. "Horror Star" (a.k.a. "Frightmare" and "Body Snatchers") is a pretty lame 80's horror flick, but there are a handful of cheesy & gory highlights to enjoy. The film mainly suffers from its own stupid plot, since no one not even a film school student is stupid enough to steal a recently buried corpse and actually think he'll get away with it, and there are too many tedious moments to struggle through. Conrad's video-speeches from beyond the grave are overly talkative and definitely undermine the tension, but on the other hand his killing methods are pleasingly inventive. One teenager enjoys the experience of getting cremated alive and another one (Jeffrey Combs in one of his first roles!) loses his head in a delightful decapitation sequence. In the absolute messiest sequence, a poor girl' head is crushed by a coffin. Writer/director Norman Thaddeus Vane wanted to bring homage to vintage horror cinema and he obviously how to make film look sinister. The locations and scenery are great, but Vane lacked the necessary funds to provide his film with a proper continuity and editing-job. The acting performances are overall decent, with Ferdy Mayne (imitating Christopher Lee) and Jeffrey Combs delivering the most memorable roles. "Horror Star" can hardly be called a must-see or even a good film, but it's worth tracking down in case you're an admirer of enthusiastically made B-horror. | negative |
If you're coming to this film to learn something about depression, forget it: you won't learn anything except how not to write a screenplay on the subject. I understand the intent was to show how severe depression can turn an average person into a complete wreck, but the result is the most one-dimensional character I've ever seen in a Hollywood feature... no small feat. Christina Ricci as Elizabeth spends the entirety of this film screaming at the top of her lungs, viciously insulting someone, bursting into tears or some combination of the three (the only exceptions being some quiet sulking at the beginning and end). There is not the slightest hint of what she might be like WITHOUT depression... not the faintest glimmer of any other aspects of her personality... she just screams. At one point, her roommate tells her, "Lizzie, you're such a fun person to be around when you're not being depressed," and my reaction was, "She IS?" It seemed odd that the writers would include this comment without giving us any examples, but this script is a lesson in incompetence. It has no discernible structure or flow at all; instead, it consists of a series of awkwardly strung-together scenes of Lizzie screaming, then ends. Character development? No... Scenes of her everyday existence, i.e. going to classes, that might possibly be important details? No... Screaming at maximum volume? CHECK. It's not quite enough, I'm afraid. 1/10. | negative |
Renee Zellweger absolutely shines as Nurse Betty, easily one of the most charming, off-beat, and lighthearted comedies of the year.<br /><br />When soap opera obsessed waitress Betty Sizemore witnesses her insensitive husband's murder by two hitmen (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), she snaps and thinks the cast members on A Reason to Love are real. She decides to travel to Los Angeles to find famed heart specialist Dr. David Ravell (a character on the show).<br /><br />As the two oddly paired Hitmen, the caustic Rock and the pontificating Freeman generate some very fun chemistry, and Greg Kinnear also has fun with his smarmy offscreen actor persona. Renee Zellweger turns in an innocent, candy-coated, and sometimes terribly sweet performance as Nurse Betty. She exudes goodness, warmth, and is irresistible. While the script sometimes feels like a sit-com, is filled with sometimes unbelievable characters and contrived situations, Zellweger is so likeable and so utterly disarming that it all comes together.<br /><br />With just a few splashes of black comedy to keep things interesting, a winning performance from Zellweger, a great supporting cast and a competent script, Nurse Betty is utterly delightful.<br /><br />7 out of 10 | positive |
I like seeing Linda Blair playing in an actual "horror" movie again. I had been disappointed with her in most everything since the "Exorcist "movies (Which i loved). What was up with all of those nasty "B-movies" she did? <br /><br />David Hassellhoff on the other hand, all i could do is laugh. He is not cut out to be a horror movie actor. David needs to stick to "Knight Rider" or "Baywatch".<br /><br />All around, this is an awesome movie. Even for the eighties, this was an awesome film. It has horror, action, and drama. It is a suspenseful, and I loved the way Linda Blair turned out. | positive |
Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.<br /><br />Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?<br /><br />As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.<br /><br />The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).<br /><br />There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...<br /><br />WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).<br /><br />...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?<br /><br />But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow. | negative |
Produced by International Playhouse Pictures, it looks as if filmed in a doll house. Everybody's a liar, everything is dream-like, toy-like for no good reason. I'm not saying everything in all movies should be totally realistic, but such unbelievable fantasy things and situations in one movie are way too much. How did they get these fine actors -actresses particularly- to this movie? It's nice to see Mia again; if we were meant to understand why her husband wants to kill her, Mia does do it well. Not funny, not moving, just fake. Stephen Dorff briefly appears at the end, fitting for a play maybe, less for a movie, but this isn't one to measure things at. Terrible. | negative |
This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like "I don't know"; "I like his arms"; "I like the way he makes love" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving. | positive |
I got this for my birthday in a box set under the name Broke Skull. Well, after watching one on the DVD and being pleasantly surprised, I popped this sucker in. It was worse than I had expected, and I didn't expect much. This movie is basically a convoluted story about a guy who dies and comes back to life with the mob, and other bull crap. There was some interesting ideas in this that were never followed up on. Now everybody has been saying there was a lot of gore, can somebody tell me were? I saw a bad effect of a head being crushed, brain tissue (or something...), and blood coming from the penis area two times. I have to say the the part were the guy gets his man hood bitten off made me squirm, that was the only good thing about this movie. And that gay sex scene was just thrown in there for no reason. The acting in this was Atrocious, really, it blew. That Asian chick was annoying, then the annoying Mexican boyfriend who comes in to just be killed. I say if you get this in a box set, that is fine, but don't spend any money on it, at all. | negative |
I was entranced by this touching and hilarious film, not to mention surprised. I was also surprised to find that the voice of Paulie was performed by Jay Mohr. The performance was so finely nuanced, neither wavering into schmaltz nor becoming too hard under the New Jersey swagger, that I thought that this must be some unsung old pro, not the baby-faced Mr. Mohr. A very impressive performance, indeed, and it's gratifying to see his talents being taken seriously in a string of quirky, indie films. | positive |
I really couldn't get into this movie. The plot is some old woman has been torturing someone so long that he is deformed. She dies and he is left in the basement to starve. Months must pass and a family moves in. The daughter is blind because of an accident caused by the father. Well anyway this guy in the basement, who for all rights should be long dead is still around. He eats a cat and now is superhuman. He now wants to eat people and have sex. And when a hooker dies father gets the blame. I always dislike movies where someone else is blamed for the killings because you always here the typical lines "I didn't do it", "I could never do such a thing", blah blah blah. And the family storyline could be a lifetime movie storyline. | negative |
OK, the other reviewers have pretty much covered the main points of this great little gem, i.e. the story started out in life as material for Buster Keaton's silent classic "7 Chances". Comedy, or acting in any genre for that much, is merely interpreting a scene and lines that someone else has written and performed before, if it's not a totally original creation. Here we have The Stooges essentially doing material that was written and performed by someone else and yet for a low budget, short time span of a film, they're handling things just fine. Regardless of what the credits say on their films, real "stooge-philes" know that they had a lot of input on lines and direction. They took their work as seriously as a surgeon does a vital operation. Words spoken by Emil Sitka himself during a documentary about the boys. Here, what appears to be their usual anarchy over something so simple as getting married, is actually organized chaos. Every line is perfectly timed with a related physical action. How many comedians are around today that can claim such mastery? Most obviously the Seinfeld crew but none others that I've seen in the last 35 years of watching TV. The critics will always "pooh pooh" The Stooges or Laurel & Hardy and others but then again...who ever remembers the critic's names or what they said? Simply watch, laugh and enjoy! | positive |
The Fluffer may have strong elements of porn industry truth to it - but that doesn't make up for the fact that it's pretty shabbily directed and acted - and with a very mediocre script.<br /><br />B grade from start to the exceedingly drawn out finish.<br /><br />It would be embarassing to think of the general public being offered this piece as an example of state of the art gay film making.<br /><br />Hopefully it has a limited life in the gay film festival circuit and is allowed to die a natural death on video.<br /><br />This film will open the Queer Film Weekend in Brisbane on April 10, 2002. I think its success there will be strongly influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed in the preceding cocktail party - they're gonna need it. | negative |
I have read the other user comments and I am happy someone has compared it to the original by Kamal called Perumarzhakalam released in 2004.<br /><br />The original had a tight story and no loopholes as described above about the Indian Govt not having proper records, or even bad shoots and bloopers.<br /><br />The story is great and a touchy one and well described by others. But sadly Nagesh taking credit for it as his own story is a sad thing and amounts to nothing other than plagiarism.<br /><br />I guess he has been affected by Bollywood's so called "inspired" syndrome.<br /><br />He must at least give credit where it is due.<br /><br />I liked some of his older movies, but now I suspect if any of them were originals after all.<br /><br />Here is a link in IMDb for the original masterpiece. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425350/#comment I recommend everyone to see the original, even with subtitles if needed, to know what class direction and class acting is all about. | negative |
Laughable would be a good term to describe this movie. But, since this movie deserves nothing good said of it, I'll use the term god-awful instead.<br /><br />Centering around the adventures of a bunch of eco-warriors investigating the nefarious doings of the military on a semi-tropical island, the lack of a budget rapidly becomes apparent. Michael Pare (a real actor! But only in the sense that Pinocchio was a real boy...) leads the bunch of fools through a series of monster chase-and-gobble-hapless-victim scenes. There is some vague attempt at pseudo-science to explain the presence of the giant reptiles, but it convinces the viewer about as well as the acting does.<br /><br />As if this doesn't insult the viewer enough, the movie also features what I'll call "Guns of never-ending ammunition". I never saw Mickey Parrot or his female side-kick change clips once during the entire film, yet I can positively report they cap off at least 40 rounds each in any scene where they are required to fire their weapon. Forty rounds may not seem like that many, but we are talking standard handguns here. I figure 15 round clip, tops. And remember, they never change clips, nor even appear to carry any extra ammo.<br /><br />It's dumb-assery like this which consigns movies to the eternal fires of celluloid hell, and rightly so. The third-rate CGI does little to help matters and the acting is best laughed at, else you'll start crying. Why SciFi Channel repeatedly churns out this mush is anyone's guess.<br /><br />My advice....give this one a wide berth...a very wide berth! | negative |
This is one of my favorite Mr. Motos, and I have seen them all. As usual Lorre is his charming self as the debonair Mr. Moto. Lionel Atwill plays a delightfully zany museum curator, the usual comic relief is quite funny here, and there are lots of suspects on whom to cast an eye. It's fast paced and fun.<br /><br />The archaeologist doesn't have quite the same flair as Thomas Beck, the usual second lead in these programmers, but he's adequate. Stepin Fetchit is on board, and while he speaks in a stereotypical manner his lines are funny, not demeaning to his intelligence, and he actually saves the day in his brief time on screen. | positive |
Some saying about 'The Play is the Most Important Thing', or something like that, is attributed to that old Bard of Avon, himself, William Shakewspeare. if it wasn't old Will, it may well have been our own, super-veteran film Director, Mr. Raoul Walsh. There are a large number of his films that would support this hypothesis. None are more appropriate than GENTLEMAN JIM(Warner Brothers, 1942).<br /><br />The Film also racks up another award, being named as Errol Flynn's favourite of his own starring vehicles. It clearly gives on screen evidence that would easily lead viewers sitting in the darkened theatre, or viewing it on their home TV or DVD, to conclude same.<br /><br />To be sure, the story is a semi-serious Biopic, which takes a portion of factual material and blends it with a liberal dose of the old imagination to bring us a very satisfying, albeit somewhat fictionalized(what Biopic isn't?)occurrences.<br /><br />The casting is excellent, as it makes good use of the natural athleticism of our lead, Mr. Errol Flynn. Though not a Swashbuckler, a Western or a War Picture, this GENTLEMAN JIM is perhaps the starring role that was the best fit for the rugged Australian.<br /><br />Errol was a member of the Australian Olympic Boxing Team in either 1928 or 1932. His training and skills in the 'sweet science'are clearly in evidence throughout the film and especially in the "Big Fight" for the World's Heavyweight Boxing Championship with the great John L.Sullivan,Himself.(played in expert fashion by Ward Bond) The cast reads like a duty roster of Warner Brothers' resident supporting players. It features Alan Hale as Jim Corbet's father, a Livery Wagon operator*. His two brothers are Harry and George (Pat Flaherty and James Flavin), the two 'blue collar' men of the family, their occupations being stated as being 'Longshormen'.<br /><br />The great Jack Carson does his usual masterful serio-comic performance in support as Jim Corbett's friend and fellow bank teller. The rest of those we can both recognize and remember are:John Loder, William Frawley,Madeleine LeBeau, Minor Watson, Rhys Williams,Arthur Shields,Dorothy Vaughn to name but a few.<br /><br />Director Walsh also used a number of Pro Wrestlers in roles of various Boxers. Hence we have Ed "Strangler" Lewis and an unknown Grappler* are featured as the 2 waterfront pugs in the opening scenes. Others were Sammy Stein, Mike Mazurki(ever hear of him?)and "Wee Willie" Davis. These guys had a powerful,yet unpolished look about them that the old Pier 9 brawlers would have possessed.<br /><br />We haven't forgotten Leading Lady, Alexis Smith. She is powerful in her characterization of an "independent" woman, yet maintains enough true ability as a comic player in many of the scenes. She displays quite a range in her part as poor little rich girl, Victoria Lodge.<br /><br />With all these ingredients at hand, the trick is how to mix the elements in proper proportions to give it the 'just right' blend. Well, Director Walsh does so with a reckless abandon. Because he is looking for, above all, a great film. His treatment shows all of the skills he had honed to a fine tuning starting with his days as a player with D.W. Griffith. Mr. Walsh seems to have a special fondness for that period, the 1890's.*** Mr. Walsh's direction moves through the script at a fairly fast clip, breaking up the exposition scenes with a humorous punch-line, "the Corbetts are at it again!" Hence, he is able to maintain a light, even humorous touch to a story which could become too drab and serious.<br /><br />Furthermore, in an almost unnoticed element, Brother Walsh gives us an authentic look of a San Francisco of the 1890's. And as a further example of his fondness for that period, he creates wide, dynamic images of the historic Prize Fights. There is a vibrant, joyful mood conveyed in those Boxing scenes. As a crowning glory to this great, perhaps underrated film, Director Walsh gave the image a look as if it were an illustration from The Police Gazette, which covered such events in those "Old Days".<br /><br />But there's just one thing to remember before viewing. If it is for the first time, or if your seeing it once more:<br /><br />"THE CORBETS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!"<br /><br />* In my humble opinion as a historian of both Film and Pro Wrestling, it looks like Tor Johnson, who years later was a favourite of Director Ed Wood's.<br /><br />** A 'Livery' is a somewhat archaic term for a vehicle for hire for local city transportation.<br /><br />*** It's true. Mr. Raoul Walsh was a Griffith Veteran Player. He was the actor to portray John Wilkes Booth in THE BIRTH OF A NATION(1915).<br /><br />**** Being born in 1887, Raoul Walsh was old enough to have his own memories of the 1890's and of the Sullivan-Corbett Championship Bout and what it meant to the Sporting Life in the America of those days. | positive |
So what's the big fuss out of making an INDIANA JONES wannabe when you have an actor who's cast as a fictional dude from adventure storybooks who doesn't want to go out on an adventure??? Whoever wrote the script for JAKE SPEED was probably fired, but for whatever reasons possible, this movie greatly lacks in excitement! That doesn't mean it has no action, but look on the dark side of the picture. This has got to bare no resemblance to INDIANA JONES or other action-adventure thrills containing cliffhangers and narrow escapes, and JAKE SPEED was promoted that way using clever propaganda to make me and several others interested in it! Besides, I've never heard of the guy, so who needs his attention? | negative |
I lived in that area (Hoboken and Jersey City)for about ten years. This film certainly captures the feel of that time and place. The dialogue is very good, the music is right and scenarios realistic. As another poster said, it looks almost like a documentary.<br /><br />I like the way it humanizes these kids, who probably would have rather have been born in Westchester, but fall into what kids fall into. It just so happens that area is pretty rough.<br /><br />They over-demonize the cops quite a bit, but that's to be expected. I'd say the acting is good all-around, too.<br /><br />It gives the viewer some sense of how this idiocy is caused and gets blown out-of-proportion. Hopefully, the new mayor of Newark is making progress. | positive |
I don't know if it was the directors intent to make sure the sky was almost always sunny and beautiful in this film. Perhaps that is the romantic image many Americans have of the time this film is set, as it is in the middle of the War, Macy has returned from the war (His neighbor asks "Hey, is it true you got a Fritz over there?") and is trying to get on with his life but one day he gets a new pair of glasses (hence the name) and sees things clearly as the surrounding situation reveals itself to be one of rabid anti-semitism, and Macy and Dern could wrapped up in it. Funny how neither is Jewish in this film but the accusation is made. Also it is historically accurate, as the labor union Democrats of this time wrapped themselves in the flags of America and God. Macy is continually pestered to come to the "meeting". His presence brings unexpected results.<br /><br />Applying this time frame to today is a study in contrast. In 2005, has undergone a complete reversal, with average citizens who have taken patriotism and religion as their unifier supporting the Republican Party and viewing organized labor as part of left-wing 'unpatriotic' America.<br /><br />A great picture to watch, if you care to see the friendly, timid and meek Macy (played beautifully by him) get caught in the carnage of race and hate in the mid 40's in NYC.<br /><br />A tough, emotionally charged film. | positive |
I was so excited to see this film because I had always heard it was very scary.<br /><br />What's interesting about it is that it is a Japanese film they decided to bring to America, but they actually filmed it IN japan with the original crew! I think this made the film... more Japanese (which is probably why it managed to be fairly successful unlike most Japan-to-America horror movie flops) but it also made it a bit inaccessible to American audiences. The difference in what scares the Japanese culture and what scares the American culture felt present throughout the film. This worked well in moments when they meant to capture the nervous fear of the main character: a frightened fish in a big, busy, unfamiliar, Tokyo pond.<br /><br />The storyline was quite confusing as well. In typical Japanese fashion it is extremely complicated and confusing. The beginning of the movie is actually the middle of the story and from there we move constantly forwards and backwards until, at the end of the film, we see the ending and beginning of the whole story. This constant flipping through time was very much confusing for me. Also, I didn't think some things were explained so well and I had to ask my friend to explain them to me (she had already seen it, as well as the sequel which apparently reveals more of the story).<br /><br />Overall, there IS plenty for American audiences to love, tons of freaky imagery and macabre details which a healthy splash of jump scenes. | positive |
Something to Sing About was produced at Grand National Studios where James Cagney was working while under a contract dispute with the brothers Warner. He did two films for this B studio, neither of which rank high in the Cagney credits.<br /><br />One of the great losses to cinema is the fact that Jimmy Cagney did so few films that utilized his terrific dancing abilities. The two that come to mind immediately are Yankee Doodle Dandy and Footlight Parade. Two lesser films are The West Point Story and Never Steal Anything Small. Cagney himself said he never used to watch anything but his musicals in retirement. So why did he make so few of them?<br /><br />Well this one was all wrong. The plot of Something to Sing About concerns a hoofer who fronts for a band who's discovered and given a movie contract. There are the usual complications of a conniving studio boss and a conniving press agent played respectively and well by Gene Lockhart and William Frawley. His contract calls for a no- marriage clause, so Cagney and band girl singer lady Evelyn Daw marry in secret. Then we get the complication of a publicity driven studio romance with screen leading lady Mona Barrie. I think you can figure where this is going.<br /><br />The most disappointing thing about Something to Sing About is the lack of dance numbers for Cagney. He dances briefly at the beginning and the end of the film and nothing in the middle. Evelyn Daw had a nice singing voice and the charisma of a ham sandwich. She got the musical numbers such as they were. I'm sure the movie-going public was paying their tickets to see Cagney dance. <br /><br />Also in addition to giving him some dance numbers a female dance partner would have been nice. He danced well with Ruby Keeler in Footlight Parade and with Virginia Mayo and Doris Day in The West Point Story. Weren't Ginger Rogers, Eleanor Powell or Ruby Keeler available?<br /><br />No memorable songs came out of this. And Daw's voice is waisted as well. She has a Jeanette MacDonald soprano voice which was so out of place with a swing band.<br /><br />No wonder Cagney went running back to Warner Brothers. But they should have given him some decent musicals. | negative |
This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as "The Deer Hunter.") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.<br /><br />The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.<br /><br />There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for "It's a Wonderful Life," which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.<br /><br />I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being "the perfect wife" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.<br /><br />Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, "I'm going to bust that marriage up!" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.<br /><br />Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. "I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys." Truly great stuff.<br /><br />The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points. | positive |
I found this to be a charming adaptation, very lively and full of fun. With the exception of a couple of major errors, the cast is wonderful. I have to echo some of the earlier comments -- Chynna Phillips is horribly miscast as a teenager. At 27, she's just too old (and, yes, it DOES show), and lacks the singing "chops" for Broadway-style music. Vanessa Williams is a decent-enough singer and, for a non-dancer, she's adequate. However, she is NOT Latina, and her character definitely is. She's also very STRIDENT throughout, which gets tiresome.<br /><br />The girls of Sweet Apple's Conrad Birdie fan club really sparkle -- with special kudos to Brigitta Dau and Chiara Zanni. I also enjoyed Tyne Daly's performance, though I'm not generally a fan of her work. Finally, the dancing Shriners are a riot, especially the dorky three in the bar.<br /><br />The movie is suitable for the whole family, and I highly recommend it. | positive |
This movie was great the first time I saw it, when it was called "Lost in Translation." But somehow Bill Murray turned into an eccentric black man played by Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson turned into a cranky Latino woman played by Paz Vega, and Tokyo, Japan turned into Carson, California. Instead of meaningful conversations and silence we enjoyed in Translation, we get meaningless blabbering in 10 Items that verges on annoying. Instead of characters that were pensive and introspective as in Translation, we get characters that spew pointless advice on topics they have no clue about. How can a character that wears hundred dollar T-shirts and has never been inside a Target department store expect to give advice to a working-class woman on how to prepare for a job interview as an administrative assistant? Don't think that stops him. If he isn't giving her clothing advice, he's telling her what she should eat. The most annoying part of the movie for me was how supposedly they were in a hurry to make an appointment, and yet the characters keep finding time to run another errand, be it washing the car, stopping at Arby's, or just laying around to list off their 10 Items or Less lists of things they love and hate. I kept wanting to yell at them saying, "Didn't you say you had somewhere to be? What the heck are doing? A minute ago you were practically late, now you're eating roast beef and pondering your lives!" Until I saw this movie, I never truly understood how something could "insist upon itself," but I think this movie does exactly that, and undeservedly so. The dialogue makes the characters cheesy and unsympathetic
with the exception that I felt sorry for both of the actors for having signed onto this project. | negative |
Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process. | negative |
I always loved that scratchy voiced guy in all those westerns. He was the sidekick (Jingles) in the Wild Bill Hickock show back in the fifties. In this he has the perfect vehicle for his wonderful bragging character. He is harmless and no one believes him, but he is non-flustered and goes on anyway. When you have a guy like this, there's no challenging because the details aren't there to quibble with. Of course, in this episode, he is taken on board a space ship by a group of aliens who have no sense of humor and believe everything they hear. They don't have the word lie in their vocabularies. As it turns out, he is so insufferable that they can't handle him; and then, of course, there is the secret weapon. See this just to watch Andy. | positive |
Julie (Meg Tilly) is a "goody two shoes" type high school girl who, determined to prove something to herself, allows herself to be subjected to the rituals of "The Sisters", a small-scale clique presided over by snooty, homecoming queen type Carol (Robin Evans). The Sisters propose that for Julie's final test she will spend the night in a mausoleum, preparing to drive Julie up the wall, but not knowing that recently deceased, ill-intentioned psychic Raymar is interred there and has plans to cause havoc from beyond the grave.<br /><br />While this debut picture for Tom McLoughlin ("Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives" and "Sometimes They Come Back") is limited by its obviously low budget, it's what McLoughlin and his crew are able to do with it that counts. It's genuinely creepy, unsettling fare; it might have very well scared the stuffing out of me if I were under 10 years of age, and even at my current age, it still got to me to a degree.<br /><br />Some of the effects look cheesy, but the decent looking corpses and gore are created by Tom Burman, an experienced makeup effects artist, who, while tending to be overshadowed by more famous names like Winston, Baker, and Bottin, has a good resume with other films like "Cat People" (1982) and "The Beast Within" to his credit.<br /><br />What I liked most about it was a real sense of foreboding and atmosphere, an aspect missing from some of the current trendy horror movies being shown in our multiplexes.<br /><br />Tilly is cute and appealing in her role, having recently completed her debut film work in "Tex" before joining this production. "One Dark Night" was completed some time before its release to theaters in 1983, where it actually did decent business during its first few weeks. The other actors do what they have to do well enough; familiar faces in the supporting cast include the equally appealing veteran singer / actress / voice-over artist Elizabeth (a.k.a. E.G.) Daily, Kevin Peter Hall, for once *not* playing some sort of creature character, but who unfortunately ends up with very little screen time, and none other than Adam "Batman" West. The director's wife Nancy, who would play Lizbeth in "Jason Lives", appears here as the spacey girl in front of the arcade.<br /><br />It's decent B-level horror entertainment, maybe too cheap for its ambitions, and maybe not that slick (hey, McLoughlin *was* just starting out), but definitely good for some chills.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing that struck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Roosevelt and his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the four boys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddard talked about the same values and family tradition that you would have heard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterous aspects of TR's character. <br /><br />Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this case though the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed. <br /><br />But what if a female minx gets into this all male household and disrupts things? That's Susan Hayward's job here. In one of her earliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl who marries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a play for the third. It's an early forerunner of the kind of a part that later brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.<br /><br />I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as Theodore Roosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tell Father what's going on. The sons and also their governess Ingrid Bergman. Here's where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman is introduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray for their kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals in business. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and years later comes back to the family when the kids are grown up. <br /><br />I'm sorry, but I can't believe the kids need a governess now. Hayward is quite right when she confronts her that it wasn't the kids who brought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would have gotten on with her life. <br /><br />One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of the film I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for the many plot holes we have.<br /><br />It's too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another film together in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman had just made a comeback.<br /><br />Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I'm willing to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cutting room floor. | negative |
Perhaps one of the first slasher film that came out after Halloween (Although made from Irwin Yabalans from Halloween), I must say I honestly found "Tourist Trap" to be scarier and funner. "Tourist Trap" is one of those remarkable treats you find every now and then, and are left with the most enjoyable feeling of surprise. It was destiny I tell you, but one night I was at my local Blockbuster (One or Two months before it went out of business), and had nothing to get. Then I stumble upon this movie, I think huh seems like a laughable B-Movie, I rent it and took it home, boy was I in for a good scare. "Tourist Trap" comes off as a bad movie, it definitely has it's cheesy moments,but in the end you're having to much fun with it to really care.<br /><br />The things that impressed me the absolute most, and the things that made this movie one of the scariest ones I've seen, is number one the setting. A horror movie without a good setting isn't very fun, not here. I just love love love the location, it feels like we can relate to it, it almost feels like we've been there before. Which makes it creepier. Next is the characters, non of them are really stereotypical, and they all have a real personality. For example they're not stoners, alcoholics, or even Sex obsessed people, they feel like normal young adults. Plus they look realistic enough, and then their is Chuck Connors. Who gives a great performance as Mr. Slausen who we all take an instant liking too because again he's so real, he feels like that nice guy grandfatherly figure we adore. The last, and probably most important thing that makes this movie scary is how they make us (the audience) jump half way out of our seats, and turn on the rights, for the right reasons. For example most of the time in horror films we mainly just jump because of a sudden change in the music pitch, but in "Tourist Trap" prepare yourself, that's not the case. With it's perfect use of lighting, mannequins, and weirdness you feel utterly creeped out. Plus I love because although they may go a bit over-the-top with some things you still feel like this could happen. Which is exactly what a horror movie who takes such a ridicules premise should do, and that is make us (the audience) feel unsafe and terrified.<br /><br />Overall as far as any major problems go, I have none, only that it's weirdness may get a little too weird at times. However in the end "Tourist Trap" holds a place near and dear to my heart, for being one of the few horror films to make me turn on the lights and feel unsafe about traveling. | positive |
Just caught it at the Toronto International Film Festival. This is a good story, told in a compelling way. The handheld camera approach to action scenes added to the intensity of those scenes (in a documentary style, not a Blair Witch style). Joel Schumacher shows he doesn't need a big budget to produce a gripping film.<br /><br />The actors were strong, particularly the actor playing the focus of the events in the film, Boz. | positive |
Only three words are really required for this review: Piece of crap.<br /><br />If you enjoyed watching the cartoon as a child, you will find this movie to be a complete waste of your time and money. The best thing about your two hours in the auditorium will be your feet sticking to the floor.<br /><br />Yes, they do use all of the names and catch phrases. The even name the dog "Shoeshine" (in reference to the dog being "Shoeshine Boy" in the cartoon). They name the love interest Polly, but she isn't Miss Sweet Polly Purebred.<br /><br />My wife and son drug me to see this. They should have drugged me to see it.<br /><br />The original Underdog was voiced by Wally Cox, the ultimate nerd. This one is voiced by someone with a "smart alleck teenager that knows more than all the adults" attitude.<br /><br />As a stand alone movie, it is awful. As an homage to Underdog, it is even worse. It is not an homage. It is not a retelling of the story. It is not an updating of the story. It is purely an attempt to cash in on a known title and create merchandising. The next time I go to the store, I fear that I will see Underdog toys, pajamas, towels, sheets, clothing, etc. McDonalds and Burger King probably fought over the kid's meal rights for this.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie, however, is the soundtrack. THEY DO THE UNDERDOG THEME SONG TO RAP (read that with a silent "C" at the beginning)! Great, now that we are going to destroy something, let's go all the way.<br /><br />I knew that it would probably be bad before I went. My fears were confirmed when I arrived at my local 12 plex and found that they opened it for the first day and first showing in their smallest auditorium (and one of only four without stadium seating). Even the theatre people knew it was going to be garbage! Save your money on the tickets and invest it better by going out and buying the original series on DVD. It will be more entertaining and have better production values. | negative |
11 years after this film was released only 5 people have reviewed it here on IMDb. There is a reason for this utter lack of interest in Across the Moon. It is coherent, but lacks all cinematic virtue. See this film for examples of terrible production in all respects. The opening credits for instance are white letters rising mechanically from a red background. The ending features Michael McKean staring out a prison window saying "There's lots of mysteries out there." followed by a clip montage/music video of all the uplifting moments in the tragically bad movie. Julinana Hatfield. Everything in between is awful. I struggled to find any value in this movie and have come up empty. Though it is hard to believe, even a cameo role from Burgess Meridith (always a crowd pleaser) only disappointed me further. This movie is like a mockery of what is special about movies. On paper the movie is below average. Women living together in a trailer. But what actually was produced was nearly unwatchable. The movie attempts to branch off in many directions but never follows through on any. The unappealing conflict of having their boyfriends in jail is never resolved. No conflict is ever resolved. There really is no conflict. The women attempt to become hookers, but that never happens. Instead they get jobs as a bartender and a shelf stocker. Sound exciting? IT wasn't. IT was stupid. And the bulk of the movie is the two women talking and generating contrived conflict. The women are capable actresses, but the script was beyond poor. Useless. This was a terrible movie, but it is even worst that they borough Burgess Meridith out of his retirement home to make it. Bad from start to finish. Like the lion without teeth, this film has no bite. | negative |
This movie spends most of its time preaching that it is the script that makes the movie, but apparently there was no script when they shot this waste of time! The trailer makes this out to be a comedy, but the film can't decide if it wants to be a comedy, a drama, a romance or an action film. Press releases indicated that Shatner and Hamlin made this movie because they loved the script (what were they thinking?). If you like William Shatner (I do) see "Free Enterprise" instead. | negative |
I was quite surprised to read some of the comments on this work, honestly. Some people were looking for a plot??? OK, when this video came out over a decade ago, I watched it for what it was: a collection of music videos. It's not a movie. It doesn't have a plot, nor a central storyline. It's a rather artistic anthology of mostly long-form videos, all of them rather smartly or creatively done. Michael Jackson may be considered a freak these days, but, after all, this was the man who gave us Thriller (considered by many to be the greatest music video of all time) and set trends with Billie Jean and Beat It. With Moonwalker, he and the filmmakers and artists who collaborated with him once again took his music and dance moves to create some vividly entertaining stuff, incorporating claymation, special effects, live performance footage, and even self-parody (the "Badder" sequence). And for those wondering what Joe Pesci was doing there, this video came out just a tad before he became a household name, and was one of his most memorable appearances on film. And, IMHO, I think the Smooth Criminal sequence (the choreographed section) beats anything else Michael Jackson did up to that point! | positive |
It is quite a simple not very active but very charming film. There were moments where I can see why Cher won the Academy Award for Best Actress, but there were other times when I wondered why Glenn Close didn't win for Fatal Attraction. Anyway, Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Cher plays Loretta Castorini, a simple woman with a low pay job who has just been asked by Mr. Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello) to marry him. He promises her he'll be back in a month, as his mother is sick, so she mean while needs to get as much of his family to attend the wedding as possible. Only problem is, when she finds Johnny's one-handless brother Ronny (Golden Globe nominated Nicolas Cage), they start having a relationship, and there love goes on to that moon scene (where the title comes from). Also starring Oscar nominated Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo Castorini, Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Olympia Dukakis as Rose Castorini and John Mahoney as Perry. It ends with no wedding for Johnny and Loretta, but she and Ronny were happy together. It won the Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it was nominated for Best Director for Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night) and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Score for Dick Hyman and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay. It was number 96 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes ("Snap out of it!"), it was number 17 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, and it was number 41 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good! | positive |
A film as bad as this should be withdrawn from all stores world wide. So full of boring, dull, unimaginative characters, and with a lead character with such an annoying attitude and dry voice constantly giving a thoughtless voice over for every action and feeling, this film holds the record for the most challenging film I have ever watched. As I had payed money to own it, I felt a duty to see it through, and how I regret it. My head hurt throughout because of the terribly dull characters and their pointless, plot less lives. A bunch of kids who have zero knowledge about anything, are all frigid and worst of all, have terrible dialogue throughout, just mulling around as the main character tries to get a date with the girl. Boring, so much so my friend was shaking with hatred and I was red with embarrassment that I'd thrown away £6. The DVD was on eBay the following day, and I didn't make much of my money back. Avoid like the plague. | negative |
I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists. <br /><br />Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.<br /><br />On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.<br /><br />I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that. | positive |
DO not take this film seriously, rent it with some folks who want to play Mystery Science 3000, and you will probably laugh your butts off. The evil guys are so not scary, it's funny, it's like some dude from 7th grade with a sickle in a scarecrow get up. The acting is hilarious. I love the occasional self torture with a poor horror film and this really had me giggling. I recommend it on that basis. Of course recreational drugs will enhance the experience. Oh, there is a naked group swimming scene, that will allow for some star dust on the 5 star system. The token black male gets injured badly, but continues his joking as well as using the injured body part quite readily throughout. Enjoy this complete and utter disgrace to films. | negative |
I saw Jack Frost for £4:00 at my local store and I thought it looks pretty good for a low budget movie so I bought it and I was right it was good. For starters this film is about a killer snowman so that's something to laugh about and the way it looks was funny compared to the Snowman on the cover. <br /><br />The acting was okay and the lines Jack Frost said had me laughing "I only axed you for a smoke" and "Worlds most pi**ed off snow cone" how funny and camp is that? The tale at the start was pretty funny and silly too "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack gouged eyes with candle sticks". If you're looking for a for a B-Movie Comedy horror that's full of puns then check Jack Frost out. 10/10 | positive |
The director infuses this film with false depth by repeating a gimmick throughout the film. EVERY single shot in this movie is 3 times longer than it needs to be. You could easily cut out 1.5 hours of this agonizingly long 2.5 hour film without eliminating: one word of dialogue, one image, one event, or bit of movement.<br /><br />This was one of the most gratuitous wastes of film I have ever seen. Other reviewers have called it pretentious, which is an understatement. L'Humanite is pseudo-intellectual trash designed to be anti-Hollywood so that the Cannes judges could assert their independence from the Oscars.<br /><br />The IMDb reviewer states: "Unlike Hollywood movies - which usually force the audience into overdrive - this forces the audience to slow down and look at some of life's tiniest and most mundane features in great detail." You would have to be catatonic to stare at some of these images this long and move as slowly at these characters. This isn't real life unless you are heavily medicated.<br /><br />Finally, I felt that Schotté's portrayal was a sad rip-off of Peter Sellers' masterful "Chauncy Gardner." He uses the same facial expressions and postures. He even gardens! In many respects there are parallels between these two movies. The main difference being that "Being There" moves along and doesn't rely on shock and gimmicks to create a meaningful experience while questioning various things we take for granted in life. | negative |
I'm glad I rented this movie for one reason: its shortcomings made me want to read Allende's book and get the full story. <br /><br />Pros: the movie is beautiful, the period is depicted well and consistently (to the best of my knowledge), and Meryl and Glenn do good jobs.<br /><br />Cons: This is the worst acting job I've ever seen from Jeremy Irons--I kept wondering if something was wrong with his mouth. (And I hate the terribly English way he says "Transito.") Winona Ryder does nothing believable except look young and idealistic. Most of the other performances are OK, but so few things hang together in the character arcs and the relationship development that I was frustrated and angry well before the end. <br /><br />I'm very curious now whether this movie is typical of Bille August's work. I may have to drop another couple of bucks to rent Smilla's Sense of Snow. | negative |
There is this girl and she's running in the woods but she ends up at this woman's clinic and she wants an abortion. Her daddy is outside in a van and he is all angry about it. The whole episode takes place in and outside of this abortion clinic. I'm not really pro-choice but I wanted the choice to kill this episode. I was laughing when I saw the baby come out and it went into the corner. The part where they were doing the ultra sound was pretty funny too. I was really feeling sorry for the poor dad in this episode. He just wanted to protect his daughter and I couldn't really blame him for what he did. I don't know what happened to him at the end or what happened to the other father and daughter in the waiting room. I was just laughing too hard and I would suggest watching "Pick me up" instead of this episode. It wasn't the worst episode but it wasn't that great. | negative |
I can't help but forget that incredible scene in Alien, when the extra terrestrial burst out of one of the men's chest. Or even in Predator when the invisible monster snuck upon the bewildered soldiers and cut them to pieces. Both these movies expressed fascinating ideas on the run-of-the-mill creature feature. Back track to the era of cheesy B-movies and watch big men in phony suits parading around killing people in small towns. Now recognize that the two movies above revolutionized this genre. The Cave does nothing to improve on it. It tries nothing new, and worst of all, The Cave doesn't even have good gore. Shame on them, shame on them all. <br /><br />Parading around in sexy spandex are the one-dimensional characters of The Cave. All of which seem to not care when they witness the death of their colleagues. They just stroll along, unbeknownst to the evil creature lurking in the darkness. The plot is very easy to understand. So you got the two brothers, the black guy and the sexy female scientist. The rest (by the rest I mean all of those meet grisly demises) are even more unexciting then the others. We have the Korean assistant, the risky outdoor chick, a Russian scientist and two divers, both lacking a sense of emotion and are stupid enough to wander off by themselves. This movie exceeds to be extremely clichéd, since everybody but the black guy, one of the brothers and the female scientist meet an end. It also seems only Americans can survive the terror, since the Russian and the Korean die. Don't be offended if I give away details. There's no real surprise anyway.<br /><br />To be straight forward they find this cave. They go in the cave. They get stuck in the cave. They start dying in the cave. One of them gets infected in the cave. More die in the cave. They get out of the cave; only to discover that one of them has a parasite that will turn them into a ghastly monster, which really doesn't seem to bother them. That's the simplicity of the lackluster plot. It doesn't even try to be original. It even has the part where they decide their leader isn't capable and split up. We have just seen this way to many times before.<br /><br />I know in a movie like this, people don't care about the performances but it's worth mentioning how bad they were. Everyone is just so dreary. Cole Hauser was especially unsophisticated and don't get me started on Eddie Cibrian, who is frequently a lot better. Morris Chestnut is hands down the best thing in the movie. His performance is actually decent. He portrays the guy who calms everybody down. All the other actors are average at best. In a show like this, that's really not a bad thing.<br /><br />Now to the reason we go to this genre of film; the action, of course. Well, to my regret, the action was dull. The death scenes are all boring, hell the whole movie was. There is barely any blood at all. It's either they disappear and found later or they are attack and die without a bruise. Seeing the Koreans man's death was the only exciting action I could find. <br /><br />It's pretty amazing. The bad things over shadow most of the things that are good. A good example is to say the special effects were well done, which they were. The only thing wrong is that since everything takes place in a cave, it's going to be dark. I found it extremely hard to distinguish between the cave walls and the monsters. So it was pretty hard to even see the creatures. Although I liked the special effects, there was nothing original about the monsters. They all resembled each other and they weren't frightening at all.<br /><br />The Cave marks the directorial debut for Bruce Hunt. I don't see what he was trying to accomplish by making this film. He obviously made a huge mistake. Almost everything about this movie stunk like a stink bomb. A stink bomb is probably even more pleasurable than watching this mess again. Only the most forgiving moviegoer will find this forgivable. I gave up all hope in the middle of the film when I heard the phrase "what the hell was that", for the third time. | negative |
This movie is in the same league as Ishtar. Lots of wasted talent. Who let this bomb escape? When Sigfried says an example has to be made, in reference to a nuclear bomb, I said "Please let it be this theatre!" Don't waste your time. Not even worth a free rental! And where did they get these shills to fill the comments section on IMDb? I can't believe that anyone who has ever seen the original series enjoyed this stinker. Steve Carell is not a physical comedian. If they removed the "comedy" and made it a straight action movie, it could pass. What the heck was the purpose of the dance scene? Also, the fat jokes and references were tasteless. This movie never missed a chance to go for the lowest common denominator and scenes just ended, it seemed, as if no one thought them through. Just awful! Save your time, if not money and give this movie a pass! | negative |
As the front cover says "The hamlet of our time, for our time".<br /><br />I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.<br /><br />This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.<br /><br />just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me. | negative |
The pre-release version of 1933's "Baby Face" would make an ideal introduction to a corporate seminar on sexual harassment. Mentored by a Nietszchean professor, Lily Powers rises from a life of easy virtue at her father's speakeasy to a rapid climb up the corporate ladder at a large bank. Because each rung of the ladder is an executive with his brain below his belt and his ethics locked in the vault, the film has no victims, except Lily's childhood, which was destroyed by an abusive exploitative father. The destructive relationship with her father suggests Lily's hidden motive for using men to advance without regard for their fate. While Lily is cynical and obvious in her approach, the men she targets willingly betray wives and fiancés to trade jobs for sexual favors. Perhaps the bank failures in the 1930's owed less to economics than to morally corrupt executives distracted by ambitious women.<br /><br />The plot moves fast, and the camera amusingly moves from window to window up the façade of the office building as Lily climbs ever higher. Barbara Stanwyck reveled in tough hard-bitten roles, and she is in top form here. Sentiment does not intrude when she is ready to climb the next rung. Only her African-American confidante, Chico, receives Lily's affection, trust, and loyalty. In more enlightened times, the fresh natural beauty of Theresa Harris, who plays Chico, would have had the men throwing the furs and penthouses at her. Stanwyck often appears overly made-up and stiffly coiffed in comparison to Harris. However, despite Stanwyck's tough demeanor, obvious tactics, and artificial visage, she manages to leave a trail of duped and seduced men, including Douglass Dumbrille, Donald Cook, and a young John Wayne.<br /><br />The preferred version of "Baby Face" is the 76-minute restored cut. The edited release version of the film shyly turns from the hard facts, which the longer cut restores and makes explicit. Perhaps Darryl Zanuck, who wrote the story under an assumed name, intended a lesson by quoting from Nietszche, whose views on women were controversial. However, despite Alphonse Ethier's lectures and advice not to be defeated by life, Lily's grab for power and money likely owed more to her upbringing and her father than to her professorial mentor. However, the philosophy is but a distraction. Short, fast paced, and entertaining, "Baby Face" is as contemporary in its morality as "Wall Street." Substitute Gordon Gecko for Nietszche, and Lily could have declared her guiding philosophy to be "greed is good." | positive |
While the British produced some hilarious and slick sitcoms in the 1990s - Ab Fab, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave, etc. - the 70s were the real golden age.<br /><br />In the 1970s there were whole new territories to explore, including the sexual revolution, feminism, and the slowly evolving awareness of a need for "sensitivity" that would, twenty years later, become Political Correctness. Attempts to grapple with the confusion of this thoroughly modern world were the subtle and not-so-subtle themes in everything from the skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus to sitcoms like Man About the House. (By the late 70s this "grappling" resulted in more meditative and bitter-sweet sitcoms such as the masterpiece Butterflies.)<br /><br />Man About the House is a perfect example of the good Britcoms of the time - slightly genteel, cheeky, fresh, ingenuous, sometimes outrageous, with some well made observations on contemporary life. Compare it to a cynical 90s show such as Ab Fab, and it is hard to believe the two were created in the same country.<br /><br />Man About the House is one of the great Britcoms of the 70s, right up there with Good Neighbors (The Good Life), and About the House's spin off George and Mildred. Its quality is attested to by the fact that - as with Good Neighbors - its creators, writers, and many of its cast have had continued success in British television. | positive |
This is a FANTASTIC film. Hána is a very old guy with a very young heart. He knows how to live his live fully everyday by teaming up with his friend making pranks on just about everything, even his own death. While his wife can't deal with his "irresponsible" behavior, she also knows that it's exactly why she loves her husband for almost half century. I would love to hang out with this old guy because he knows how to enjoy live and never fear of death. He is joyful, witty, mischievous, and never boring. Vlastimil Brodský brilliantly played Hána at the age of 79. Every look from his eyes and every move from his aging muscles deliver so much about the character to the audience. This is a film that leaves a big smile on my face afterwards, and it makes me look at my own live a little closer. Tomorrow I am gonna go and buy myself a mansion and have some fun. If Hána can, so can I. But I think I will skip the smoking part. | positive |
Somewhere inside this movie is a half-hour episode from The Twilight Zone trying to get out. Whereas Cube was taut, well-made, claustrophobic and mind-engaging, I'm afraid Cypher is a bloated, tedious rehash of several well-worn themes which just don't add up to much, especially if you have seen almost any other half-way decent sci-fi film before.<br /><br />Cypher manages to drag all the way through its relatively short 95 minutes right to the incompetent ending. None of the characters spark off each other, and for a film made in 2002 the technology is truly cheesy. It is difficult to connect this tired and uninspired movie with the director of Cube. It's not a bad movie, but it is most definitely not a good one.<br /><br />When you've watched the grass grow and paint dry and are bored of your stick insects then by all means watch this film, but the other activities will probably prove more stimulating. | negative |
Only watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor. | negative |
I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!! | negative |
We all know what's like when we have a bad day at the office, right? Well, this Neil Simon comedy looks at what it's like when you have the worst of all days just trying to get to the office. Sometimes, it's just not worth going, know what I mean? And, sometimes, it's just not worth doing something when it's already been done before, in 1970, with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis... and much better also.<br /><br />It's not that Steve Martin is a lousy comedian or wrong for the role as the harried and stressed advertising exec; quite to the contrary, on both counts. And, it's not that Goldie Hawn is equally inept either; her work has been consistently good, if not great, ever since I first saw her in TV's Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In of the 1960s.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is that it's not about the hapless couple at all: it's really about New York and why everybody should come to New York to live and love their lives away in married bliss sort of in the greatest city in the world. That's if you're a New Yorker...<br /><br />Look, the 1970 movie is still an excellent comedy that realistically explored all the things that can go wrong when you take a trip somewhere, and included most of the situations and sight gags that you can imagine about what can happen to you in a strange environment. This 1999 version unfortunately goes off into gratuitous tangents specifically for an audience these days that expects or wants to see excess. For example, not content with the star appeal of the main players, there is a cameo (relatively long also) from Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, as we all know. What Giuliani bucking for President even then? Worse a walking talking advertisement for the kinder face of New York.<br /><br />And then we have John Cleese, reprising his role as Basil Fawlty but this time, as a prancing cross-dresser also once again browbeating hotel staff, sycophantically sucking up to rich customers and generally making himself look like the idiot he is, in this role. And, in the process, doing great damage to the memory of Fawlty Towers, arguably the best British comedy series, bar none...<br /><br />Why was this 1999 movie made? In the 1970s, New York was a dying city, in many ways. It was almost literally bankrupt. So, when made in 1970, that was the city you saw: grim, dark, moody, unsettling and not the place that the harassed couple finally chose for their new life together in the Big Smoke (as it was then, polluted and all). By 1999, things had gotten better: glitz was back, New York was thriving, it was the Big Apple, ready for you to bite into, if you had the moxie...<br /><br />So, naturally, the couple in this second coming find that moxie within themselves and finally join the fabulous fray to continue the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, this movie is truly comic but not for reasons that the producers perhaps envisaged. As much as I like Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in comedy, this movie is a travesty of the much better one made with the great Jack Lemmon. If you've seen the latter, then definitely don't bother with this one. | negative |
When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.<br /><br />We were misled, in spades.<br /><br />On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.<br /><br />And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.<br /><br />OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above. | negative |
This movie is highly improbable. Read the other reviews to see why.<br /><br />I would say that most of the characters were plastic, but they didn't even afford themselves that little luxury; they just act like cardboard cutouts. Of course, they had to get real surfers for the surfing contest roles, so that's a crap shoot whether they can act. At least Occy didn't give a crap and just went with it. But "Lance"??? Fuhgeddaboutit.<br /><br />The one character who rang true was portrayed by Gerry Lopez who didn't really act, he was himself pretty much. He's quite accustomed to stomping people. :-) The only reason I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 was because I was laying out a newsletter on my laptop when it came on some cable channel late one night. That saved me from having to pay full attention to this silly little time waster. No way I would go out of my way to watch it. | negative |
This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often cliché things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends. | positive |
The submarine used was NOT Varangian! 'It' was in fact two boats, P614 and P615, both built for Turkey by Vickers Armstorng at Barrow-in-Furness but kept hold of by the Royal Navy for the duration of the war. P615 was sunk but P614 was eventually delivered in 1945. <br /><br />The confusion no doubt arose because someone looked up P61 (as I did) and found Varangian! When in fact, the last digit of both P614 and P615 was in fact just painted out....<br /><br />There are some extremely realistic moments in the film. These Turkish boats were very similar to the S-class. As no S-class submarines survive, the shots of them (as P61) and of the depot ship "Forth" form part of an interesting record now, as well as an excellent film. | positive |
I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.<br /><br />(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her "love" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.<br /><br />(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.<br /><br />One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the "bitch's dance". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film. | negative |
Insanely well crafted mini-series.<br /><br />I recall seeing most of it twice when shown on American Playhouse on PBS. Was heavily promoted at the time. I believe it might have been one of the very early mini-series showing on PBS outside of the Masterpiece Theater series.<br /><br />The full length production was shown I believe only once during its first broadcast. Was 6-8 hours total. This length was edited down somewhat to 6 hours. Cut some interesting, but slow scenes.<br /><br />I am very much hoping that the folks holding its current rights do follow through and restore a complete, not edited version to DVD. Not worth creating a VHS version at this point.<br /><br />Would fit in very well in the mini-series or dramatic history genre. | positive |
I loved Heavenly Creatures and make it a point to catch it whenever it is on.<br /><br />So, imagine my delight when I discovered Love & Suicide while browsing NetFlix. Echoing Heavenly Creatures, an easy choice, to the top of my queue it went.<br /><br />I watched it last, made myself comfy, and waited. What I thought was some crappy preview of a stoned high school student's prank film project (I laughed out loud once or twice, thinking "that just lowered the bar of straight to video") turned out to be the movie. Horrible acting, amateur direction, weak dialog. I usually enjoy low budget films, there is something tangible and real about them because they cannot afford the superficial stuff to distract from the "meat" the acting, the direction, the plot, the story. I would liken it to a student who hasn't studied for an exam goes in knowing he is going to fail and just puts his head on the desk and sleeps.<br /><br />In someone else's hands the plot would have serious potential.<br /><br />Do not expect magic or even a cult classics like, say, Divine's Polyester, or Showgirls, at least there you learn to expect bad acting.<br /><br />Love & Suicide went from bad, to worse, to the WORST movie I have ever seen. | negative |
Compelling and Innovative! At the beginning of this criminally underrated Whoopi Goldberg flick the writers draw a parallel between Theodore Rex and the 1941 Orson Welles classic "Citizen Kane". The writers are justified in drawing such a seemingly disparate parallel, but the viewing public is too often hoodwinked into seeing overly hyped Hollywood schlock to appreciate the subtle similarities between these two movies. In "Citizen Kane" Charles Foster Kane is feared and admired by his colleagues and his underlings, much like Whoopi Goldberg in this movie. This movie is about finding love in everybody's differences. It is an epic examination of the fear of abandonment and the need for love and acceptance in a society that is dominated by greed and self-absorption. Whoever paired Whoopi Goldberg and Theodore Rex formulated a dyad for the ages, with the only justifiable comparisons being Bogey and Bacall, Hepburn and Tracy and Hall and Oates. If you would love to watch an uplifting, celluloid philosophical examination of some of humanity's deepest drives; Bergman-esqe but not as depressing, Theodore Rex should be viewed immediately! | positive |
This Kiyoshi Kurosawa ghost movie is pretty wild, and it did have at least one jump scare that caught me off guard. But all in all, the movie is incredibly stupid, with a detective trying to track down a suspected serial killer, only to find out he may have committed one of the crimes. Then he finds himself haunted by a gorgeous Asian lady ghost, and has no idea why (and neither does the viewer). As other murders are committed, he becomes even more confused as the killers are easily found, and this ghost still haunts him for some reason. Not only is the plot completely stupid, the lady ghost is more funny than anything, especially when she suddenly flies across the city, like Wonder Woman. And the ending makes little sense, in fact, the whole movie makes little sense, and I can't recommend it at all. If it didn't take itself so serious, I would think it was supposed to be a black comedy. Outside of "Bright Future" this is the worst movie directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa I have seen yet. | negative |
This is one of the best horror movies i've seen in a while. An eerie abandon house, interesting characters, gore and a twisted plot. Who could ask for anything more in a horror movie? It is pretty predictable for the most part but then again most horrors you can figure out within the first 10 minutes so I won't hold that against it. The music, camera angles and so forth are excellent. The sets are well make and very convincing. There was pretty much no subplots however, it being a horror movie too many alternate plots only take away from what were wanting from a horror anyhow... To be scared... This one keeps it pretty simple and does just that. If I were to compare it to any other movie I would say it reminded me of the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Definitely a horror movie lover must see. | positive |
Why has Ramón(Carlos Fuentes)brought his five college mates to a spooky abandoned school building which used to service the black sheep children of wealth? That answer might just lie in a diary in his possession supposedly written by his dying father. What they come in contact with is in fact a relived episode involving another group of six, with five of them presumably meeting graphic fates at the hands of a sadistic security guard(Paul Naschy)which occurred 20 some odd years ago. But, as they seek out a way to escape from this place, terror awaits them as that horrifying moment in time replays as the group run for their lives, often in states of panic as the killer begins to hunt and destroy them in a various bloody ways. Will Ramón and any of his pals survive this night of horror or becomes ghosts forever repeating the very same night like those before them?<br /><br />Stylish Spanish slasher has that professional gloss and potent, shocking violence to match. Some witty exchanges between the characters..layered in their dialogue are pop-culture references to American horror films which might annoy some viewers. A demented Naschy is really ferocious with the kiddies as he attacks them gleefully..quite a bloodthirsty maniac who carries out his violent acts with relish. I found the loud musical cues a bit annoying and the filmmakers often use flashbacks from previous events in the film as reminders to the audience. I don't think these tricks are necessarily needed, but felt the director wished to communicate in depth with the viewer hence the use of cues and flashbacks. A minor diversion for this film's plot keeps moving and the camera follows the pace of the characters and how they react to the chaotic situation presented to them. Your enjoyment of this film may ultimately come down to your acceptance of the paranormal supernatural aspects of the plot. Moments in time relived and a killer who continues his work seemingly from the grave. The twist does seem a bit jarring and abrupt, but this might(..or might not)work considering how the story plays out regarding why Ramón's father is shown amongst those ghosts re-enacting those grisly events two decades prior. I will say that this film probably wouldn't hold up if scrutinized in detail, but as a slasher flick, it's a breath of fresh air. | positive |
because you can put it on fast forward and watch the inane story, without having to listen to banal dialogue, and be finished in 10 minutes max. Come to think of it, even 10 minutes is too much to waste on Enid-Blyton-meets-struggling-wanna-be-artists. Vomit. | negative |
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Much reviled when it first appeared, (inspiring the famous review 'Me No Leica'), this precursor of "Cabaret" can now be looked at in comparison and it's not half bad. It's certainly no classic but it has its own wayward charm, (the film version of "Cabaret" follows this plot whereas the stage version changed the plot somewhat). One should, of course, resist the temptation to snicker when Laurence Harvey's Christopher Isherwood, (it keeps the original author's real name; God Knows what Isherwood thought of it), describes himself as 'a confirmed bachelor' and while Harvey is an utterly inadequate 'hero', (he's virtually asexual), and Shelly Winters woefully miscast as Fraulien Landauer, (the part Marisa Berenson played in "Cabaret"), Julie Harris is a perfectly marvellous Sally, (it's a lovely piece of comic acting), and Anton Diffring is first-rate as Fritz, the German-Jew in love with Shelly's character. Of course, if "Cabaret" had never come along you might ask yourself would this ever have seen the light of day again. That it has been revived may not quite be cause for celebration but it's perfectly acceptable all the same. | positive |
I mean, come on! Now my countrymen have started to make westerns! Is it not enough that our cinema sucks already? Now you need to infect English-language movies with Polish acting and no sense whatsoever? Please, stay away from this movie, do not waste your eyes on it. A 5-year-old baby could make a movie that makes more sense. I am from Poland and I am ashamed this title might actually be watched by you. Please, I am begging you, do NOT watch this movie and if you do, do NOT judge Polish people and Polish movies based on what you see there. We had some good movies in our history and we had some bad ones but this one - it is like nothing worse that I have seen in my entire life. Keep away!!! | negative |
Most of what has been said about the negative aspects of the film hold true.<br /><br />BUT .... If I have to sit through a movie were the:<br /><br />Director<br /><br />Director of Photography<br /><br />Editor<br /><br />Can't EVEN miss the darn Microphone Boom popping in and out of the movie for almost every Chapter of the movie, how can I enjoy and concentrate on the story as well as believe in the darn thing when I'm reminded of the technicalities of making a movie!!!!!!!<br /><br />WAIT FOR THE DVD OR DON'T BOTHER | negative |
Oh, man, they sure knew how to make them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of bad movie making: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero! <br /><br />This film was so close to a masterpiece, alas it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to fix this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite add up.<br /><br />Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I expected them to be. All in all, a great disappointment. | negative |
I'm not sure why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.<br /><br />On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that? | negative |
If you've never been "Tromatized", this is the Troma movie to see first. Amazing acting, supercharged soundtrack, and bust-a-gut humor blend perfectly with Troma's unique brand of storytelling and special effects. Despite straying from a word for word retelling of Romeo and Juliet, the fact that it stays in iambic pentameter gives you the odd feeling that it's closer to Shakespeare than that overdone music video with DiCaprio and Danes. I assumed I'd seen the ultimate Shakespearian comedy when the cast of Moonlighting overhauled The Taming of the Shrew, but nothing comes close to Tromeo and Juliet. I strongly recommend the DVD version, which contains a second audio track with director Lloyd Kaufman which is just as entertaining as the main track. | positive |
This film is a very descent remake of the famous Fritz Lang's masterpiece "M- Murder".It is well made and with a entertaining key to speak about pretty serious events and contemporary problems in Eurobe but not only the whole world.The ethnic intolerance is such a huge evil and very contagions nowadays. So "Children of Wax" or as it is known in US distribution reveals the question of German and Turk hatred in an amusing way.No doubt it is well appreciated to be taken for distribution by the great Weinsten brothers.And there is another fact I liked most is the participation in this movie of the favorite actor of Lars von Trier the great Udo Kier who shows to play with such a pleasure for the Bulgarian film director Ivan Nichev. | positive |
I watched this film so many times through my child hood that even to this day i can pretty much re-sight all of the dialogue. And when I watch it now it just makes me happy and surprisingly still laugh. I think it's amazing how they managed to train animals especially the cat to the extent that they are able to play the main role of a feature film. However watching it now I can also unfortunately notice that it isn't the masterpiece i once thought it was. But i prefer to remember how i felt about it when i was younger watching it on VHS on my fist TV that would cloud the image in yellow. And and bearing in mind it is a children's film, that is why i would still definitely give it 10/10. | positive |
It's been mentioned by others the inane dialogue in this series and I agree.<br /><br />If Mom and daughter were really that sharp-witted they should be Queen and Princess of the Universe, not kicking around in some little town.<br /><br />I've really tried to watch a few episodes but when the witty staccato mumbling pop culture drivel starts I flip the channel.<br /><br />I watched a bit of a new episode to see if anything had changed (for the better I'd hoped) but nope, same old "we're so clever with our references to pop culture" that I nearly barfed.<br /><br />Long time fans who aren't happy with the newer seasons might just be wising up and getting sick of the regurgitated pablum that never stops. | negative |
SPOILERS Every major regime uses the country's media to it's own ends. Whether the Nazi banning of certain leaflets, or the televised Chinese alternative of Tianamen Square, Governments have tried to influence the people through different mediums since the beginning of time. In 1925 though, celebrating the failed mutiny of 1905, the Russian Communist Government supported the creation of this film, Battleship Potempkin. A major piece of cinematic history, it remains powerful and beautiful to this very day.<br /><br />Set aboard the Battleship Potempkin, the crew are unhappy. In miserable living conditions and with maggot infested food, they are angry at their upper class suppressors. Now though, after the rotten food, enough is enough. Led by Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), the crew turn upon their masters and fight for their freedom.<br /><br />As far as propaganda goes, "Battleship Potempkin" is perfect. Presenting a positive light on the first, unsuccessful, communist mutiny, the film was a useful Soviet tool. Eighty years after the films release though, and the USSR has disappeared completely off the map. The amazing thing about this film though is that whilst the country it's message was intended for has disappeared, the film remains a powerful and worthy piece of cinema.<br /><br />Written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein, the film is surprisingly a joy to watch. It is true, that it is far from what we would nowadays consider 'entertainment', but the film is a beautiful piece of art.<br /><br />Whether it be the scenes aboard the boat or the often talked about scene on the steps of Odessa, everything about this film is perfectly made. The music is powerful and dramatic, the lighting is flawless, even the acting, whilst slightly overdone, is perfect for the piece. Basically, there is no way to fault this film's end product.<br /><br />It's impossible to know how the Russian people received this film upon it's release. Praising a country which has not existed for fifteen years, it's difficult for us to know the full spirits that the film inspires. As a piece of art though, it is magnificent. Beautiful from start to finish, it is far from an easy watch, but it is well worth the effort. | positive |
Contains spoilers I had it recorded a while ago when it was on PBS but never got a chance to watch it (probably due to prejudice about having to sit through 5-6 hrs of Masterpiece Theater, with its BBC made for TV production style (no music, settings all in one room, no outdoor scenes flat TV look...)) But after watching the movie Traffic (which I thought was pretty good at that time,) I couldn't help digging up the Traffik tape to see what else could they have dwelled into with the extra 2 1/2 hr.<br /><br />Boy, was my preconceptions wrong about this TV series. It is so much more involving than Traffic. The characters are fleshed out better so that their actions are more believable. And the whole subplot involving Pakistan completes the whole point of view of everyone in the whole supply chain, from the farmer to the end user. In Traffic, the Pakistan story was rewritten and reduced down to a good cop vs bad cop plot.<br /><br />There was alot more meaningful discussion and debate about alcohol and other forms of drug, whereas in Traffic they mostly became passing references of no significance. Same with social issues, which in Traffik, were conveyed realistically w/o sounding preachy. Whereas in Traffic, the characters jus t blurted it out as a statement like the way they do it in those made for TV "issue of the week" movies.<br /><br />There was no bad guy vs good guy in Traffik, even the dealer is portrayed as a junkie that sells to support his habit instead of the "nobody messes with me" type of person in Traffic.<br /><br />The only down part is that since I watched Traffic not much before watching this, it was hard not to compare scene by scene, and even though the scenes were not the same, I knew what the outcome was going to be already. Thank god for the Pakistan story, which is different enough that it allowed me to enjoy it completely w/o thinking which scene it compares to. Although I was thrown off thinking the drugs were fused into the ceramic of the statues in which Helen brought back to Germany (as in the storyline of Traffic.) Thank god Traffik was not that hokey and far-fetched. | positive |
There were a lot of truly great horror movies produced in the seventies - but this film certainly isn't one of them! It's a shame The Child isn't better as it works from a decent idea that takes in a couple of sometimes successful horror themes. We have the idea of a vengeful child, which worked so well in classic films such as The Bad Seed and then we have the central zombie theme, which of course has been the backbone of many a successful horror movie. The plot is basically this: young girl blames a load of people for the death of her mother, so she goes to the graveyard and raises the dead to get revenge (as you do). This is all well and good, except for the fact that it's boring! Nothing happens for most of the film, and although it does pick up at the end with some nice gore; it's not enough of a finale to justify sitting through the rest of it. The film was obviously shot on a budget as the locations look cheap and all the actors are rubbish. There's really not much I can say about the film overall as there isn't much to it. The Child is a dismal seventies horror flick and I certainly don't recommend it. | negative |
I remember originally seeing this film at Radio City Music Hall when it came out. I didn't really understand the humor back then, but this movie can make me laugh out loud.<br /><br />With all due respect to George Burns (RIP), Walter Matthau really deserved the Oscar for this film. His performance is amazing--given the fact that he was 20 years younger than his character, Willie Clark. His mannerisms are first-rate. ("You know what kind of songs he wrote? Sh*t!" and when speaking to the Spanish-speaking guy at the front desk: "No! No! No enchilada!!") Absolutely hilarious!<br /><br />Kudos to Richard Benjamin, who played straight man to Matthau.<br /><br />I just wish this was on DVD, because my VHS recording is getting a bit old.<br /><br />I had no interest in seeing the remake with Woody Allen, because in no way can it match the original. | positive |
Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.<br /><br />The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.<br /><br />"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .<br /><br />Well,you know ," Rope" was so good .... | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.