Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This is just a very bad film. Miles looks as if she is in pain during the sex scenes and the acting is wooden. It also drags on slowly and never really finds a point to it all. One of the worst films that I have ever seen! | negative |
Jewish newspaper reporter Justin Timberlake (as Joshua "Josh" Pollack) is puzzled when a courtroom defendant whispers "Thank you" to testifying officer LL Cool J (as Rafe Deed) as he leaves the witness stand. In the opening sequences of this film, you are given the explanation. You will see Mr. Cool J's devilish detective partner Dylan McDermott (as Frances "Laz" Lazerov) decide NOT to murder Damien Dante Wayans (as Isaiah Charles). The cops in the city of "Edison" are so corrupt they shoot their suspects, steal their money, and snort their dope. Whether he's out to impress his girlfriend (herein, called "Pussy") or win a Pulitzer, the city's corruption does NOT sit well with the noble Mr. Timberlake.<br /><br />Timberlake decides to investigate the corruption, which reaches both unexpected scope and life-threatening levels of danger. Writer/director David J. Burke keeps the film above water, but just barely. LL Cool J beats Timberlake in the "pop star to movie star" sweepstakes (aka the "rapper to actor" progression). Mr. McDermott has fun with his role. Lending gravitas to the proceedings are sagely supporting actors Morgan Freeman (as Moses Ashford) and Kevin Spacey (as Levon Wallace). F.R.A.T. means First Response Assault and Tactical, but it's more important to know that "Edison (Force)" stars Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J, not Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey (who seems lost).<br /><br />**** Edison (9/17/05) David J. Burke ~ Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Morgan Freeman, Dylan McDermott | negative |
I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man. | negative |
It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.<br /><br />Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.<br /><br />Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.<br /><br />It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film. | negative |
Of the ten actors who portrayed Philo Vance in the series, Edmund Lowe seemed the most personable, but in this script the audience is way ahead of the famed detective. After all, when the jockey, Douglas Walton, stares blankly in space, obviously hypnotized, and says something like "I must ride and be killed," I felt it was dumb that no one picked up on it after he does get killed. The police thought it was a suicide because he said he would do it! After hated horse owner Gene Lockhart gets shot and killed, Frieda Inescort does the same thing, saying she's going out to be killed, and then fatally jumps off a bus. I laughed when Lowe finally yells "I got it," as though it were a revelation. The guilty party, however, was cleverly concealed and there was considerable suspense generated when that party starts to hypnotize Lowe to get him to jump off a roof. | negative |
I remember when I first saw this movie. I was babysitting for a friend of my mums, and one of the kids suggested we watch it. Thinking it was the frankly laughable 'Prince of Thieves' they were slipping into the video recorder, I was prepared for a few hours of boredom, What I got came as a shock, a pleasant one I'll admit, but still a shock.<br /><br />Now, you all know the Robin Hood legend don't you? I shall explain a little. Robin Hood was a Saxon criminal, nicking money here and there and giving it to people who needed it, all the while seducing the beautiful Maid Marion, and vexing the Sheriff of Nottingham and prince john. That's the basics! Now, on with the review.<br /><br />This movie was released in 1993, and is a take off of the whole Robin Hood legend and a p--- take of Prince of Thieves in particular.<br /><br />Loosely following the legend, Robin of Loxley is first encountered in an Arabic prison during the third century crusades, and together with a 'Moor' as they were called in those days, he executes a cunning escape with a cellmate, Asneeze.<br /><br />After escaping, Asneeze beseeches Robin to find his son Atchoo, a foreign exchange student in England and look out for him. This Robin vows to do! Robin swims back to England.<br /><br />He returns to his home, Loxley castle to find it being wheeled away on the back of the cart by Bailiffs, and goes through he sorrowful revelation that his father, dog, cat, and even the goldfish are all dead. Desperate for a familiar face, he finds the family's loyal blind servant Blinkin sitting on the toilet with a Jazz mag in Braille. The hilarity continues throughout the movie.<br /><br />As with all Robin Hood stories, Robin must thwart the evil plans of Prince John and the sheriff of Rottingham, who are wreaking havoc and charging exorbitant taxes on King Richards's kingdom while he's away.<br /><br />Those familiar with the movies Mel Brooks has previously directed will have some small idea of what to expect. After all, this is the man responsible for Dracula-dead and loving it and young Frankenstein. All the jokes, which range from visual gags to wonderful witty comments are in exactly the right places throughout the movie, with never more than a minute between laughs.<br /><br />Cary Elwes (incidentally the only English man to play Robin Hood in a movie), who many of you will know from Princess Bride brings his cheeky grinning twinkle eyed presence to this movie, and does a wonderful job. From outlandish heroic posturing, to a wickedly sexy glance, he really is amazingly funny. And the man looks better in tights than I do!<br /><br />Richard Lewis is hilarious as the whiny, arrogant Prince John with the ever-changing mole. He gets the sissy-boy behaviour down to a tee, and his whinging American vocalisations are great. All the way through the movie, a mole on his face constantly changes position: it starts on his left cheek, then over to his right cheek, then his chin, then his forehead, before going back to it's original place. This is a subtle joke based on the mole on Alan Rickman when he played the sheriff in Prince Of Thieves<br /><br />Roger Rees as the sleazy sheriff of Rottingham is marvellously slimy and nasty, and has some great lines throughout the film.<br /><br />There are some faces here you'll be familiar with from other Brooks films. For instance Robert Ridgely, playing the hangman in this film also played the hangman in Blazing Saddles, another film directed by Brooks. He likes to add subtle references to his earlier films too; with several in this film that die-hard Brooks fans will easily spot. Those who watched History of the World part 1 will recognise the music to the song 'Men in Tights'. Also, when Patrick Stewart arrives and snogs Marion, Mel himself (playing Rabbi Tuckman) utters the line 'it's good to be a king', one of his lines in History of the world.<br /><br />The whole cast is wonderfully comedic, even those with only a few lines bring a great depth of warmth and humour to them<br /><br />What makes this film so wonderfully warm and funny in my own opinion are all the improvised scenes. Although there was a script of sorts, some scenes were completely improvised by the actors themselves, such as the scene where Latrine (Tracey Ullman) prays for Rottingham in her bed, and he falls through the ceiling, landing right where she wanted him, which was totally devised and thought out by the two actors.<br /><br />There are few special effects, and those that are there are small but fun moments of computerised camera trickery.<br /><br />The soundtrack is memorable, with some very funny songs, and a couple of cheesy love songs. You'll be singing 'Men in tights' or at least humming it to yourself, for weeks.<br /><br />The rating is Pg, to which I say BAH HUMBUG. There is no bad language in the film, except in the use of double entendre, and one utterance of sh!t, and violence is minimal. In fact I'd go as far as to say non-existent, apart from a few comedy fight scenes.<br /><br />A great fun film that adults and children alike will enjoy! | positive |
There's simply no redeeming quality about this film. OK, some of the costumes are OK, but they're nothing you can't see in, say, the Conan flicks. And what's up with Ator's hair? I can't believe this is part of a series! I will say one thing about this film: it was deemed bad enough for a righteous lampooning by the early cast of MST3K and I suggest to anyone that's curious enough to see how bad this film is to watch that version of the film for moral support if nothing else. | negative |
if you didn't live in the 90's or didn't listen to rapper EVER!! this movie might be OK for you, but any for any fan or any single person who ever listened to rap this movie was boring and there was no point in the movie where i said thats interesting or i didn't know that. another thing that bugged me was it made it look like anything in his life he did was very easy there was no struggle he made jail look easy, selling drugs, and even rapping it wasn't realistic. i think if the movie where released in about 15 years from now it might have more of an impact maybe!!! good rap movies hustle and flow, get rich or die trying not notorious | negative |
I Sell the Dead is a big, sloppy horror comedy that refuses to take itself too seriously. This has advantages and drawbacks. The 85 minutes of the film breeze by and the film is full of bits sometimes funny, sometimes scary, sometimes gory, occasionally all three at once, but the individual bits are much better than the sum of the film's parts.<br /><br />The story, such as it is, follows professional grave robber Arthur Blake (played by Dominic Monaghan). Arthur's partner-in-crime Willie Grimes (Larry Fessenden) has just had his head chopped off for murder and Arthur has one night left before his own head is forfeit for the same crime. Arthur insists that he is innocent of murder, but there are plenty of other crimes that he is willing to confess to when bribed with Irish Whisky by a Catholic priest (played by Ron Perlman).<br /><br />Since the movie is a series of grave-robbing anecdotes confessed by Arthur, it becomes a sort of horror anthology - a series of disjointed tales, all linked by a similar cast (Arthur and Willie) and a similar theme (grave robbing). Like most horror anthologies, there is no consistent mythology, because all mythologies are true and happening simultaneously even when they contradict one another.<br /><br />It probably didn't help that I saw this film the same night as Trick 'r Treat, a horror anthology that avoids all of the traps that I Sell The Dead falls into. In fact, Trick 'r Treat, designed as an anthology, tells a more unified, consistent story than I Sell The Dead which is intended to be a united narrative.<br /><br />The other problem with the film (and I recognize that this is insane nit-picking) is the way the film plays fast and loose with history. Grimes is killed with a Guillotine. We might be able to stretch a point and say that he is killed by a Scottish Maiden, a precursor to the French Guillotine, but the Scottish Maiden was abandoned in 1709 and this film is set a good hundred years later since Burke and Hare are mentioned and they were executed for murder in 1829. Grave robbing as an industry became obsolete with the passage of the Anatomy Act (1832) so the film must take place before then.<br /><br />I know that bringing this up is the ultimate in historical nerdiness and we are clearly dealing with a universe where all sorts of dead, undead and legendary dead are possible, but the easiest way to anchor a fantasy, to convince the audience to suspend their disbelief is to use something real and authentic to bounce the fantasy off of. And it's not like the history of grave robbers or body snatchers or resurrectionists (call it what you like) is a boring story.<br /><br />The most frustrating thing is that writer.director Glenn McQuaid clearly does know the history, especially the good bits. As an example, when Grimes first takes on Arthur as his apprentice he correctly explains to Arthur that as resurrectionists, they don't steal the clothes from the dead, because stealing corpses is a misdemeanor, punishable by a small fine, while stealing clothes is a felony, punishable by deportation or possibly even death. So you would expect Wille and Arthur to strip the corpse at this point (and for the rest of the film) but of course they don't. You could accuse the director of ignoring his writer's script, but not when the writer and the director are the same person.<br /><br />My point isn't that there should have been a lot of buck-naked corpses in the film, my point is that if you are going to bring up this quirk in the law and make it clear that Willie and Arthur will follow the law no matter how silly it is, than you do have to pursue that thought to its logical conclusion, even if that means that Willie and Arthur wind up chasing a zombie through a graveyard trying to rip his or her clothes off and stuffing them back in the empty coffin, so that they don't get deported for stealing the walking corpse's clothes, otherwise don't bring up the matter at all.<br /><br />Historical nerdiness aside, I Sell The Dead is worth a rental as a slight but funny horror film that could have been much more. | positive |
<br /><br />There is STAR TREK canon -- lots of it. From canon we know the history of the future. Advances in technology, events, places, first contacts with new beings, names, dates, etc.<br /><br />ENTERPRISE pretty much disregards much of ST canon. An unfortunate fact for long time serious fans. As one, I assumed that the producers would at least take a look at the first few episodes of TOS and retro back from there -- but no.<br /><br />The phase pistols, like much of the technology, look much more modern than found in TOS. An old style Starfleet laser gun, a slow gold speckle transporter effect -- that's what I expected to see. Also, I did not expect to hear pure beep-based sound effects similar to TNG but far apart from TOS sound effects. <br /><br />In the earliest view of TOS (the original pilot: THE CAGE), we see a Starfleet with a more formal military aspect -- a bit of old earth Navy. With ENTERPRISE, we see a shocking disregard for rank. There is more military code in the cartoon STAR BLAZERS than in ENTERPRISE.<br /><br />It is fine that Captain Archer is unsure about the needs of the Universe (quite unlike Kirk who never lacked confidence in his application of human justice), but inside ENTERPRISE everyone seems like an equal. Unprofessional, unsure, more distant from the feel of formal military service than found in any ST series -- and that says a lot!<br /><br />The casual country music opening theme song heralds the journeys of a family rather than the adventures of an important large military vessel.<br /><br />ENTERPRISE looks to show us a mostly fun, warm-fuzzy exploration of human relationships rather than take us on a historic, bold, gritty, high-rick exploration of space.<br /><br />I would have selected Adrian Paul to play the Captain and an older human to be the doctor. Still, I liked the actors for the most part. Linda Park, an outstanding ballroom dancer from Boston College, is sure to develop nicely. The characters making up the crew seem to be thoughtfully created.<br /><br />ENTERPRISE begins its run stronger than did the past three STAR TREK series. Let's hope for a good future! | positive |
Fragglerock is excellent in the way that Schindler's List was excellent. A Great watch for children and adults of all genders. Big noses can be seen as hinting towards phallic symbols, in the same way that H.R. Puff N Stuff had hinted towards marijuana smoking. Your kids will love this movie. I enjoyed it very much as a child. My father showed me this movie as a child. He enjoyed it as well and pointed out that the exaggerated noses were phallic symbols. Although at the time I had no clue about what those were. The movie is comedy and adventure. The storyline is wacky and cheerful. I and you shall enjoy this together. | positive |
Believe it or not, at 12 minutes, this film (for 1912) is a full-length film. Very, very few films were longer than that back then, but that is definitely NOT what sets this odd little film apart from the rest! No, what's different is that all the actors (with the exception of one frog) are bugs...yes, bugs! This simple little domestic comedy could have looked much like productions starring the likes of Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy or Max Linder but instead this Russian production uses bugs (or, I think, models that looked just like bugs). Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy were yet to be discovered and I assume Linder was busy, so perhaps that's why they used bugs! Using stop-motion, the bugs moved and danced and fought amazingly well--and a heck of a lot more realistically than King Kong 21 years later! <br /><br />The film starts with Mr. Beetle sneaking off for a good time. He goes to a bawdy club while his wife supposedly waits at home. But, unfortunately for Mr. Beetle, he is caught on camera by a local film buff. Plus, he doesn't know it but Mrs. Beetle is also carrying on with a bohemian grasshopper painter. Of course, there's a lot more to this domestic comedy than this, but the plot is age-old and very entertaining for adults and kids alike.<br /><br />Weird but also very amazing and watchable. | positive |
If Archie Bunker was armed, he may well have been "Joe". However, "All in the Family" would have had a rather short run because the censors would never have allowed it to run along the lines of THIS movie. Joe is a working class guy who is a racist and a bigot, and has a big mouth, especially when he's drunk. One night he meets a man in a bar, Bill, who is having a drink to soothe his frazzled nerves after accidentally killing his daughter's junkie boyfriend and he lets that slip to Joe. What happens is that Bill's daughter was living with the junkie, and she's hauled off to the hospital after an overdose, and he goes by the apartment to collect her things but doesn't expect that he'll actually run into the boyfriend, who comes in fresh from a big drug deal. In the struggle that ensues, the boyfriend is killed accidentally and Bill doesn't want anyone really to know, of course. But he lets it slip to Joe, and then when the newspapers and TV reports come out, Joe sees them, puts 2 and 2 together, and suddenly this man is a hero in his eyes. He hooks up with him later and Bill is of course concerned that Joe is going to blackmail him, but not for money, he wants to hang out with him. Which is, in a way, almost worse. Now, Bill's daughter escapes from the clinic she's in, and slips back home, and accidentally overhears what happened and then is on the run, and most of the rest of the movie consists of Joe & Bill infiltrating "the underground" to try to find her. This builds up to a rather shocking ending, which to me was totally unexpected and ends on just the right note, or wrong note, depending on your point of view. A sort of decent but dim view of life in the early 70's, mostly from a working class bigot's point of view, which makes it not for everyone, but it's not a bad film at all and it's a decent watch. 8 out of 10. | positive |
Well, what was fun... except for the fun part.<br /><br />It's my second least favorite so far, I even thought it was worse than 'Lazarus' and 'Ghost in the Machine'.<br /><br />Let's start with the good. The teaser, it was incredibly well done and also emotional. Being the great animal lover that I am, it was fun seeing so many beautiful animals in this episode.<br /><br />But then there's all the bad, and believe me there is a lot of it. Little made sense, so those animals were being abducted by aliens and impregnated? whaaa??? the dialog was also pretty awful. There were about one or two quotable lines. <br /><br />and worst of all, having pretty much all those animals die was very unpleasant for me. In the end... what's the point? they all pretty much died. We didn't learn anything, we weren't entertained, and I couldn't even find Sophia's death sad... just very frustrating.<br /><br />* star. shame because Season 2 was doing so well. | negative |
I wasn't sure when I heard about this coming out. I was thinking how dumb is Disney getting. I was wrong. I found it to be very good. I mean it's not The Lion King but it's cool to see another side from a certain point. It was very funny. Also it wasn't one of those corny disney sequels were the animation sucks, it was just like The Lion King animation. The only thing that eritated me was the whole movie theater thing through out the movie. Not to give anything way but you'll know what I am talking about. I also fun that it was cool to have most of the cast from the original to return. It was a very good movie over all. | positive |
This movie was in a box set with 20 others, with varying quality, & I can safely say that this title was right at the bottom of the heap.<br /><br />It is pointless to go through the plot, what there was of it, picking out what was wrong, as I haven't got all day & life is to short, which reminds me, I have just lost around 85 minutes of mine watching this tripe.<br /><br />The acting was diabolically bad in a way that made it funny, though only just, whilst the comedy elements like the two idiotic cops must have made any Laurel & Hardy fans groan. One of the only barely funny moments was when the leading lady made a joke about her former friends plastic T*ts, which would have been okay if I hadn't had to watch them bob around whenever she waddled on the screen.<br /><br />The lowest I can give is one, & it probably deserves that for having Heather Thomas in it, as she was certainly sexy & shapely, though her acting was as bad as everyone else. | negative |
When I saw 6.0 on IMDb, I was rather impressed and excited to watch this movie, as a 6 for a horror movie should be rather entertaining. At first I thought it was going to be some disturbing, unseen evil force (having not read the book) to terrify the audience -- but it turns out to be something rather mundane -- killer plants. Regardless, I am a rather open-minded individual when it comes to movies so I thought perhaps the movie would bring some kind of breakthrough spin on carnivorous vines.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it failed to meet my expectations due to the excessive amounts of cliché and lack of any originality. To top it off, the female lead character continues to annoy you off with her stupidity. Unless the movie is intentionally a bad B-rated movie that is entertaining in the hilarity of badness, no movie should ever ever ever have a main character irritate you if one expects the audience to care about the character. Such roles should be reserved for secondary characters. Characters were undeveloped, the monsters (plants in this case) left unexplained, and clichés were dripping all over.<br /><br />The only thing that is mildly effective are some of the bloody/gory scenes, although the gore pales in comparison with movies like High Tension or Ichi The Killer. Consistently failed logic (such as why would a character not watching the top of a rope during a second attempt at descending into the ruins when it just snapped and almost killed someone), even if minor, adds up and just continues to anger the audience. The movie could've saved itself by using characters or some kind of story device to reprimand or "redeem" idiot characters who just did something stupid (or at least let the character recognize or regret her own mistakes). But to continue to allow idiocy to preside will certainly cause the audience to abandon all care for the character, in turn taking away the terror of the movie.<br /><br />Overall this is a poorly done movie. An example of a well done movie involving pretty twenty-something's getting killed is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (and the prequel too) that certainly instilled fear and had much less character logic flaws. In summary, if you have a lot of time to kill, go watch it if there's nothing else. Otherwise, don't waste your time with this sub-par flick and go see something actually scary and highly satisfying like The Hills Have Eyes remake. | negative |
Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.<br /><br />Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.<br /><br />The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.<br /><br />Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?<br /><br />This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre. | negative |
'Take Fame' and 'You've Got Served' and roughly jam them together and what do you got? This God awful movie custom made for dull-normal adolescents. The plot very closely follows 'You've Got Served.' Three ghetto afro-teeners, this time living in John Water's Baltimorenot far from 'Peckers' homespend their time getting failing grades in high school and dancing in dilapidated 100-year-old buildings with hoochy-mamas. To finance their expensive baggy hip-hop clothing tastes, they steal cars and deliver them to the local chop shopnot unlike John (Tony Manaro) Travolta who worked in a Brooklyn paint store so he could purchase his polyester disco clothes.<br /><br />Tyler Gage, one of the black three musketeers, gets caught trashing the local Fame High School and is forced to perform janitorial duties. He meets Nora Clark, a 26-year-old white high school student and discovers he's Irish-American, much to the chagrin of his black buddies Mac and Skinny.<br /><br />As in 'You've Got Served' crime doesn't pay and Skinny, the youngest member of the trio gets shot by a Bad Bad Leroy Brown typebut that doesn't stop the musicand heart-stopping finale. | negative |
Near-wonderful mixture of comedy, romance, and medical chaos has a 50-ish swinging-single doctor, tired of going to rock concerts with nubile airheads, dating a patient his own age whom he met on his rounds. Screenplay by Julius Epstein shows a fair amount of sophistication, though he doesn't have enough material to fill out the picture's last third, and one can almost feel the movie slipping. The subplot about the hospital being investigated for its shoddy business affairs isn't worked out satisfactorily, and it feels highly concocted anyway. Still, Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson are a terrific team, Richard Benjamin and Art Carney very funny in support. Director Howard Zieff keeps it all popping, and even when Epstein's one-liners feel like Neil Simon rejects, Zieff zips right along happily. The results are dryly engaging and occasionally quite sweet. Followed by a failed TV series. *** from **** | positive |
Now, I watched this when I was hungover one Sunday and my auntie and uncle were visiting one day with my 2 cousins (one was 11, the other 9). We stuck on the TV and Passport To Paris had just started. My cousins both had said that they watch Two Of A Kind sometimes and I said they could watch the film if they liked. Since I was in no fit state to get up, I just stayed in the living room with them and ended up watching the film! I have to say, as a person who has no interest in those kinds of TV shows or films, I actually enjoyed it... it must have been the alcohol lol but I do admit, it would probably only appeal more to girls aged between 6 and 13, but it was a movie to pass the time. There's always a movie or a show that you don't think you'll like, but for a laugh, you enjoyed it. | negative |
This is hands down the worst movie of all time. A combination of Whoopie Goldberg (the worst actress/person in history) and a talking dinosaur ala Jar-Jar-Binks add up to a painfully bad movie. That was an understatement. This movie is unwatchable. For the love of God, do not watch this movie. | negative |
As I said the idea itself was great and it had plenty potential. I was truly sad of discovering that this was another typical American mass movie: "We are in this for the money..." If only the producers had had more time to actually MAKE the movie. This one was not finished when they let it out... | negative |
Yet again one of the most misunderstood Goddesses of my country has been twisted by "Westerners" who cannot understand the esoteric symbolism of the Mother Goddess in her dark forms. The Mother takes on the frightening form of Kali Mata to destroy our inner demons, and to terrify our egos. And though blood sacrifice is given to Kali and Durga, the events depicted in this film are just absurd. The Mother takes on a wrathful form to be wrathful to our inner demons, limitations, and ego when no other form will suffice. It's also in her wrathful form that she burns away all your Karmas in the "Smashan" fires that you cultivate in your heart for her to dance on if you love her, and she will bring you to reality and truth. Reality and truth has a dark side as well as light, which serves a purpose. The Mother is the embodiment of the physical Universe as well, she is Nature. Nature can be cruel and destructive to maintain balance. You cannot have growth and life without death and destruction. Kali represents the force of destruction for the purpose of new growth and life both mundane and spiritual in the universe. It's very outrageous to me that people who know nothing of India or it's divinity can just take one of our beloved Goddesses and use her like a cheap prostitute to make some low-budget, talentless horror film. How dare they take our beloved Mother and portray her as a horror that makes people chop their eyelids off!? She is only horrific to those who are attached to their ego and who live in delusion , greed, anger, and other inner-demons. It's very clear to me that the person who wrote this movie must have a very serious self-deluding ego, and serious inner-demons to see Kali as so horrible and terrible. When the ego drops away she becomes a form that is enchanting, beautiful, and young, a beauty that is so enchanting to behold that she enchants the entire Universe with it. Kali Maa is an ancient Mother, not to be trifled with for the sake of entertainment, let's just hope that in her endless compassion and mercy that she does not take on wrathful form to those involved with this movie.<br /><br />The audacity that Westerners have in using religions like my own, or the religions of the Caribbean Islands such as Santeria, and Vodou which are actually very positive, and other such religions to twist and exaggerate misunderstood elements that the Western mind cannot comprehend, is totally ridiculous. It's clear that there is no respect for what people live, breathe and believe in when it comes to these kind of flicks.<br /><br />Kali Maa in reality is a caring and compassionate mother, whom we shed tears at her beautiful feet in devotion and love for. And I am happy that my Mother takes on wrathful form sometimes to protect her devotees from themselves and from outside forces.<br /><br />Many Praises to the REAL Kali Maa, who has shown MANY the path of God and realization. | negative |
Alright, I have to admit that I have never seen "Rhoda" and only one or two episodes of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Even though I don't know anything about this duo of comedic talent, I still liked this movie a lot.<br /><br />Mary goes back to work. Rose tries her luck at being a comedian. Rhoda struggles with a photography career. And Meredith...what exactly does she do again? These three stories that we follow over two hours are amusing and entertaining in their own way. When the two long time friends reunite, it only makes the film better. <br /><br />I was surprised about how good the writing was. The little jokes thrown in by Mary and Rhoda were funny. The script itself was very well put together.<br /><br />I had seen Moore and Harper in other movies over the past few years and thought that they were very good. But I had no idea that they worked this well as a team. While both actresses do their share to fulfill the title of this movie, they never seem to let me down. (During the run of this movie.) Joie Lenz and Marisa Ryan play their roles okay but nothing great. The rest of the cast like Jonah, Cecile and....everybody else also works well together.<br /><br />Being that this is a reunion, you would expect for a fan of either show to enjoy this. From a non-fan I still enjoyed this little get-together. Good story lines for each character and the two main characters is what makes this film very good. (The newer version of the MTM theme song doesn't hurt either.) | positive |
I was China in this film. I choose the screen name Sheeba Alahani because I was modeling at the time in Italy and they couldn't pronounce my real name correctly, so I choose Sheeba and then added Alahani since it was similar to Alohalani.<br /><br />I had never acted before (and it shows), but it was so much fun to film. They gave me "acting lessons" each morning (which obviously were not useful). They dubbed my voice (thank goodness).<br /><br />David and Peter were a blast on the set, full of good humor and jokes. This film was never meant to be taken seriously, it was a tax write off according to inside information. <br /><br />I give it a 1 because I have a sense of humor, but a 10 for the fun I had "acting" in it. | negative |
This movie is all about blaxploitation, there is absolutely no plot at all. A pimp stops some bad guys with his kung fu hoes to try to get his nightclub back. Rated R for Strong Language, and a brief sexual situation. | positive |
When I started watching the show I said "Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.<br /><br />But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.<br /><br />I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased. | positive |
When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.<br /><br />The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.<br /><br />In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.<br /><br />It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.<br /><br />In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.<br /><br />And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.<br /><br />They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.<br /><br />If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland. <br /><br />Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of? | negative |
Jean Seberg had not one iota of acting talent. Like all her films, 'Bonjour tristesse' suffers not at all from her looks (though she is perhaps the first of those modern women whom Tom Wolfe gleefully, accurately describes as "boys with breasts": publicists, of course, use the word "gamine") but suffers grievously from Seberg's dull, monotonous, killing voice. In all her films when had to play anger, Seberg played it with grossly audible, distracting, gasping panting between her monotonously droned verbalizations. Oy.<br /><br />Preminger's adaptation of Françoise Sagan's breathlessly juvenile, fantasy soap opera plot is noteworthy only for his lush cinematography - but then that's difficult to funk on the photogenic French Riviera, and perhaps for his apt, but certainly not groundbreaking, employment of black & white for the present day scenes from which Seberg's monotone narration delivers us to the flashed-back-to color past.<br /><br />Juliette Gréco has a brief moment, as a nightclub chanteuse in the black & white spotlight, delivering in smoky Dietrichesque voice the bleak existentialist lyric of the title song. This moment is nowadays, in retrospect, more than a wee bit drôle. Except, of course, if you're French - particularly if you're a French "68-er" longing for the glorious days of the barricades roundabout the Sorbonne - and your kids riot to retain the lifelong sinecures which have blighted and emasculated France's economy: then you still believe in Sartre and Foucault and all such arcane, irrelevant theorists.<br /><br />David Niven has the hardest role, having to play with sufficient gusto an aging hedonist who's yet to grasp that life isn't all about Sagan's teenybopper notions of a hip, cool, swingin', "mon copain!" Papa. Deborah Kerr delivers her usual, consummately professional presence, convincingly playing the woman who suffers undeservedly Seberg's spiteful teenaged snot-nose jealousy (fulfilling Sagan's shallow teen fantasy of the Classical theme of "there can be only one Queen Bee in the hive"); in fact, to Kerr belongs this film's sole great and memorable on-screen moment.<br /><br />The dialogue is unnatural - I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that it sounds to be "badly translated" from French; combine the unnatural scripting with Seberg's incomparably dull, unendurable monotone and you can save that Valium for another night. Atop all that the ineptly synched post-production voice dubbing is, almost throughout, obvious and thus much more than irksome: this is especially true of the dubbing for Mylène Demongeot because it spoils her otherwise very pleasing dumb blonde performance.<br /><br />Hunky Geoffrey Horne gets the short end of the stick here - a very good looking young man who also suffered from a less-than-lovely, uncinematic voice which, when paired with Seberg's drone, yields unconvincing scenes of puppy love. (Horne was, shall we say, merely adequate in 'Bridge On the River Kwai,' perhaps because his end was held up by those great cinema pros William Holden and Jack Hawkins instead of being unsupported by the regrettably ungifted Seberg).<br /><br />In sum 'Bonjour tristesse' is pretty to look at but it's shallow, immature soap: thin gruel with suds. | negative |
This film's a big bore. It has a plenty of Predictable plots & endless sentiments from the start. It starts good with a classy number but seems lost midway.<br /><br />Surya & Jyothika's on screen chemistry works out really good & a good part by Bhoomika. Why include Vadivelu in it? He disappears totally after a good half an hour!. Santhanam proves his wit again by timing comedy.<br /><br />AR's tunes sure will last for sometime. But he could have done better. What ever be the drawbacks still it's worth watching once if you feel alone at home or looking for a good time-pass. | negative |
I had no idea what this movie was until I read about it in the L.A. Weekly. I generally agree with the reviews in the LA Weekly and decided to get a ticket for this film. the film stars molly parker (from my favorite television show Deadwood) and Lukas haas -- who I suspect we will be seeing more of in the very near future. The film is funny, heartwarming, features great acting, and beautiful photography. i don't know if the film has distribution, but I hope it does - or will - soon. this is destined to be a real indie gem. it even has music by my favorite band the silver jews! the only disappointment was that molly parker wasn't there at the screening. even without her there... this was hands down the best film i saw at the festival. | positive |
I have seen about a thousand horror films. (my favorite type) This film is among the worst. For me, an idea drives a movie. So, even a poorly acted, cheaply made movie can be good. Something Weird is definitely cheaply made. However, it has little to say. I still don't understand what the karate scene in the beginning has to do with the film. Something Weird has little to offer. Save yourself the pain! | negative |
I saw Bogard when it was released in the 70s. It was one of those pictures that received an X rating for violence. We snuck into our local grindhouse, and saw it anyway. Pretty good picture. Lots of blood from the street fights, although the cheap sound effects for the punches took something away from it. And lots of sex. I remember one of the early scenes when Bogard meets this pretty brunette in an apartment she is showing him. Without saying a word, he picks her up, puts her in the windowsill and nails her. From what I remember the picture sailed from that point on. So, when I found out Bogart is also called Black Fist and was available on VHS, I ordered it online. I was very disappointed. Black Fist is Bogard edited for television. So many of the scenes I remember were missing, I wondered if indeed, this was the same picture. | negative |
I'm not going to say the story of the movie as some people do. I'm pretty sure people who read this will know what the storyline is. I'm also not going to go on and on about everything thats wrong with this movie, because I'll be here for ages if I do. The storyline is typical, and the special effects are below today's standards. This is not a movie you should watch if you are a serious movie buff (as most of us here are) little things will annoy you the whole movie and ruin the experience. If your a casual movie watcher, who likes to have a good time when they are watching a flick, then this movie is perfect for you, lots of fun. It would also be a good movie to take a partner to. Just not for us movie buff's.<br /><br /> 5 out of 10 | negative |
...when he remade Broadway BILL (1934) as RIDING HIGH (1950). Recasting Bing Crosby as DAN BROOKS did not help a screenplay that was 'dated' in 34 let alone 50. This sad film has entire scenes lifted from the original with many of the supporting cast repeating their roles, unless they were dead. Though being older did not seem to matter to the Director. Nor that the Cars and Clothes in the background plates from 1934 did not seem match up too 1950s' standards. Not even 'der Bingel' singing can redeem this effort.<br /><br />We rated both the original and the remake IMDb Four****Stars. Frank's touch was long gone and all that was left was CAPRA-CORN. That did not stop Mr. Capra though. After floundering around the 50's making some educational documentaries he wound up his career remaking LADY FOR A DAY (1933) as POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961). Again a fine cast was let down on that IMDb Six******Star effort compared too the originals Eight********Stars. Sometimes it is better to quit while you were still ahead, right after STATE OF THE UNION (1948). | negative |
This is the kind of film you want to see with a glass of wine, the fire on, and with your feet up. It doesn't require that much brain-power to follow, so is very good after a long day. I would say it is very unrealistic - if you expecting anything serious, then don't bother, but it is very funny. Just the thought that a businessman would go so far as to agree to live in a slum for a while, and then actually get to enjoy it... I would definitely recommend it. | positive |
Well, what's wrong with the title "Separate Lies" (accused elsewhere of not being "exciting"). It's cunning, subtle and a bit poetic. (Of course there's a Phil Collins song and a James Belushi film called "Separate Lives", which are alluded to here.) <br /><br />But the real point is the ethical dilemmas of telling lies at different levels that the film probes. OK, it's not an "in-your-face" hilarious title, but then it's not an in-your-face hilarious film. Please give British films like this a chance. They do try to make people think about important things, as here: how far do you go to protect your life (even if it is a bit rotten) against unexpected disaster. Maybe you tell lies. Maybe you ignore your loved ones' lies. That can wear a lot of people out. <br /><br />American movies on this theme are abundant, but they usually go much further by involving the use of firearms, which are not a part of everyday life here in Europe. <br /><br />Maybe we're not so "exciting" over here, but we don't expect slogan-like film titles for films that are not aimed at a massive public. | positive |
Slayer is a mindless vampire movie with a few twists on an ancient plot. Special ops team is sent into south America to hunt down blood sucking natives. Their leader is a real old man who has aged well. There's an environmental twist as the vampires are attacking villages because their rain forest and old diet of wild animals is disappearing because of the greedy corporations and farmers. Lost of fighting and so much blood they just never bothered to wash off the cast for the whole film. It looks like they slept in the bloody clothes and caked on blood. While each member of the cast brought their own talents, it really didn't all click as a film. The effects were OK, except for the vampires dangling from the buildings on wires. If you're looking for lots of blood and violence, this is for you. | negative |
There is only one problem with this website, you can't give a negative rating. Additionally a mate rated this as a D grade movie. I say he was being too nice. A piece of wood could show more emotion that the actors in this movie, and the money used to produce this movie would have been better used to start a fire. This is absolutely terrible, 2 hours of life that anyone who endures this untalented bloodbath will never get back. After watching 5 minutes, myself and the boys wondered if sinking bulk heavies would make this anymore entertaining. Half a carto and a bottle of 151 later I finally found some of this G grade acting remotely funny. It's an insult upon this entire planet that the director thought anyone could find anything beneficial from this more, he should go and buy a rope. And to the actors in this flick, I hope you got paid well to be in this joke because I doubt you will ever work again. In summary I fine everyone in this movie 100 grand and 12 demerit points off your acting licence. | negative |
I was not expecting a classic, but at least a funny film. There were only a few scenes that makes you laugh but nothing more. You don't scare it is full of American teen-slasher cliches and you can guess what will happen easily.<br /><br />But it tells much about a senior student in a Turkish High-School. Pressure of Student Selection Exam (OSS) that 3-hour-exam determines which university you'll go and thinking about the exam when a ghost is after you is not exaggeration. The movie is bad. Don't waste your time to watch it. | negative |
This is an excellent example of what can be done on a small budget movie. The acting is excellent considering the script & the whole atmosphere of the film is very foreboding. The gore is well done and used sparingly (look out for the excellent barbed-wire death) & the action is punchy when used. It's true that there are dodgy lines in the script at times, but compared to other movies on the same (or bigger!) budget, it's hardly noticeable at all. Overall, this is recommended. Trust me, it's better than it appears! 8/10 | positive |
Believe it or not, the Mona Lisa actually got stolen once, and was missing for nearly two years. In 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' (better known as the Mona Lisa) was taken from the Louvre by a petty thief (and former Louvre employee) who allegedly sought to return the world's most famous piece of art to its native Italy. His actions after the theft make it seem more likely that he intended to sell the painting for his personal profit. (Of course, he had no hope of finding a buyer.) The Mona Lisa was quietly returned to the Louvre on the very last day of 1913, remaining there ever since except for occasional loan-outs. When "Arsène Lupin" was released in 1932 (twenty years after the theft), most moviegoers would have recalled that 1911 crime, and their knowledge would have lent some plausibility to this movie. "Arsène Lupin" is quite enjoyable, with MGM's usual high production standards and Jack Conway's usual briskly efficient direction. This movie does not lack for pleasure; what it lacks is plausibility.<br /><br />John Barrymore is the master criminal of the title: he specialises in perpetrating 'impossible' crimes, which he makes even more difficult by announcing them in advance ... but of course he always commits the crime and fools the gendarmes. Tully Marshall has a good scene as one of Barrymore's victims. Lupin has a penchant for elaborate disguises, which enables Barrymore (a U.S. 'Grade A' ham) to indulge his own penchant for tomfoolery. John's older brother Lionel Barrymore is Guerchard, the Javert-like Surete detective sworn to catch Lupin.<br /><br />Karen Morley was an extremely beautiful actress whose private life was filled with populist political activities; on screen, she was most impressive in working-class roles that fitted her own political beliefs (such as her fine performance in 'Our Daily Bread'). In "Arséne Lupin", Morley's naturally dark hair is bleached a horrid blonde tone, and she's all tarted up in posh outfits that make her look uncomfortable rather than sexy.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. Eventually, Lupin decides to steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He slits the painting from its frame, rolls up the canvas, and then smuggles it out in a flower basket. We see John Barrymore casually brandishing a tightly-rolled piece of cloth which is allegedly the greatest work of art in all human history. I had to laugh at the filmmakers' error. In real life (but not in this movie), da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on a plank of poplar wood, so a thief would have difficulty rolling it up!<br /><br />Eventually, Guerchard captures Lupin and hauls him off to Le Calaboose. The scene between John and Lionel Barrymore in the police car is sheer delight, as their genuine affection for each other spills out into their characters' dialogue. I would have found this scene implausible with any two other actors. As it is, I can't imagine anyone but the Barrymore brothers playing these roles. Well, maybe Dennis and Randy Quaid, but just barely.<br /><br />Don't look for a good plot line here, but "Arsène Lupin" is a delightful example of old-style movie-making. I'll rate this movie 8 points out of 10. | positive |
The basic plot is good and can be engaging. The music is so great that it became the theme music for the TV show IRON CHEF (though it is WAY overused and too intrusive in the movie). So, how did this movie end up so poor?!?! Well, the plot was about 95% predictable and the characters were about as 1-dimensional as possible. And the dialog?! What person would actually allow themselves to receive credit for coming up with the STUPID macho bull-crap that purports to be dialog? You get much greater realism from most cartoons! The bottom line is that this movie has some good points but is so marred by hackneyed clichés and rotten dialog that it quickly becomes tiresome. And, this is a shame, because firemen deserve a better tribute than this mess! If you don't believe me, look at the number of goofs listed on IMDb for this movie--WAY in excess of what you'd expect to find. They just didn't care enough to work out all the kinks and problems. So, as a result the movie seems rushed and in need of a re-write and re-editing. | negative |
Hello Playmates.I recently watched this film for the first time ever and it is also my first experience of Arthur Askey, I have to admit I was very impressed by this film. As a fan of black and white films generally, passport to pimlico, the lavender hill mob and Tommy Trinder (who is apparently a distant relative), this film appealed in that it provided good old fashioned British humour. I notice that there are some on here who have criticised Askey's performance, however in my opinion it stands the test of time as a fine example of forties comic acting and if anything adds to the picture by creating characters that are more than the mere stereotypes which seem to so dominate films now.If you can get hold of this film I would recommend you get hold of it,shame these films generally aren't shown on Sunday afternoons anymore.I am also glad to have had the opportunity to watch another piece of work by Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey in dad's army).I thank you | positive |
After a while I realized it was just my IQ slowly dropping. Frostbite is one of those pathetic movies where no one, and I mean no one, is even trying. I rooted for the dorky hero to die inside that trashcan (how did he even manage to fit in there, anyway?), Traci Lords, the queen of B movies, was horribly unfunny and ripped me and my friends off by not showing her boobs a single time.<br /><br />The "characters", though I use that term loosely, are people so exaggerated and one-dimensional they might as well have used cardboard cutouts. The "jokes" (I use this term loosely as well) are simply hilarious. A guy's fart causes an earthquake. Roflcopter! Our "hero" gets a butt acupuncture by Traci Lords. Oh God, I can't breathe! The blind guy uses the F word repeatedly! This is too much!!! <br /><br />Say what you want about the acting but I thought Adam Grimes did a pretty good job at playing a mentally challenged snowboarder. Apart from that the sole source of entertainment value here is boobs. I think I counted three, maybe four pairs throughout the entire film, scattered over maybe five minutes of screen time. That's five minutes worth watching out of 83 minutes of unfunny trash. Don't watch this. Watch Barb Wire with Pamela Anderson - at least there was plenty of nudity and action in that trashy flick!(r#26) | negative |
This one reeler produced by MGM in 1936 showcases the talents of two of its young stars under contract, Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin. In a way, these short films were promotional trailers that featured new talent in front, or behind the camera. Felix Feist directed this one which was a way to promote the two talented stars to the public.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. The orchestra that entertains in a public park every Sunday doesn't get the attention it deserves. Enter two music aficionados, Judy and Edna, who love to hear the band play conducted by one of their grandfathers. Two of the town's elders sensing there is no public for this type of entertainment have decided to cancel their Sunday concerts in favor of a more popular orchestra that will attract a wider audience.<br /><br />The two girls embark in a promotional tour of their own doing what they only know, calling and running errands and being helpful to their neighbors in exchange for a promise they will attend the park concert next Sunday. Well, that day comes, and to their surprise, hardly anyone comes as the music starts. The two girls decide to take matters into their own and ask the conductor to play a song for them to sing. The result is clear, people all over the park flocks to hear the talented young singers, thus ensuring the orchestra's existence.<br /><br />Of course, the only attraction of the short film is the inspired singing by the two stars who are wonderful in their rendition. Ms. Durbin's operatic voice blends well with Ms. Garland's natural one creating a lovely duet.<br /><br />Don't miss it whenever it shows on TCM! | positive |
I will start by saying I have always been a Bonnie Hunt fan.... She always adds life to any character she plays, and she did a wonderful job in her directorial debut.<br /><br />I have to admit this is a chick flick... But keeping that in mind, it is a wonderful story, it touches on many emotions and elicits all sorts of reactions.<br /><br />This film depicts real life like people with real life like situations. (Tho I have to exclude the coincidence that is the major part of the film)<br /><br />It's a love story.. not just of a man and a woman, but the love of family, friends, and loved ones past. (Even pets).<br /><br />I really enjoyed it. Well worth the rental or the purchase. | positive |
The screen-play is very bad, but there are some action sequences that i really liked. I think the image is good, better than other romanian movies. I liked also how the actors did their jobs. | negative |
Lucio Fulci was famous for his Italian splatter movies, mostly his undead films like Zombie or The Beyond. Here he directed a black comedy of sorts, but there's just one problem: its nauseating. I say this knowing that I like City of the Walking Dead (which is also gross but not like this). A compulsive gambler gets money for his habit by romancing ugly and deformed rich women then murdering them and stealing their cash. The film makes this plan look that easy. I guess the women were too ugly to go to a bank, so they always had their cash on person. After the upteenth murder I began to suspect what I've always heard about Fulci: he hated women. He must have. At any rate this film stinks, its not funny, and Fulci should have stayed with giallo and supernatural zombie movies. Avoid this film at all costs. | negative |
Yesterday I attended the world premiere of "Descent" at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC. I had a great time. It was sold out and attended by all the major stars including fellow my-spacer Marcus Patrick.<br /><br />I give the movie 7.5 starts out of a possible 10 stars.<br /><br />The movie begins with Maya (Rosario Dawson) at college. You can envision the typical college environment with wild parties and flirtations going on. The photography in this film was excellent. She meets Jared (Chad Faust) and they become sweethearts. It appears like any other relationship in the beginning. The man is in quest of the woman's attention and affection and the woman is playing hard to get. Both played this well. Very innocent flirtation between the two. He invites her to his apartment and everything falls apart.<br /><br />The apartment is very dreary and dark. They eventually end up in the basement which is extremely dark and lit by numerous candles. This actually reminded me of a dungeon. Here is where he shows his true colors and proceeds to rape her. This is a very dark and gritty rape scene. This scene is not for the young or weak at heart. The rape scene is a little long and hard to take, but it is necessary for the rest of the movie that follows.<br /><br />Maya now starts to lose her soul to drugs and sex. She falls into her own abyss. She starts attending the wildest of parties and wakes up one morning in a room with no recollection on how she got there. She is told to go see Adrian (Marcus Patrick). The first thing I remember about this character is that they say "he is the person who saves anyone who needs saving". He is actually the one who introduces Maya to drugs. They begin a relationship of dependency which comes into play later in the movie. The club scenes at this point of the movie are photographed with extreme expertise. I thought they were well done and I noticed that the director of photography was applauded at the end of the showing during the credits by the audience.<br /><br />Maya is then back in college as a TA and who is in her class -- Jared her rapist!! You could see the confusion and emotion on Maya's face. What should I do?? What do I do next?? The shots of her face and the emotions are priceless.<br /><br />What unfolds next is not actually whats happening. She acts interested in Jared. She appears to be looking to revive the relationship and be sweethearts again. I was sitting there saying could this really be happening. It wasn't. Nothing could be farther from the truth.<br /><br />She invites him to her apartment and of course, he shows up. Now her apartment is dark and gritty. She has him strip down completely. He thinks he's going to get "lucky". She then teases him like any woman can. She's caressing him everywhere and he's getting excited. Note:: for anyone who plans on seeing this movie this scene is full frontal nudity - may not be right for the younger viewer.<br /><br />She then turns the situation around and she becomes the beast and proceeds to rape him. Once again, the scene is dark, gritty, and very rough.<br /><br />If you are going to see the movie and don't want to know what happens next, skip this paragraph and go on to the last paragraph.<br /><br />This is where Adrian reenters the picture. Maya has Adrian save(?) her by performing extremely rough male sex with Jared. She thinks this is the final revenge. Adrian continues to take all of Jared's manhood and strips his dignity to nothing. Marcus, as Adrian, plays this scene as believable as anyone can. He is a strong actor playing a strong character and the strength comes out all over the screen. After the movie, during a Q&A session, Marcus explained that this scene required a lot of trust between him and Chad. Maya believes that this revenge will save her but I don't think it does. One of the final scenes has a closeup of Mays's face and you see a tear roll down her cheek. This was a fabulous closeup scene and evokes constant discussion from anyone who goes to see this movie. Did she get the revenge she wanted?? Was it as satisfying as she expected?? In my opinion, it does not. It only makes matters worse.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, will well acted roles, and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking about going to see it. I would just be a little hesitant if under 17 years of age. Rosario, Chad, and Marcus should be commended for jobs well done. The directing and photography must also be commended. It was a night that I enjoyed. | positive |
Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this "movie" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the "actors" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1. | negative |
WEBS is a pretty odd movie, albeit slightly watchable. Richard Grieco plays an electrician who gets suck into a parallel Earth overrun by mutant spiders, or something like that. The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise. Basically a 90 minute episode of the TV show "Sliders", and nothing more.<br /><br />4 out of 10<br /><br />(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review and reviews of other films in the genre) | negative |
The summer of 1979, when this flick was a staple on that new movie medium called HBO, was Gas Line Summer & Iranian Hostage Crisis Summer. A change of mood was about to end low-budget, loner-on-a-mission car films, although "Smokey & the Bandit" kept need-for-speed flicks going as live-action Roadrunner cartoons for a few more years. "Corvette Summer" is as quirky as any earlier movie like "Vanishing Point" or "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry," if lighter & sexier than most. Just-graduated, high-school automotive genius Kenneth (Hamill) hitchhikes to Vegas in pursuit of the car theft ring that ripped off his Shop Class masterpiece, a super-custom, right-hand-drive Vette. In the spiritual limbo of the I-15 desert (see "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas") he gets into a custom van (yes, this was the tail end of the van craze, too) tricked out as a mobile bordello & driven by sassy, aspiring hooker Vanessa (Potts), on her way to Sin City to make her, well, whatever it is ambitious hookers make. VANessa, get it? Shy, innocent Kenneth is in way over his head in Vegas, with only his all-American resolve & his new friend to help him, although the hard-edged young call girl is predictably less world-wise than she first seems. Why, in the "I am Woman" age, Vanessa invested her talents, money & future in the world's oldest but least dignified profession over, say, college or even hairdressing, can be explained by young men who'd like to think that all women at least consider the joys of that career path. Remember the target audience, right? Hamill is a good choice for the whitebread Kenneth (the car doesn't even belong to him personally, but to his school), who won't be deterred from his goal by violence, money or even love--until he finds out why the car was really stolen. Potts acts with style & energy but Vanessa is too incredible for any but the most credulous testosterone machine to buy into. The bad guys are made surprisingly human, especially by the always-fine Brion James. But there's not much action & this isn't the kind of movie that can be carried by dialog, plot twists or Heavy Themes. You could always reach up, turn the TV dial & plug in your "Pong" console. The similar but meaner Chris Mitchum vehicle "Stingray," which appeared at about the same time, featured lamer acting but more skin, speed & mayhem. The best features of each film might have produced a Vette movie worth remembering. Thus the Trans Am was left to rule the box-office muscle car showroom. Another forgotten car movie brought back from the dead by "Speed Channel's" fine weekend series, Lost Drive-in. | negative |
I should start off by saying I have something of a love-hate relationship with musicals. Some of them are fantastic, some are downright crap. So I expected Hair to fall into one of those categories. However, it didn't, falling instead in the middle.<br /><br />The songs aren't brilliant, though the "Sodomy" song did make me smile a lot, and everything is rather dated looking. But the movie didn't draw me in as others have, such as Rocky Horror. Although that's a bad example, since for years I hated Rocky Horror, then all of a sudden I got it and have loved it ever since. Maybe Hair will be the same. Although I doubt it will get as much exposure as Rocky Horror due to the language and nudity content, so I doubt I will get the chance to have it grow on me. Gettit? Hair....grow...oh suit yourself.<br /><br />Anyhow, I didn't get to see the last fifteen minutes or so due to a technical glitch, which was a shame, since I would have liked to see how it ended, especially after reading some of the reviews here.<br /><br />Not a film for the casual cinema-goer, but definitely one for musical lovers. I really hope they don't re-make it, though, since I think any such re-make would end up a shallow, pale, PC version of the original.<br /><br />Worth a look for lovers of the genre. | negative |
There really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.<br /><br />I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clichéd, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.<br /><br />Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.<br /><br />I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull? | negative |
I can fondly remember Bo Derek's heyday and the UK press attention (the mucky Sun & News of the World papers especially)- all following her small role in "10" with Dudley Moore. Understandably, much fuss was made of her photogenic face, crystal clear blue eyes and her perfectly formed bouncing breasts. <br /><br />Unfortunately, acting is, and never was, her forte! I think they should make one of the triple disc collections you always find in the bargain DVD bins- Orca, Tarzan the Ape-man and Bolero. All these films could be nominated for the "So Bad They Are Great".<br /><br />It would be a guilty "must buy" of mine! Should you ever read your press, or this comment Ms Derek, please do not be offended- ALways had a soft spot for you and there are more important things going on in the world to worry about than your acting ability. Much Love.x | negative |
Don't listen to the prissy critics who are probably bitter gamers still sore from the roasting Silverman infamously gave them at Spike TV Video Game Awards a couple of months ago, "The Sarah Silverman" is wonderfully bizarre, surreal, immature, ridiculous and would fit rather nicely in a Adult Swim line-up. If Silverman tones down the juvenile "doody" jokes and emphasizes the darker, meaner undercurrent the show is so far just hinting at, we could have one of the greatest cult comedies since the cancelled "Strangers With Candy". But just from watching the pilot, its just solid, not outstanding, offbeat dark comedy/musical but with huge potential. <br /><br />Silverman has created a hilarious child-woman of a character - a prettier, younger, Jewish American Princess version of the late great Jerri Blank and the show features one of the most unconventional, non-stereotypical portrayals of a gay couple I have ever seen on television. Early reviews are suggesting the next couple of episodes surpass the pilot so I can't wait to see how this show unfolds. | positive |
Gabe Ryan (Frankie Thomas) gets out of reform school and goes back to the slums. His sister (Ann Sheridan) does her best to keep him out of trouble, but it just seems to follow him. Aside from his associations with the Termite gang, Gabe is followed by real-life gangsters who have a scheme to set fire to random buildings to collect the insurance. They need someone to blame for the arson, and Gabe is it. It is up to the Termites to work the law in their favor and give the gangsters their just desserts.<br /><br />The the scene that introduces the Dead End Kids is really quite good. The boys wander on over to the new resident's furniture on the street, and proceed to make it their own. They talk to each other in phoney posh accents and talk about drinking tea together; Bernard Punsley takes a nap in a chair. The boys then proceed to start a fight with the new boy, but after he proves himself a good fighter, they ask him to join their club.<br /><br />The initiation scene is rather good too, filled with mischief that seems dangerous at first, but is really rather clever and innocent.<br /><br />Later, when Billy Halop studies to become the boy mayor, he has a dream about schoolwork. This is wonderfully staged, with tiny holograms of the kids walking on his face and firing questions at him.<br /><br />Angels Wash Their Faces is a great title because it plays off of the success of Angels With Dirty Faces, and really tells what the kids are doing. Notorious for bad behavior on and off the set, these boys make nice in this film. But rather than seem disingenuous, it makes for some great laughs. This is a preview of what many of the boys would become in The Bowery Boys series. We even get a few garbled words from Leo Gorcey. | positive |
A pre-code stunner with Stanwyck playing a speakeasy whore who sleeps her way to the top. These pre-code flicks really let it all go with nothing left to the imagination. Stanwyck is outstanding as Lilly the daughter of a speakeasy owner/father who sold more than booze to his patrons(johns).After the old man dies(good!) Barb heads for the big city for better things.She uses her female attributes to sleep her way to the top. John Wayne makes a poor "cameo" and proves that actors get better with age and an acting coach. I loved the banter and strong lines between the actors. I highly recommend this film to all film buffs and to watch Stanwyck who is great and beautiful as Lilly. | positive |
For a film by a first time director, this is a simply amazing little film, though I have to admit that it's a bit hard to watch and will probably offend the sensibilities of many who watch it, as the film takes a definite stand in favor of assisted suicide. However, what I loved about the film is that I had no idea this is what the film was about until the film was more than half complete and by then I was already hooked.<br /><br />In addition to the excellent way the subject was introduced, I was amazed at the very professional style of the film--with some of the best cinematography I've ever seen in a short film. Plus, this camera work was combined so well with music and images that made the film just beautiful.<br /><br />As I said, this is a controversial film. I myself struggle with what I think about this debate, but the film managed to make a statement in such a literate and intelligent way, I really have to respect the team who made this film. | positive |
I like silent films, but this was a little too moronic. As much as I wish I could say that it was worth the hour I stood up I can't. I don't think any version of the movie even comes close to the book. And don't try it out on kids, they might freak. And the lady who played Pollyanna, how old was she? 38? I know the labor laws were different back then... BUT COME ON PEOPLE. | negative |
Another attempt by modern Japanese directors to redefine the chambara genre. Successful, and not, in varying degrees.<br /><br />Buddhist monk has a vision that he is to slay a legendary (and very active) demon at the Gojoe bridge in order to attain enlightenment. While not at the forefront, Buddhist thought is at the heart of this movie, much like Kurosawa's "Ran". It probably what made the movie the most interesting to me although it's nowheres near "Ran's" league. <br /><br />Stylish visual direction and excellent photography keep the movie mostly interesting throughout the two hour and eighteen minute length. The lead actors are uniformly excellent. The music is really good. The two weaknesses are the story and the fight scenes. The movie drags in the middle which could have been fixed by some prudent editing. And the fight scenes are mostly filmed in blurry close-ups. This works for most of the film but the finale feels like a cheat. Another recent film like this is Tsui Hark's "Seven Swords", great film but the promised fight scenes are disappointing. Asano really doesn't move like a sword wielding demon, his acting is great but he would be an extra in a traditional chambara fight scene.<br /><br />Good movie, you'll probably find it interesting just don't expect traditional sword fights. | positive |
This is a truly awful movie. The jokes are few and far between and the pacing is a down right endurance test. The only thing funny to come out of this production is it's comparison to the classic film "This Is Spinal Tap."<br /><br />Avoid this film as if it were one of the plagues of the Bible itself.<br /><br /> | negative |
Intelligent, stylish, and compelling thriller from the great Brian De Palma is a modern classic that firmly ranks among his best films!<br /><br />When troubled housewife is brutally murdered by a bizarre stranger, the victim's son joins with a prostitute to uncover the killer.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill left a strong impression upon the audiences of its day and for good reason. De Palma creates a wonderfully dramatic story that begins with an intriguing setup and builds into a harrowing mystery full of strong suspense. The finale and conclusion are especially 'nightmarish'.It's a truly edge of your seat shocker. Even more impressive though is De Palma's elegant direction that gives this film not only tight suspense but a unique and dark atmosphere of its own. Dressed to Kill is also a very erotic film, but mainly in a strangely beautiful way. Pino Donaggio also lends a lovely musical score to the film.<br /><br />The cast is another strong feature of this film. Michael Cain does a terrific turn as a psychiatrist. Angie Dickenson is wonderful as the ill-fated housewife. Nancy Allen's performance as an involved street-walker is solid. A young Keith Gordon also proves to be a worthy supporter as the investigating son.<br /><br />Many criticize De Palma's films for having Hitchcockian elements and this film was no exception. But any similarities between Hitchcocks works and De Palmas can only be seen as a good quality, as calling this film a 'rip-off' would be degrading to a fine thriller. Dressed to Kill is a must see for all cinema fans.<br /><br />**** out of **** | positive |
This movie really sucks.<br /><br />Just try to stay awake for 5 minutes while watching this baloney about a nice girl (Joan Woodbury) who gets involved with the 'underworld' because she needs money (and because she's too lazy to take a job from friends after they offer it to her). Alan Ladd was supposed to be the star of this thing, but he's nowhere to be found for the first freaking half hour and when he does show up, he stands around like a constipated mannequin. A real dud with enough talky scenes and unlikeable (as well as stupid) characters to make you wish somebody would shoot anybody, like really fast.<br /><br />Bring a pillow. | negative |
In modern day Eastern Europe life is hard and for young women prostitution is one of the only career options and one taken, reluctantly, by Melania. She attracts the attentions of an American, Seymour, who becomes obsessed with her, paying more and more money for time with her until he eventually wants to buy her outright. She has two pimps with differring emotional attachments to her and she is generally passed around like some piece of baggage with no feelings of her own. However, we are in "modern art-house cinema" territory, so conventions like narrative structure, lighting the subject so it can be seen, camera techniques that add to rather than distract from the action and a vaguely consistent plot can all be abandoned. Much of the time I had no idea what was supposed to be happening and very rarely did I care. People began leaving the screening almost before the last latecomers had arrived and I don't think I've ever seen so many people walk out.<br /><br />Images are important to the director - characters slowly emerge from or disappear into a dark screen, we get long lingering shots of nothing in particular and one sex scene takes place in infra-red. In fact for such an unconventional film the sex scenes were remarkably ordinary; missionary positions between naked people in bed abounded and there were no drugs or related weirdness. But perhaps these days being ordinary is unconventional.<br /><br />On the whole, almost entirely without merit.<br /><br /> | negative |
...but a lousy film. As Maltin says this was Christopher Lee's attempt to make a serious horror film. Well, it is serious...TOO serious! The plot is silly and slow (something about old people inhabiting the bodies of young children to achieve immortality)...the film is all talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about the same things over and over again. I actually dozed off a few times! The film is sooooo dull! The cast sleepwalks through this with the sole exceptions of Peter Cushing and Lee...but this was probably a labor of love for both (they often complained about horror movies being too violent...well, this has NO violence!). Avoid at all costs...unless you have insomnia...this will put you to sleep! | negative |
I fail to understand why anyone would allow a sub-par director to put drivel like this onto celluloid. This movie has already been made at least two other times that were better than this ("Here Comes Mr. Jordan" - 1941, and "Heaven Can Wait" - 1978). The only saving factor for figure skating fans might have been some nice ice skating done by a professional cast of skaters, but this just does not happen. The closest thing the audience sees to good skating is when Tara Lipinski's character takes a turn on the ice for a just a moment. Others like Nancy Kerrigan and Elvis Stojko are hidden in the background and do not do any figure skating at all. There is not much real emotion shown, and there is not really any reason to tune in to this obviously Made-For-TV Movie. My advice: rent the original. | negative |
Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them. | negative |
Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time. | negative |
I love watching a good gory giallo. Unfortunately, SOLANGE is definitely not one of them. It's long. Very long. The story is tacky and makes very little sense even if it's very obvious. The script spends so much time on the killings and the girls but it spends almost no time at all on the killer. This leaves a big hole in the story: we might get to see a bunch of young women showering together but we get zero characterization of why the killer decided to murder those girls. Yes, what happened to Solange is terrible but we still pretty much left in the dark over when, why did the [boring] killer decided that it was worth going through the effort of offing those oh so naughty girls. It's all so contrived that I couldn't get into it one bit.<br /><br />As for the look of the film, again, boring. Nothing memorable about it. The actors? Boring. The script? Laughably boring. The whole "torrid" love affair between the teacher, the blond and the student was really embarrassing. What planet are they living on? The music? Boring. Skip it. | negative |
If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides. | negative |
This is the most inaccurate and disgraceful biblical film i have ever has the misfortune to watch. I would like to know why anybody on earth could enjoy viewing this. I am so surprised that a big name like Jon Voight would agree to act in this disgraceful piece of garbage. Many people who may not have read the bible will now be mislead by believing this film was accurate and the thought of that really bothers me. I think the makers have a lot to answer for. The worst thing is that, i believe nobody could make such obvious mistakes with a biblical film, since they can research the bible for the truth, so i believe the makers deliberately twisted what the bible says, and that is something nobody has the right to do and i find that very offensive. There are no words strong enough to describe exactly how i feel about this. | negative |
One of my favorite movies. Great cast, lead by Jonathan Silverman and Blythe Danner. Serious drama situations with brilliant comedic punches. An exact mixture of character and story. Real people with real problems, and everyone has a different relationship with each family member. Sensitively moves from slightly-sad to hilariously-funny. Read the quotes. This is the best adaptation of a Neil Simon play.<br /><br />If you wanna see more of Eugene check Biloxi Blues (starring Matthew Broderick who played in both stage versions) is OK, a bit on a darker side. Get away from the made-for-TV Broadway Bound. | positive |
I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'. | negative |
I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.<br /><br />For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this! | negative |
A very bizarre bringing to the screen of William Shakespeare's tragic love story.<br /><br />The Que family and the Capulet family have a long running hatred of one another which often results in violence. The hatred has something to do with a film company and the fact that everyone is pretty much crazy. In the middle of all of this insanity are Tromeo and Juliet, literature's most famous "star crossed" lovers that fall for each other at first sight and problems arise when they realize whose family the other belongs to.<br /><br />The film follows the basic plot of the original play remarkably well and key scenes even use the original, or close to original, lines. But the infamous Troma bizarreness pervades the film from beginning to end. That makes for a movie that is definitely not for all tastes, but it is nonetheless pretty inventive. Tyrone (Tybalt in Shakespeare) has a particularly funny death scene. 7/10<br /><br />Many differently edited and rated versions exist. Each contains violence, profanity, drug use, and sex, all with a big dose of bizarreness. | positive |
First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. "Friends" could be considered an adaptation of the classic "The Blue Lagoon", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While "The Blue Lagoon" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, "Friends" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own. | positive |
Random Hearts is a very well directed, well scripted and perfectly cast actors for the primary roles. I found it to be so intense, that you have to stop and wonder in almost every scene Harrison and Kristin are together, how their characters deal with this horrible situation they find themselves in. Very talented acting from both of them. A lot of people I believe who did not appreciate the movie for what it was, did not get the point of the movie or could not even fathom a situation like theirs.<br /><br />(please skip this next part if you have not seen the movie yet)<br /><br />I loved the ending, which was a great surprise which tied the whole movie. It was relieving to see how these two good persons can come out actually happier in the end.<br /><br /> | positive |
Some might scoff, but there is actually a real art with making particularly bad films. This misses out on all fronts.<br /><br />A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.<br /><br />Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!<br /><br />No good, from start to finish. Don't see it! | negative |
I thought watching employment videos on corporate compliance was tedious. This movie went nowhere fast. What could have been a somewhat cheesy half hour twilight zone episode turned into a seemingly endless waste of film on people parking their cars, a picture of some dude's swimming pool (he really needs to answer his phone by the way) a dot matrix printer doing its job, and Heuy and Louey sitting in a yellow lighted control room repeating "T minus 10 and counting" as if something exciting is going to happen. It doesn't so don't get your hopes up. The best thing about this movie is to see James Best and Gerald McC, in something other than there famous TV personalities, and that is stretching to find anything good. And do NOT get me started on the music which was totally composed of a Tympani, some large marine mammals, and microphone feedback. This movie is as close as I have given a one yet, but it gets the 2 because I actually was able to finish this insomnia cure, and didn't have to leave in the middle. AVOID AT ALL COSTS. | negative |
The main reason to check this one out is to watch Laura Gemser in all her glory.<br /><br />That's reason enough for me.<br /><br />She heads to Africa as guests of another rich guy that seems to be all over these films. Huge mansion near the jungle. Hunters staying around for parties when they aren't out hunting zebras. And said parties becoming drunken orgies.<br /><br />All the high society types in the Emanuelle films seem to have out of control fetishes. And Emanuelle beds most of them.<br /><br />Joe D'Amato did NOT direct this one. He just ripped it off and used the same cast(s). And did anyone notice the 'subliminal' sexual images at the gas station? And why did most of the men stay dressed during the sex scenes? <br /><br />Coherence? Hardly any. BUT GODDESS GEMSER IS BEAUTIFUL. | positive |
This sequel proves that Tim Burton was for all intents and purposes THE best choice to ever direct a Batman movie. The story focuses on Baman taking on three enemies: The Penguin (wonderfully played by Danny DeVito) Catwoman (the slinky Michelle Pfeiffer) and Max Shreck (the superb Christopher Walken).<br /><br />Perhaps the best entry in the series, it has it all: complex themes, complex characters and a dark tone that truly stands out. The cast is simply wonderful although the obvious stand-out is DeVito as the multi-layered Penguin. Here is a guy who is evil, pitiable, funny and perhaps most importantly, scary. The infamous scene with Shreck's image consultants still sends shivers up my spine. In other words, the cast is simply a joy to watch and all turn in first rate performances.<br /><br />I do not hesitate to say that "Batman Returns" is my favorite of all the Batmans released (sorry, Dark Knight fans). If you want a superhero film that has a little more to offer besides flashy effects and big scale action, then please check out this badly underrated film. <br /><br />If nothing else, it's at least the best film Tim Burton has ever made. | positive |
I love Ustinov's distinctive, literate narration. And the photography is quiet nice. We put the film on for our 3.5 year old who sort of wandered in and out of the room. So for our first viewing, we only saw about 1/3 of the movie and were quite charmed. When we re-watched, sitting down for family time,we were all mortified at the violence and life-threatening situations the poor otter got into. About halfway through the movie, there's a rack of dead, bloody furry animals. Lots of blood, not just a little. Then at the end, there's a wild struggle with a dog, then blood clouds the water. You'd think, given the G rating, that's all you'll see...that they will IMPLY one of the animals died. Nope. They drag the carcass out of the water and show it plainly for several traumatizing seconds. Personally, as an adult I love horror movies and am fine with violent movies ala Scorsese, Cronenberg, Tarantino. Heck, I love the ultra violent Battle Royale. But those aren't kid movies and don't advertise themselves as such. If you are deliberately raising your young ones to see the harsh realities of life for cute animals, then this is the movie for you. If you are like me and my wife though, you might want to spare your child nightmares and avoid this one. | negative |
I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe. | negative |
I really enjoyed watching Hell to Pay. I've been a fan of Westerns for as long as I can remember and this one reminded me of a lot of the Westerns from the 1960s (even though I was too young to have seen them in their first run). The one thing that bothered me about the movie was the constant music. It was distracting at times. One thing I did notice, and I wonder how many other fans of Gunsmoke noticed, was the name of Buck Taylor's character. It was a play on Doc Adams' name from Gunsmoke. Instead of Gaylan Adams, Buck Taylor used Adam Galen. I wonder if that was his choice or Chris McIntyre's? Anyway, I would recommend this movie to fans of Westerns. Don't expect anything too "deep". Just plain old entertainment. | positive |
Sure, this flick set in Eastern Europe is filled with sexy, but it absolutely has nothing to do with the Nicholas Cage flick "8mm" An ambassador's daughter and her fiancée mix it up with a local woman in a threesome that ends up being taped. The tape is used for blackmail and the stakes get higher and higher as the couple try to work it out themselves instead of going to authorities.<br /><br />The sex comes and goes -- and would be the only reason for renting it, I suppose if you like this sorta thing -- and is quite gratuitous towards the middle when we cruise along the porn scene looking for the "other woman." I definitely question how it got into Blockbuster even with a Youth Restricted Sticker considering how just a hint over the edge of soft core it is. (Oh that's right, it's the double standard. Actual art-house flicks like "The Dreamers" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" get castrated R versions, but Straight To DVD crap like this get the UNRATED banner proudly attached. Whatever.) <br /><br />The acting is horrible, the plot is mind numbingly unoriginal, but really the worst offense is the idea that this is a sequel to 8mm. I'd give the flick a D for a grade and be nice, but considering they tried to trick me, it gets the F it frankly deserves. | negative |
Spoiler with plot explanation: a poor family is being thrown in the middle of war between the evil guy (that pops out from nowhere, and no questions asked... ) that went wacko, and Casper the friendly ghost trying to avenge his death. With every frame movie gets more and more predictable, a big disappointment. Ending seams completely dumb, it has nothing to od with the movie itself, i think someone run out of ideas or just get to the point that movie is s**t this way or other, so it may as well have a stupid ending. Waste of time, resources and money. Actor play is very poor. If you think about the dialogs you may find out that family conflict is artificially enforced by poor communication between characters. Some scenes seam random. In summary: boring, predictable, poor, pathetic. Waste of time, and money. | negative |
I watched this episode a lot of times because I didn't get how Prue died. This is what happened. Prue, Piper, and Phoebe try and save their innocent,A Doctor, because Shax wants to kill him. Phoebe goes upstairs to look in The Book Of Shadows while Prue and Piper are protecting their innocent. Shax appears while Phoebe is still upstairs, so Shax throw an energy ball at the doctor but Prue pushes him out of the way and Prue get hit in the chest with it and smashes against the wall, same with Piper. So Phoebe comes downstairs and says the spell, since it was only Phoebe who said it and not the power of three Shax only got wounded. Phoebes calls Leo to heal Piper and Prue. So Leo heals them. Phoebe went into the Underworld to find Cole, meanwhile Prue and Piper are looking for Shax in the streets. Piper and Prue see Shax and Piper uses her Power to Blow up Shax, meanwhile a New reporter got it all on tape. So its all over the new about the three powerful Halliwell sisters, meanwhile Phoebe doesn't know anything because she is still in the Underworld. There's Repoters and people all over the Halliwell house. Then a maniac comes in the house and says "Can I be Part Of Your Coven?" and Prue says "No this is our house get out of here!" and Prue uses her powers to throw her out. As the maniac come out of the house crying saying "There Mean Witches". The maniac gets so mad that she shoots Piper right through the stomach. Prue get in her car and trays to go to the hospital but people won't let her through ,so Prue uses her powers to move people out of the way, making people wanna kill her more. They got to the hospital but Piper didn't make it. Meanwhile Phoebe is in the Underworld.Phoebe finds out that they have been exposed, so Phoebe asks Cole to ask the source if he can reverse time.The Source says he will only reverse time if Phoebe promises to stay here in The Underworld, so Cole told Phoebe what the source told him. Phoebe says "What would Make him think i would make a deal like that?" and then Cole says, "So you can save one of your sisters lives." Leo goes to the hospital to find out the Piper really is dead so he tells Phoebe that its true. Then Phoebe agrees to stay only if Cole will go back to warn Piper and Prue about the exposer and death of Piper. Back at the hospital SWAT is about the shoot Prue, but the second before they do time is rewound back when they were at the manor with the doctor but this time Phoebe wasn't there to call Leo to heal Prue and Piper, so the doctor get throw in the wall too. The doctor died and so did Prue. But this is what I didn't get, if Piper was throw against the wall too how come only Prue died? Why did they not show Leo come and heal Piper and Leo trying to heal Prue? If you know the answer please e-mail me at [email protected] PS. I miss Prue but I like Paige too and i'm glad the show continued | positive |
I once thought that "The Stoned Age" was the worst film ever made... I was wrong. "Hobgoblins" surpassed it in every way I could imagine and a few I couldn't. In "The Stoned Age" I hated the characters. In "Hobgoblins" I hated the actors... and everyone else involved in creating this atrocity. I won't include a teaser to this film, I'm not that cruel. I couldn't subject innocent people such as yourselves to such torment. In fact, any discussion of plot pertaining to this film is senseless and demeaning. Words I would use to describe this film are as follows: insipid, asinine, and ingenuous.<br /><br />In conclusion, PLEASE don't watch this film. I beg of you, from one movie lover to another... no, from one human being to another, PLEASE. For the sake of your own sanity and intellect DO NOT WATCH IT. Destroy any copies you come across. | negative |
Wonderful film, one of the best horror films of the 70s. She is realistic settings and atmospheres. As usual it was inevitable the usual negative comments. I have noticed that most horror films of a certain period many times fail to reach even sufficiency. Obviously because most horror movies are old and must be denigrati, is like a mental mechanism that moves the minds of the potential of music critics here.<br /><br />Before you read the review already knew what was the final judgment. In the film a good gift because 10 is really well done. Raines reads quite well and the film as a way in which it was produced reminds me a lot of Kubrick films. He really impression. Excellent film really. I consider a film anthology of years'70. | positive |
The cult of personality has elevated the status of Roger Corman, Sam Arkoff, Lloyd Kaufman etc. as kings of the B's. Because the folks at Crown International were so key, they haven't been elevated to the status they richly deserve. A film like THE VAN may now seem like a disposable piece of Drive-in esoteria, but it was a sizable hit when it was released (not to mention subsequent re-releases as a double feature with other Crown hits).<br /><br />THE VAN was a perfect example of Crown's hit strategy of seizing upon the mood of movie-goers at the time of a film's release. Here, it was sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and the brief "Custom Van" fad. As others have noted, it is ironic that the "hit" song in the film refers to a Chevy when the title vehicle is a Dodge in the film itself. I had a town Selectman where I was at the time even declare these vans to be "dens of sin on wheels!" A perfect ad line for the film!<br /><br />There are the usual assortment of "good" and "bad" girls, muscle-heads and low-brow hijinks (including a supporting bit by Danny DeVito). In many ways this isn't much different from the old Beach Party movies of the 60's, but now spiced up with Nudity and Drug use. Obviously done on a limited budget and a limited schedule, the film coasts along pleasantly enough with a breezy charm that compensates for some, by today's standards certainly, un-PC views of women.<br /><br />The classic touch is a Toaster for Bobby's den of sin on wheels. Yes, a Toaster! Hey, you gotta have something hot for those munchies!<br /><br />Grindhouse Fest. | negative |
Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.<br /><br />FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.<br /><br />But if you insist on reading, consider: <br /><br />Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted "plot" that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.<br /><br />Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly "dramatic" is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.<br /><br />By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be "serious," and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.<br /><br />That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the "soul" of any of its "actors" should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you: <br /><br />Only the "converted," mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.<br /><br />Unless you're one of these mindless "fans," stay the hell away from this abomination. | negative |
There are subtleties in this film that I think a lot of people may miss if they're not careful. You really need to follow what Leland says and read his character to figure out the intended "why" the movie presents at the end. Nothing it solid, it's not definite, it's about what the individual viewer takes out of it. I think that was the plan from the get-go, people aren't meant to all understand it in the same way, it's almost about forming your own personal relationship with Leland in order to maybe feel him a little better.<br /><br />The storyline is interesting but its summary could never explain what the movie really is. It's dramatic and thought provoking, a lot of heavy ideas, but the pace of the movie is almost soothing, even with its more intense scenes with yelling. I think it's probably Leland, he's just calm and almost serene, even for all of his sadness. The movie personifies Leland in a way.<br /><br />Of course it is captivating and draws you in if you let it, but there are some recycled ideas. I mean, Leland has a lot of impressive dialogue, he is anything but typical, but he's not a prophet. Everything he says is not a revelation, many people I know have mentioned things he mentioned, even I have observed a few things he's observed. Leland is the unique and attractive character he is probably mostly for Ryan Gosling's portrayal.<br /><br />In the end the acting is all exceptional, there are no real bad guys, there is no way to psychologically evaluate Leland, only to maybe understand him and life a little better.<br /><br />Comparable to Igby Goes Down I think, not comedic, but similar in its general outlook on life. | positive |
Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!! | negative |
Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrère (Gérald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?<br /><br />I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Maléfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Maléfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.<br /><br />Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.<br /><br />Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.<br /><br />Vive La France! <br /><br />-AP3- | positive |
I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.<br /><br />The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.<br /><br />It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation. | negative |
Being a big fan of the "other" PLANET OF THE APES films, I rented this DVD despite my aversion to all things Tim Burton. Once again, he doesn't fail to disappoint with his uninspired direction. Even the ape makeup looks second rate, which is unforgivable considering the monstrous budget of this monstrosity. Mark Wahlberg proves once and for all that he is not an actor (as if BOOGIE NIGHTS wasn't proof enough). I was embarrassed for genuine talents such as Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter. No doubt their paychecks motivated them since it couldn't possibly have been the cliche-ridden screenplay. I rented this DVD on a special $1 night and I still feel ripped off. | negative |
This game is from a genre of games that tried to capitalize off of the whole Myst-inspired trend--walk around, talk to people, solve puzzles. The puzzles themselves are absolutely horrible, but I'll stick to the acting itself, which is only slightly better. If you're looking for a convincing performance from any one character, you won't find it here, but this game is worth buying if only to witness the truly hilarious performance of Christopher Walken. His acting is so horrible in this game that it seems like he's imitating someone who happens to be impersonating him. He's a caricature of himself.<br /><br />So buy this game if you're masochistic, a Walken fan, or simply want to hear the F-word a lot. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.