Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Tressa's vocal performance was Outstanding!! Tressa played the female singer role, while Richard was in the club. When she first step out on stage, and started to riff and strut her stuff, it made my soul shake. Her voice is platinum. She needs to make a CD. She has more fans then she realizes. I loved her show stopping performance in the five heart beats, which she also starred with Leon when she was younger. How can a little girl have a voice so big. She is truly amazing.Good voice Good Good Good Good voice voice voice voice excellent voice fantastic voice , back shaking , tear crying , uplifting, take you back in the days voice. Tressa if you read this commit, please take my advice and start recording a CD. If not just for the love of singing, but for your fans. I believe you can truly make it. Look at these other one hit single studio singers, lol. | positive |
I'd liked the Takashi Miike films I'd seen so far, but I found this pretty disappointing. I'd bought it, but I won't be keeping it.<br /><br />I saw it on the Adness DVD, which has just two episodes. In the first, a killer abducts women, cuts the top of their skull off to expose the brain, plants them in the ground up to their chin, and plants a flower in the brain. You can tell that from the DVD box. In the movie, the top of the head is digitally blurred out by TV static. Had you not seen the DVD box, the viewer wouldn't know what people were looking at until later a young cop produced a small model of the body. Oddly, there is also a flash frame later on of the woman's head and it is not censored. Apart from this, I'm not really sure what was going on. Some women get phone calls, and a sketchy animated character cavorts around when that happens. An animated character also appears on TV screens sometimes. It's unclear if anybody sees it.<br /><br />In the second episode, pregnant women are being found cut open and their babies are missing. Again, a cop produces a model of what the corpses are like, which is helpful since again the actual body is censored. There is also a natural birth in the movie, but oddly even that baby and the umbilical cord are censored! According the the DVD box, uncensored versions were not kept when this was originally made. Perhaps even if they had, if they knew they were going to be censored, maybe they didn't bother actually showing anything...? Not sure.<br /><br />If I hear the later episodes are better, maybe I'll look for them. As it is, I won't bother. | negative |
Despite reading the "initial comments" from someone who curiously disliked the film -- (WHY IS THE ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENT VERY FIRST ON THE LIST?)it was very nice to note that virtually everyone else loved it! Obviously the Church wanted to stress certain points and portray the prophet Joseph Smith in a positive manner ~ thats the whole idea. And in fact, those points were extremely effective. We already know Joseph Smith was human... but despite that, AND all of the horrific negative attempts stirred on by the adversary, it showed just how he was able to complete a remarkable, God-given work. I'd recommend it to anyone! | positive |
This movie is not as horrible as most Sci-Fi Channel movies. I am used to seeing the gray CGI blobs and the amateurish special effects such as close-ups of fake blood that make it very obvious that the blood is strawberry syrup or some other syrup variation. However, I had thought that I had seen all the possible lows that the Sci-Fi Channel could hit. Then I saw this movie.<br /><br />Imagine a hand inside a rubberized sock that is glazed with syrup? Those are the main Alien Vampires in this movie. You can clearly see the fingers inside the rubbery sock puppets. A talking hand comes out of the guts of victims, and the Vampire who is on the Vampire Hunter's team can talk to these Rubber Sock puppets in Transylvanian. How did Alien Vampires learn Transylvanian? And isn't Transylvania in Romania? So shouldn't they be talking Romanian? Why would some little town have their own language? If you can suspend your gag reflex and get past the talking rubber socks with the fingers clearly moving inside the Aliens' heads; then you have to deal with the other alien vampires. There are the "Leatherfaces" who like to wear the faces of their victims. Then there are the just plain ugly ones that all seem to have a lot of facial scars. Then there are the annoying Valley Girls and their boyfriends who are human traitors and sneak into space colonies so that they can sabotage the Defense Systems so that these Space Vampires can attack.<br /><br />Finally, if you think all of the above is funny and worth a laugh, you have to deal with the third rate cast of Network TV rejects that make up this team of stereotypical angry heroes which are constantly fighting among themselves. Why does almost every Sci-Fi Channel movie have to use lead characters that are annoying, abrasive, crude, or just totally unsympathetic? I found myself hoping the talking rubber socks would win. | negative |
Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the "scary" hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.<br /><br />For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?<br /><br />If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2. | positive |
The movie was a big Car Commercial. :-)<br /><br />But who cares? I went to the theater to view the Shelby Cobra, Angelina & Cage.<br /><br />So I guess it was a good movie. *bg*<br /><br /> | positive |
If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrère (Gérald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pâquerette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrère takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...<br /><br />Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrère at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.<br /><br />With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pâquerette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.<br /><br />Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia | positive |
In 4 words, Captain Corelli's Mandolin was "completely out of tune" with the book. The novel provided sufficient character background to understand the relationships and personal challenges the characters needed to overcome; the script writer chose to ignore the details. In ignoring them (e.g. the priest's role initially as a buffoon, but later as a spiritual leader, the fiancee's inability to read until taught by a socialist rebel, the bomb experts advice to Corelli and his eventual ironic demise), the story and characters fall flat.<br /><br />This was the first movie that I've ever walked out of midway through. Interesting cinematography, great actors do not MAKE a film; the story does. | negative |
In late 1800s San Francisco, poor well-dressed Errol Flynn (as James J. Corbett) works at a bank, and enjoys attending local "fights" (boxing) with co-worker and drinking buddy Jack Carson (as Walter Lowrie). One day, pretty Alexis Smith (as Victoria Ware) walks into the "Comstock Bank", where Mr. Flynn works. Flynn is so taken with Ms. Smith's elegant beauty, he offers to carry her withdrawal purse. Smith is secretly taken with the handsome Flynn, but is put off by his brashness.<br /><br />Flynn's good deed (actually, pick-up attempt) gets him a complimentary membership in the snooty "Olympic Club", which conveniently includes a gymnasium (with boxing equipment). However, Flynn's presumptuous manner, and practical joking (he tickles men on the parallel bars) irritates "Club" members. When an English boxing champ visits the club, members endeavor to get Flynn to fight the man. They are hopeful Flynn will resign, humiliated by his defeat - but, Flynn wins! <br /><br />First time producer Robert Buckner puts together a nice package for Warner Brothers, and director Raoul Walsh. Mr. Buckner was, certainly, basking in the success of his contribution (screenplay) to the studio's brilliant "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Unfortunately, this story is positively ludicrous. There was a "Gentleman Jim" - this story is supposedly the filming of the real James J. Corbett's autobiography "The Roar of the Crowd" - but, this movie must be significantly fictionalized.<br /><br />Flynn is a very appealing leading man; he maneuvers the script lightly, and should have been recognized, by the early 1940s, as an excellent actor. Many of Flynn's characterizations were (are?) overlooked as great performances, and this is one of them. Smith does well as his feminine interest, deftly transmitting her emotions for the viewer. Director Walsh makes the silliness look smooth and extravagant. The supporting cast is a treasure trove, from boisterous Alan Hale (as Pat Corbett) to walk-on Lon McCallister ("Paging Mr. Corbett").<br /><br />******** Gentleman Jim (1942) Raoul Walsh ~ Errol Flynn, Alexis Smith, Alan Hale | positive |
This is one of the finest TV movies you could ever see. The acting, writing and production values are top-notch. The performances are passionate with Beverly D'Angelo superb as the older woman with a teenage daughter and Rob Estes simply perfect as the young stud boyfriend. However, the best part of this film was how it showed the consequences of sexual abuse instead of going for the usual happy ending. It showed that abuse can happen in good families; involve good people; and wreck lives. It is thought provoking and entertaining. Congratulations to all concerned with this exceptional movie.<br /><br /> | positive |
I couldn't believe some of the horrible dialog coming out of people's mouths, and the end reel of bloopers attached to body of the film was a real hoot. And we get titty shots of Angelique Pettyjohn (sort of) and Loren Crabtree to boot.<br /><br />A teleportation device activated by psychic Angelique Pettyjohn brings an alien container to an underground lab out in the desert. According to director Fred Olen Ray, they were leftover sets from the Klaus Kinski film, ANDROID which gives the film an increased value beyond how cheap it looks.<br /><br />Inside the container is a midget alien (played by Ray's son) who starts clawing people to death. It was pretty funny watching this little 'creature' in a black reptile suit with what looks like large beetle shells attached to it, running around in the dark. We even get to see the little thing stamp and tear at a poster of ET, which I thought was hilarious.<br /><br />And then there's what looks like a snake that also comes out of the container that gets hammered to death by William Fair, after the mini creature chews into Frank McDonald's neck in the kitchen. A low budget take on ALIEN, I suppose...<br /><br />The whole thing ends abruptly, looking like they ran out of film at the end before the blooper reel comes in with the end credits. Talk about a lack of funding...<br /><br />Fred Olen Ray also mentions in the director's commentary that they also weren't sure if Aldo Ray would make through the shooting and remember his lines. He barely did.<br /><br />Low budget cheese sneeze. It's fun to watch, I'll grant ya that. <br /><br />4 out of 10 | negative |
This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.<br /><br />There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.<br /><br />This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.<br /><br />The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.<br /><br />The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.<br /><br />The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse. | negative |
I could watch this movie ALL DAY! I LOVE it. Probably my all time favorite movies. But, by the way, "badger1970" there are a few parts with bad language, not TOO bad, but it's not exactly G rated. GREAT movie!!!!! I recommend it to everybody. Any way, it's making me type 10 lines of text, so I am going to keep typing until it will let me post this comment. Okay... Still typing... This is getting annoying. Ugh. I still have four more to go. Anyway, WATCH THIS MOVIE! Even if you have already seen it. I DON'T CARE! Has it been 10 lines yet? Nope. Only 2 more lines left. I don't even know why it wants me to do this. I think I am done. Wait a minute, I'm NOT done, SORRY, people. I know it's torture listening to me. WEll, I suppose that you don't HAVE to read this comment... But you should, because I wrote it. I am probably done now. Finally, bye. | positive |
I really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.<br /><br />The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.<br /><br />However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious. | negative |
I don't know any idiotic rock'n'roll cliché not used in this movie. Ouffcourz , rock enroll life is only sex drugs and parties and tons of supermodels trying to ride with you. Say it to stupid young boys. The filmmakers seemed to have read too much Guns'n'Roses or Motley Crue stories. I have seen everyday life of usual rock band closely and there are nothing to do with reality in this movie. If you are successful enough your life is touring touring touring. Its means that you are mostly in a bus and trying to sleep. Just sleep. Because you must be fresh, sober and clean in evenings. After live you have a little time to discharge your stage excitement. Then you have a bit time to have fun. But its not any luxury or dream. Artistically this film was zero. Stupid characters and idiotic dialogs. The ending of movie was funny -- main character left heavy metal band and formed a grunge band! Yeah, what a moral. Real 90s. | negative |
I work in a library and expected to like this movie when it came out 5 years ago. Well I liked Parker Posey a lot (she's a wonderful actress) and Omar Townsend was really cute as her boyfriend (he couldn't act but when you look like him who cares?) but the movie was bad. It wasn't funny or cute or much of anything. Posey kept the movie afloat with her energy. But she learned the Dewey Decimal system OVERNIGHT and then shelves tons of books to the beat of music??!!!!??? Come on! Also I did have a problem with the way she looked when she became a full-fledged librarian at the end--hair in a bun, glasses, no sense of humor--can we let that stereotype go please? Worth seeing for Posey and Townsend but that's about it. The TV series was much better. | positive |
I will never forget this film or the events that lead up to Jonestown in Guyana. It just seems so tragic but needs to be told. Powers Boothe give a commanding performance as the leader Rev. Jim Jones from obscurity until total madness. It would have won him an Academy Award easily if it was released in the movie theaters. It is the kind of mini-series you won't forget. You won't forget the images of the cult's brutality, control, and obsessiveness of it's leader. His rise and fall and the threat from the outside world to destroy what he considered to be paradise. The mass suicide is horrifying, almost unreal to anybody's imagination as to why so many people (900+) went willingly or resisted JOnes' orders. They don't make mini series like these anymore where we're left with out mouths open and hungry to know what happened to the others. | positive |
Stephen King movies are a funny thing with me. I either really love them or I loathe them. Some of the fancier productions (such as Desperation and Storm of the Century) I didn't enjoy. Some of the smaller ones, I really loved. Sleepwalkers is one that I really do enjoy and watch it regularly.<br /><br />The story revolves around Charles Brady and his mother Mary. They are Sleepwalkers, shape shifting creatures who although human like in appearance shift into a feline like creature. They are immune to the scratch of cats and whenever they move to a new town, lay out traps to catch and kill the animals. When they move to their latest town, they need to seek out a virgin and when Charles finds one, he actually falls for her,but his mother needs to feed from her to keep up her strength. The story revolves around what will happen with the girl. Will Charles spare her or use her to save his mother.<br /><br />Although this story has overtones of incest which some may find unappealing it does actually play a part in the story and is therefore not just plonked in the movie for scandal's sake. Like most Stephen King stories it's based in a small town with lots of interesting characters. The acting isn't the best, nor are the special effects, however, somehow, the whole thing tends to 'gel' and is very watchable and enjoyable adaption.<br /><br />For UK readers: This production has most recently been shown on BBC1, Sci-Fi and Sky Thriller/Horror channels. | positive |
Maverick director Seijun Suzuki finally was able to film his dream project, "Princess Raccoon" and in a way it's lucky he didn't try this in the 1960's. Special effects and computer graphics certain made this sort of production easier to achieve than the old film matte technology would have.<br /><br />Some familiarity with Japanese history and theatrical traditions will help with the enjoyment of this film. Much as familiarity with Shakespeare's "The Tempest" would help with Peter Greenaway's dense "Prospero's Books". These two films actually have a bit in common although, "Princess Raccoon" is much more colorful and easier to watch for someone without the background to fully appreciate it.<br /><br />While the art design, acting and direction are fine for most of the film, it seems to this viewer that the energy runs out in the last third of the film. Most of the interesting sets have been already been introduced and the camera seems to step back for more of a filmed stage play experience.<br /><br />This is certainly a unique film experience and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in alternate forms of film performance. It's not really meant for children although nothing happens that would upset them. If the last third was better I would have given it nine stars. | positive |
This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.<br /><br />On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.<br /><br />Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc. | negative |
A lot of people don't think Branagh's Hamlet film is all that good, but I must admit I think it is splendid. Like virtually every production of Shakespeare, it has problems and it has had to make hard choices, not all of which work out. The thing about the "secret doors everywhere", for instance, simply doesn't work. That element never achieves the ominous feeling of metaphor or analogy that it attempts to, which results in the play being too gaudy and losing its trademark sense of a thousand mysteries looming. This is the biggest problem with this production. And while it's a biggie, I'm also inclined to say that it's the only problem. Almost everything else works out absolutely beautifully. All right, so Branagh is a mite too old for the title role. And the relationship with Ophelia seems a little forced. And he gets too hysterical at times. But that's it. No other complaints. Even with these faults, I think this version is a seminal one, and if it's not as powerful a drama as it ought to be, it's every bit the literary work that it equally ought to be. We get the complete text of the longest version of the play, innovatively and expensively brought to the screen, mostly enunciated in perfect and modern and highly understandable voices - even if they sometimes speak too quickly in order to get the massive text over with. But in a staging of Shakespeare, it simply is not possible to speak slowly enough for the audience to really appreciate the full depths of the language. For that, one must delve into the print versions of the plays.<br /><br />All the actors of this version are simply mesmerizing and utterly and instantly classic (incl. Jack Lemmon). Julie Christie as Gertrude is surely one of the best ever, and even the American actors are astounding, esp. Charlton Heston as the Player King - who would have thought it?! (A story is going around that Heston once played Hamlet on stage, and when a critic in the front row couldn't stand his hammy acting and said out loud, "This is terrible!", Heston reportedly retorted right from the stage: "Well, I didn't write this crap!" Of course it may not be true, but it's a funny story - and if true, a bold and ironic choice for Branagh to include Heston here.) Robin Williams as "Young Ozric" is perhaps not young enough for the part, but he makes it a comical one, which is warranted.<br /><br />Overall it is a very well-produced version, with most of the key scenes being, to my mind, supremely memorable. Of course, I watched this movie just as I was becoming interested in Shakespeare (and around the same time as Luhrmann's formidable Romeo+Juliet), and it made a great impression on me, which must account for some of my fondness for it.<br /><br />All things considered, I must pronounce Branagh's Hamlet to be my favorite one, with Derek Jacobi's 1980 BBC version a close second. I probably like Branagh's Shakespeare work more than most, finding him an expert interpreter and popularizer, with an attractively casual attitude to the words and a deep and appropriately and unashamedly enthusiastic appreciation of the text. In the world of Shakespeare acting, the two brightest luminaries remain Olivier and Branagh, and while Olivier is the superior actor, Branagh brings Shakespeare down from the pedestal of snobbery and artifice, and transforms it into churlish, easy-going, populistic worldliness while compromising none of its dignity. Branagh, I believe, brings out a truer Shakespeare than the world has yet seen.<br /><br />And so, 10 out of 10 for an absolutely tremendous Hamlet. | positive |
This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth. | negative |
Todd Sheets has created one of the greatest LOW BUDGET Zombie movies EVER. The story is great, the gore is grand, the psychos are wicked! Yet the movie is flawed by its petty dialogue and sluggish imaging at times.<br /><br />Despite this ZB2 delivers what any Zombie movie should, gore, good plot, fast pace adventure into the macarbe. If only MR sheets had been given a 100k budget this movie would out do EVERY zombie movie ever even the almighty Dawn of the dead.<br /><br />But as time goes by he gets better and as he gets better more money comes into his pocket. Thus allowing this man this modern day Genius to craft his vision better.<br /><br />Just remember that Zombie Bloodbath 2 was just one of his great stepping stones when he is atop of Gore Mountain | positive |
I love this movie. <br /><br />Yes, the main character lies, but that's why it's called "big fat liar". Even though this kid runs away to Hollywood, it doesn't give kids the idea that they can. Besides, he doesn't just do it for fun or to get away from anything, he does it to regain trust. <br /><br />I don't think it was just one big ad for Universal Studios, because I liked how it gave an inside view of what it's like for kids who don't know how cool movie-making is. <br /><br />It has good music and fun characters. This family/comedy is totally fun for kids and parents alike. It has humour, excitement, and real life difficulties like lying.<br /><br />In the end, "Big Fat Liar" sends out a moral: don't expect lying to be easy. | positive |
Two years after this movie was made, "The Juror" came out. Don't waste your time on this one. See "The Juror" instead. "The Juror" is essentially the same story as "Trial By Jury," with better acting, better directing and a far more gripping aura about it. William Hurt was not believable as a cop-gone-bad, and Armand Assante couldn't be more unlike a mob boss if they had dressed him in a clown outfit. You didn't become involved enough with Joann Whalley's character to be that upset by what was happening to her. Also, the way in which she interacted with the jury wasn't compelling or interesting in any way. Kathleen Quinlan's role as a hooker/killer wasn't fleshed out enough and quite frankly was unnecessary for to the plot. | negative |
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune to see. The general idea of a coronal mass ejection hitting the planet earth with EM disruption is fair enough, but where did they get the idea that humans could survive a sustained 155ºF? The acting was so terrible I got the feeling that the casting agents simply grabbed a handful of people off of Santa Monica Boulevard and threw them in front of the camera. In all honesty I have seen less wooden acting from my ironing board. Sorry, but this film was poor, poor, poor. | negative |
This was more of a love story than one about an angel who comes down here to earth, although both angles of that story are given a good share of the movie.<br /><br />If I took this movie to heart, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would have canned it pretty quick, but I don't think the general atmosphere was either mean-spirited or blasphemous. It was just ludicrous or just plain stupid.<br /><br />I mean, John Travolta as a grubby angel? Smoking? Scratching his groin? Quoting the Beatles? A "warring angel" who knows nothing about Heaven? An angel who flirts with all the women? Yes, it's all absurd and certainly Biblically- incorrect. <br /><br />I could tolerate all that but I don't know how many people, whatever beliefs they hold, who could stand a boring film which this turned out to be during the second half of it. It begins to drag when the romance begins between William Hurt and Andie MacDowell. Some of the dialog during that romance is so stupid it's insulting to any discriminating viewer.<br /><br />This is another Nora Ephron-directed film. Man, I can't believe how many incredibly stupid movies this woman has either written or directed. At least she's consistent. | negative |
It was a sweet, intro for the most intelegent Sailor Soldier, Sailor Mercury. It consisted with a new "in croud", Merciurios. He, at the beganing wrote a love letter to Ami, which would be starltling (of course) and, now, Ami thiks he is a chibi-Einstien, and he is attractive (He ended up looking like Umino (Melvin)). This was a halarios (expesialy Minako's "It's no skin off my neck" scene (HOT!)) Well, I really like the Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon Series, I personally think its the best anime ever!, But, this movie was nice, funny, but not as adventurios as Sailor Moon R- It was more like the "S" movie. I saw this @ Sailor Moon Univewrse, with real Player, and it was pretty good. (Over all) | positive |
"The Dresser" is perhaps the most refined of backstage films. The film is brimming with wit and spirit, for the most part provided by the "energetic" character of Norman (Tom Courtenay). Although his character is clearly gay, and certainly has an attraction for the lead performer (Albert Finney) that he assists, the film never dwells on it or makes it more than it is.<br /><br />The gritty style of Peter Yates that worked so well in "Bullitt" is again on display, and gives the film a sense of realism and coherence. This is much appreciated in a story that could so easily have become tedious. In the end, "The Dresser" will bore many people silly, but it will truly be a delight to those who love British cinema.<br /><br />7.7 out of 10 | positive |
I really thought this would be a good movie, boy...was I mistaken! For a quick summery: B grade acting C grade special effects D grade for the overall movie. Don't get me wrong, the story was pretty good and not kiddish so an adult too ride along with it, the "hero" is good looking so most women will like it :-), not a total chick flick as it contains some fight scenes and some blood<br /><br />but the way it is shot... horrible <br /><br />the special effects->would be better suited for TV->on a kids show <br /><br />and lastly...send some of the actors back to acting school if they ever attended a class there.<br /><br />Trust me there are much better ways to waste 2 hours.<br /><br />You have been warned. | negative |
They screwed up this story! In the end Nell is all heroic and taking on for the team to save all their asses from Hill House and a bunch of nonsense like that! They added heads getting chopped, wires cutting peoples faces, and the ceiling turning into a giant hand! What the hell is that about??? I own and love the original movie, I read the book and I love it! The reason why the original movie and the book are so great is because it scares you so much without even showing the ghost. There is no gore. There is no ceiling hand. It is only the ghost ad how ghosts can truly kill a person. They cannot kill us, they cannot throw us about the room or fly a knife into our head. No. They can only drive us mad. Taking away all our senses of security. Nell was a selfish woman. She only wanted good things for herself. Yes, she cared a little for the others, but not too much. David Self and Jan de Bont have taken a crap on this great story! I hate this damn remake! | negative |
This has got to be the worst show I have ever seen. I always liked Chuck Norris in Films, but why do we need to make these shows politically correct by adding a black side kick who is as threatening as Shirley Temple in Little Miss Marker. I also thought the show was limited because how many times can you kick a guy in the face and make it interesting. I know an African American who looks like this Trivette guy and he gets his butt kicked about once a week he is all attitude.<br /><br />Chuck Norris is the man and he deserves all the kudos he gets, I think this show started great but lost steam as time went on<br /><br />They should have dumped Chucks side kick | negative |
If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.<br /><br />In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.<br /><br />The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding "southern accents" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions? <br /><br />Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???<br /><br />They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal. | negative |
This is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the "Something rotten in the state of Denmark" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.<br /><br />If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better. | negative |
I had the privilege to see this movie at the Intenational Film Festival of Rotterdam.<br /><br />'Xizhao' or 'Shower' is a $200.000 lowbudget movie about a father and his 2 sons. The father has a traditional bathhouse somewhere in a traditional Chinese village where local, mostly aged men, come to relax and to go bathing. The father has to sons: a 'retarded' son who lives with him and a son who lives in a big modern city and who comes to visit him. To this son the traditional village, the bathhouse and his 'retarded' brother seem strange and annoying, but this changes along the movie.<br /><br />Though the story may sound cheesy or cliche, it's not. With really great performances, especially of the father and the 'retarded' son (sorry, I don't know their names) and a great story the movie was touching and funny at the same time.<br /><br />If you got a chance to see this movie do it. It's a great alternative to mainstream Hollywood cinema.<br /><br /> | positive |
I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible | negative |
Terry Gilliam's and David Peoples' teamed up to create one of the most intelligent and creative science fiction movies of the '90's. People's proved a screenplay with bizarre twists and fantastic ideas about the nature of time I especially love the idea one can't change the past; it's a nice counterpoint to so many time-travelling movies which say otherwise biological holocausts and the thin line between sanity and madness. Gilliam visualized his ideas with unique quirkiness, perfection and originality.<br /><br />The story itself is engaging: one man, James Cole (played by Bruce Willis in a heart-warming performance) travels several decades to the past to retrieve information about a virus that's wiped out mankind and left only a few survivors alive living underground: with the information he'll collect, scientists hope to find a cure so everyone in the future can return to the surface. But because their time-travelling technology isn't perfect, he ends up being sent towards different other pasts and complicating things. And from that a brilliant science fiction thriller with shades of film noir ensues as the multiple pieces of a huge jigsaw start fitting together to form a bizarre narrative involving animal right activists, end of the millennium paranoia, biological weapons, the perception of reality, and the definition of sanity. With such a complex movie, it was easy for Gilliam and Peoples to create a mess, but instead Twelve Monkeys is a thought-provoking narrative which will please those who like to be challenged and have patience to appreciate some crazy ideas.<br /><br />I watched this movie once around 10 years ago. It marked me a lot: I remember still thinking about many days after-wards; for my young mind this seemed quite mind-blowing and it was one of the first movies to make me appreciate cinema as something serious and important. I've re-watched this movie a few days ago on DVD and it's better than I remembered it. Brad Pitt still steals all the scenes he's in, playing Jeffrey Goines almost a prelude to his Tyler Durden character in Fight Club a rich kid with some anarchist/non-conformist ideas who's also crazy and, according to Cole, perhaps responsible for the virus. The scenes between Jeffrey and Cole in the madhouse are the best in the movie, Pitt's eyes, voice and quirky mannerisms convince you he's really a crazy guy locked in a warped logic only he understands. Pitt's Oscar nomination was well deserved! Surprising was also Bruce Willis' performance: his I didn't remember very well, but it's beautiful and full of sensibility; he plays a man who spent almost all his life underground, and when he comes to the past you'll share his childish fascination with something as simple as breathing the fresh air of the morning or watching the sun go up. Cole is a rather ambiguous character, Peoples' tried to imbue some darkness in him, and he does other disturbing things to other people and to himself: the scene where he removes his own teeth reveals how far his dementia has gone unchecked. Ironically Cole didn't start as a crazy character, but when he starts warning everyone about the end of the world, he's considered mad and convinced it's all in his mind, until he arrives at a point when he can't distinguish past from future, reality from fiction. Willis spends a lot of time looking confused and insecure, and it works perfectly. One of the fun twists in the narrative is when Cole's shrink, Dr. Kathryn Railly, finds undeniable proof he's really from the future and now has to convince him again of his mission to save the world. The screenplay is full with weird twists like this and it keeps the movie in a fast pace. Their relationship is also well-handed, although perhaps a bit compressed for time's sake. But I enjoyed watching Cole and Railly falling in love and trying to escape the authority of the future to live a peaceful life in the past. But then things end in a tragic/bittersweet climax at an airport, wrapping all the pieces together, which will blow many minds away.<br /><br />There are two great endings in this movie, a twist in the sense of Se7en or Fight Club, and a more intimate ending where Railly is crouching next to Cole who's just been shot and looking around for a younger James Cole who's witnessing his future self die; the two share a brief look, and she smiles at him. The twist is brilliant, but I prefer this ending for emotional impact. Madeleine Stowe is very good playing Dr. Railly, she drew many different emotions from me in her performance. The movie is filled with a sense of fatalism with the idea the past can't be changed: this movie shows that in a terrifying way. It reminds me of Chinatown in that sense, the way Jake Gittes messes everything up the more he tries to help. Railly's character shares that fatalism, the more she tries to help Cole first dealing with his 'madness' then helping him in his mission the more they're sucked into tragedy.<br /><br />The twist ends with a hopeful note, though, with the feeling Cole's mission hasn't been in vain. Twelve Monkeys is a great movie to watch if one wants to be entertained; it's not supposed to be art, although it's more artists than many artistic movies. It's an unpretentious movie where all elements, from music to editing to costume design, etc., came together beautifully to produce a modern cinema masterpiece. | positive |
Apparently this was an award winner. Apparently someone had a gun against his/her head and was force to nominate Maize: the Movie.<br /><br />Or this must have been a mistake.<br /><br />This is the most unwatchable movie ever made. The screening and the editing is the biggest horror of this movie. Two little girls get lost in a cornfield and get stalked by someone who can be heard laughing under his rubber mask. The little girls run into their hero dad, and then runs away from him, W.T.F.? The hero dad in the movie keeps losing track of them in the few minutes of watching this.<br /><br />The girls obviously weren't trained actors, and had no common sense to them. They were so annoying and so infantile in the movie, it not even remotely comedic. Hearing them scream over and over again like a broken record was the reason why I got up and left. You can't even listen to this movie without nearly going into convulsions.<br /><br />I can puke a better award winner than this garbage. | negative |
I enjoyed the Mr. Magoo cartoons I saw while growing up. And I enjoy Leslie Nielson's comic skills. So, I thought, this marriage must produce a funny child.<br /><br />I couldn't have been more wrong.<br /><br />This movie was just awful. I don't recall a single funny moment. This is one of the two or three times (in hundreds of films over the years) I've wanted my money back. You will leave this film dejected because you won't ever have that time back to use in a better way. In a comedy, the plot must draw in the viewer and serve as a framework for gags. This plot does neither. It just kinda lies there, gasping like a beached fish. | negative |
This movie was one of the funniest movie I've seen in years and the laughs from the audience members support me. Not since My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) has the laughter been as spontaneous and intense. Easily has intricate as last year's Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) in its use of parody (espionage in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and sex in My Super Ex-Girlfriend). Director's Ivan Reitman balance between comedy and drama, between crazy and downright ludicrous is great. Never does the shock and dramatic serious crack the rule of comedy. At the same time, this predictable romantic comedy never loses its touching emotional elements even if the ending is broadcast in advance. In some ways, it's so evident that it's great to see how it plays out. Just like in real life, sometimes the truth is so evident that one can't really see it. Easily eight out of ten stars ranking up there with Tootsie (1982). Possibly a nine (depends on how it appears on a second viewing). | positive |
By the acting in this movie, it is sometimes hard NOT to imagine that the cast are who they portray themselves to be. Unbridled passion and acting at times make this a very enjoyable and engaging movie. Wouldn't even have known about it except for HBO late night. And the biggest reason I like UK films much better than American ones are that the actors aren't afraid to act out what is needed. | positive |
This movie features several well known actors which I usually like, so I had at least modest expectations when I rented this on DVD. I was highly disappointed. In fact I walked off for some snacks somewhere during the last half hour and somehow I ended up in the kitchen rather then going back to the TV. The actor performances where poor pretty much all across the board and none of the atmospheres in the movie felt very convincing. Virtually all scenes had that "just a movie" feeling to them, I just sat there waiting to hear the director calling "CUT!" followed by the crew having a little chat about the scene before moving on to the next.<br /><br />Since the movie is about gangsters most characters are tough and mob-like, the problem here is just that this whole bad-boy attitude is played out so poorly that it just feels like a joke. The constant guitar-drilling soundtrack really tries to emphasize this atmosphere too, but when the same track is played the 18th time it just adds to the already strong feeling of the whole thing just being fake.<br /><br />Maybe it was just a really really bad script, maybe it was just poorly executed. I'm no movie critic, in fact I consider it rare to see something that's REALLY good, but this was just plain bad no matter how objective and forgiving I'm trying to be. NOT recommended, not even as a rental! | negative |
Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.<br /><br />At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.<br /><br />The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.<br /><br />Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!<br /><br />Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood/Kollywood (Madras). | positive |
of watching this as a child. Although I'll probably find it god-awful now, it was kind-of spooky stuff as I was only seven or so. I also recall working on a Saturday-afternoon puzzle while watching it, so I wasn't really paying much attention. However, the scene with the rolling boulders has been burnt into my mind ever since. I've asked numerous people if they've seen this flick but to no avail. 12 years ago, one person mentioned that, possibly, he had seen it, but he thought it merely a dream; a fanciful piffle like wind. It's no dream, my friend. No dreaming now. Again, I haven't seen it since then, but I can't wait to find a copy and stuff it into my VCR. Anything that can stay embedded in my mind's eye for 23 years deserves a '10'. | positive |
What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop. | negative |
Whether this movie is propaganda or not (I firmly believe it is not), it really shows the power of Media. The importance of this documentary is not to show how good of a man Chavez is. It is really to demonstrate the way the Bolivarians saw how it happened, the Chavez way of seeing it. Although it may seem wrong and bias to support a film , I think the point of view shown in the movie is utterly legitimate. The Venezuelian people via the private media corporation of Venezuela only saw a one side perspective of the coup, the Neo-Liberal side. This movie shows us the way the Bolivarians saw it . Call it propaganda , I say it's a judgment call on your part. | positive |
This is easily the worst, most offensive piece of crap on TV. I'd love to completely ignore it but Fox has stuck it into their Sunday lineup, forcing me to find something else to watch between American Dad and Family Guy. The dink-head male star guy is just about the least evolved, pathetic excuse for a human I have ever seen on TV. Nothing on the show is remotely funny and pretty much everything on it has been done already and much better by other shows.<br /><br />It's obvious that their strategy is to ram it deep and hard into the Sunday schedule and hope someone starts liking it... but I have to break it to ya, Fox, thats the wrong hole. The scam not worked on me - I simply look elsewhere - but come on, you freaking boneheads, this show freaking SUCKS, and it sucks even worse when compared to the rest of the Fox Sunday lineup.<br /><br />THEY CANCELLED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS STEAMING PILE? | negative |
I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. I have always been a fan of Whoopi Goldberg and this movie only emphasizes it. She portrays a housewife in an African-American family which is moving up the social chain due to the husband's (Danny Glover) success as an attorney. She moves to an all white neighborhood where the people are friendly, yet a little awkward toward her. The various events that arise during the course of the movie make for SOME laughs but mostly appeal to the other emotions. This movie is not so much a comedy as a drama. I give it a strong 8/10. I highly recommend you catch it on TV or rent it soon. | positive |
This true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do. | negative |
I had this DVD to watch, thinking that I would see a type of biography o painter Goya, but the movie was about everything but Goya. This movie is about a young woman taken away from her family by the Holy Inquisition, allegedly because she practiced Jewish rituals (only because the poor girl did not like eating pork!). The rest of the movie is about torture, humiliation, driven by a poor script (can't believe it is by JC Carrière as I could not believe this cr** is directed by Mr Milos Forman) centered on a religious man and that young woman and that is all. <br /><br />Ah, and there is Goya, I forgot, playing a completely peripheral role - that could be the role of John, Paul, Peter, Manuel, Joaquim, Jose or anyone. Very disappointing - one one these movies that will be forgotten for ever (if it has not had happened yet). Rent "The Name of the Rose" if you want a movie about the Holy Inquisition. And I don't know what you should rent, if you want to watch a movie about Spanish painter Goya. Maybe a director of a good caliber, not Forman, still needs to make it. PS: the Spanish painter, Goya - the title role who is lost in the plot - is portrayed by a Scandinavian actor, something that makes this film even more difficult to be taken seriously. Maybe next time we should send Javier Barden to play the biopic of Norwegian painter, Edvard Munch! | negative |
Curiously, it is Rene Russo's eyes and mouth--not Buddy the Gorilla's-- that emerge as the focal point of "Buddy", a Jim Henson Pictures production through Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope. Somehow, countless close-ups of Russo's face slipped passed in the post-production stages, and she literally fills the screen so many times the poor apes are upstaged. Unintentionally funny true story adapted from Gertrude "Trudy" Davies Lint's memoirs about a wealthy doctor's wife who turns their mansion into a menagerie for pets and wild-life. The movie goes beyond good intentions...it positively drips with earnest sincerity. The movie never sparkles with the kind of "family film" magic that it needed, and before too long both the people and the animals seem distinctly programmed (nothing here feels real). About ten minutes in, two chimpanzees are goofing around in Russo's kitchen and start throwing a butcher's knife back and forth (it misses Alan Cumming's head by inches); yet, no eyebrows are raised because it's all in a day's fun. Still, when full-grown gorilla Buddy gets crazy during a thunderstorm, the cops are called--and everyone stares at Buddy through the window while he busts up the living room furniture. The furniture should be the least of anyone's worries in this flabbergasting, do-gooder failure. But, at least we know Russo was in good hands: whenever director Caroline Thompson needs a good pick-up shot, she gives unstartled Rene another extreme close-up. I wonder what the lipstick budget was on this picture? ** from **** | negative |
This puddle of derivative drivel stole from every Soviet film of note and failed miserably. I was left with an experience of everything that is wrong with organized religion in general and the Russian Orthodox Church's particular shortcomings (mind you this comment comes from a person of faith). Even the outstanding cinematography left me uninspired. I spent its most beautiful moments very aware of the masterworks that it was poorly imitating. I would not recommend seeing this movie unless you have a deep passion for the Russian Orthodox Church, its monastic traditions, miracles in the face of Communism, and Saints of the Seventies. It is a meaningless film from (and about) a narrow perspective that did absolutely nothing for me. | negative |
I knew about but had never seen Grey Gardens, before I saw the Broadway musical of the same name. Friends cautioned me that if I had not seen the movie, the musical would not make sense. It did, but it also prompted me to rent the movie. At first, I thought it was a train wreck, full of strange, shrieking characters, and it was exceedingly hard to watch. But being able to stop it, digest it and go back to it made me realize why Grey Gardens is considered to be a memorable documentary. <br /><br />Both Big Edie and Little Edie are unforgettable and their utter lack of self-consciousness is worth witnessing. Both of them remain beautiful despite their encroaching age. They have a relationship that will chill any woman (and undoubtedly some men) and make you re- examine your own dealings with your mother. In an era when reality television and cinema is commonplace, it's fascinating to see the Mayleses' work from three decades ago, and realize what an impact the film must have had.<br /><br />I echo what other posters have said: how were they allowed to slip into such squalor by their family? But beyond that, how could two people living in the 1970s be able to escape reality in such a complete fashion? Or were they simply considered too crazy to be helped? I would highly recommend watching this with the commentary track, which gave me additional insight into the film. | positive |
Any movie should have an idea; Simple or more complex, it needs one... The problem with Fragata,..it's once more, that when he decides to make a movie, he so anxious to do "whatsoever" that he forgets this main detail, and as result we have the characters doing whatever without any justification, behaving without justified reasons...they are simple puppets going along the movie on the flavour of the wind. It's boring and sad to see them appearing and vanishing like cards being discarded in a game. Fragata always seem to have talent in advertising is own work...and that leads you to see what he did...but in the end there's always a big disappointment. It's not enough having a movie full of the "hot Portuguese's pink magazine stars"...especially when half of them can't act...they only pretend to be funny. Here my only good point goes to the actor Helder Mendes...one of the few non stars': He makes the effort to establish some credibility, and in such a messy movie without any direction (of any kind) I give him the credit for trying hard. But this movie its worth to check out as a manual of "how to not do a movie"...and if Fragata's previous works where bad...this one it's a "masterpiece" in achieving the title of AWFUL. In few words,..Just check it out! It will make you good,...and if you homemade your family movies,...and always feel bad with your work...so just spend 30 minutes looking to this so "called" professional work...your home made stuff will look like Powerful Hollywood Flicks compare to Sorte Nula. | negative |
One has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12-hour long films. It could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence - in fact, even in the world of 'arthouse' cinema, such mammoth running times are extremely rare, for obvious reasons. This is one thing that Hollywood and art cinema share in common: the generally accepted running time of 90-120 minutes, with a minority of movies that dare to approach, but rarely exceed, the three-hour mark.<br /><br />For this reason, a film like Out 1 (runtime: 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile, and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find.<br /><br />Originally devised as a TV series by maverick Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Rivette, it raised little interest from the French networks, and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (Peter Watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo- documentary The War Game, although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). Shown a couple of times in 1971, Out 1 has re-emerged at a handful of Rivette retrospectives over the last two decades, and many who have seen it, including esteemed US critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time.<br /><br />Is it? Well, yes, if you like Rivette. That alone is a big 'if', as Jacques Rivette has never been a commercially successful director. Only two of his films were hits (Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and La Belle Noiseuse (1991), both superb), and many remain difficult to find on DVD today (Out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). Nevertheless, he is greatly respected within the film community, and with good reason - his playfully surreal narratives, sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema's most unique and satisfying film-makers.<br /><br />Out 1 deals with a theme that re-occurs throughout Rivette's work: the nature of acting, particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. His fascination with acting make Rivette's films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries, as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. Out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives, gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops: two consisting of acting troupes, each trying to devise post-modern theatrical adaptations of Aeschylus plays; the other two individual petty thieves (played by Nouvelle Vague icons Jean-Pierre Léaud and Juliet Berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money; and an overarching plot involving a mysterious Balzac-inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as 'the thirteen'.<br /><br />As with any Rivette film featuring a 'conspiracy' narrative, the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. As the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down, the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post-1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. For a film made in 1971, these were remarkably prescient themes; another French director in Jean Eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece The Mother and the Whore. But this is not the limit of Out 1's scope. <br /><br />Comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief, abstract black-and-white still montage of the events of the previous chapter), Out 1 is no less watchable than any quality TV series, and may even be better experienced on a one-episode- at-a-time basis. This is not to say that it doesn't remain challenging even when viewed in segments. Like most Rivette films, it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot, of sorts, and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors' heavily abstracted 'exercises') seem interminably long. These scenes are important, however, not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film, but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. Paradoxically, long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience, and this understanding of pacing has led Rivette, along with more modern directors like Michael Haneke and Béla Tarr, to create films with less commercial running-times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled.<br /><br />In a film that is in many ways about acting, the acting is fantastic. Many famous Nouvelle Vague faces appear, including the aforementioned Léaud and Berto, the outstanding Michel Lonsdale and Rivette regular Bulle Ogier. Even another legendary director in Eric Rohmer has a great cameo as a Balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. The people and architecture of Paris c. 1971, though, seem to have an equally significant role - the city landscapes, crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze Out 1 in time, a document of a place at a point in history.<br /><br />After a little more than 720 minutes, the film ends on an impossibly brief, enigmatic note; yet, the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities, intricacy and spontaneity, that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning, or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. For those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer, Out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. For film-makers, film critics and artists of all disciplines, this is something to be cherished. | positive |
It must have been several years after it was released, so don't know why it was at the movies. But as a kid I enjoyed it. I just found a VHS tape of Superman and the Mole Men at the flea market and decided to watch it again (it's been a lot of years). I wasn't expecting much, now knowing how the B movies were made at that time. But I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie very watchable and the acting by all outstanding. Usual acting in these type movies leaves a lot to be desired. Surprisingly, the writing wasn't bad either. Forget the fact that Superman went from sequence to sequence and could have kicked all their butts in the beginning, because then the story would have ended, right?! OK, the mole men costumes were hokey and not very scary (they didn't even scare me as a kid). However, making allowances for the probable low budget for background and costumes, it was a job well done by all. I recognized the sheriff right away as The Old Ranger from Death Valley Days and plenty of supporting roles in TV westerns. J. Farrell MacDonald played old Pop and was always a great supporting actor in more movies than I can count. Walter Reed and Jeff Corey were familiar faces as well from other movies. Did you recognize the old doctor as the captain of the ship that went to get King Kong? Did you recognize the little girl rolling the ball to the mole men as Lisbeth Searcy in Old Yeller? Some of the mole men were famous too. Jerry Maren has played Mayor McCheese for McDonalds, Little Oscar Mayer, was the Munchkin that handed Dorothy the lollipop, was on a Seifeld episode and a wealth of other work. Billy Curtis played an unforgettable part with Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, was one of the friends met by the star in Incredible Shrinking Man, he had a part in a movie I just luckily grabbed at a flea market titled My Gal Sal with Rita Hayworth, Wizard of Oz and plenty of other parts - great actor. John Brambury was also a Munchkin. Phillis Coates, who played Lois Lane in this movie, was without question wonderful in the part and George Reeves as Superman/Clark Kent WAS Superman. He did a great job of playing the strong man. Bottom line to all I've said is that this movie is worth watching because of the cast and writing in dealing with a pretty flimsy idea for a movie. But it was the 50's and anything was possible from intruders from outer space to mole men from inner space. It is definitely worth seeing, there isn't a bad actor in the group. Whomever put the cast together was very, very fortunate to get so many gifted actors into a B type film. Some already had a wealth of experience and some were about to obtain a wealth of experience - but all were gifted. So if you get a chance to see the film, forget the dopey costumes and just enjoy the excitement and acting. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, just a good, old fashioned movie to enjoy! | positive |
This is the worst movie I've ever seen, and it takes the price of the rotten movie of 2007 (which is made by me), anyway this movie misses every single ingredients of a good movie, I mean come on the actors had a bad performance, the story is just crap. I'm really, really disappointed they could have done better stuff, than this piece of junk. I've just wasted my time and my money on this movie. I wish that the production company could give back my money. Anyhow I'd high expectations on this movie, and I've got disappointed. I don't recommend anybody to watch this. so if u wanna waste ur money on something do it on some thing else than this piece of junk. | negative |
Rachel Griffiths writes and directs this award winning short film. A heartwarming story about coping with grief and cherishing the memory of those we've loved and lost. Although, only 15 minutes long, Griffiths manages to capture so much emotion and truth onto film in the short space of time. Bud Tingwell gives a touching performance as Will, a widower struggling to cope with his wife's death. Will is confronted by the harsh reality of loneliness and helplessness as he proceeds to take care of Ruth's pet cow, Tulip. The film displays the grief and responsibility one feels for those they have loved and lost. Good cinematography, great direction, and superbly acted. It will bring tears to all those who have lost a loved one, and survived. | positive |
This is a cult film for many reasons. First because of the phenomenal success as a musical both in Broadway and London, then as a musical film. The film is close to the play and some of the provocation of the play is no longer provocative twelve years later. The discourse against the Vietnam war is no longer a protest song against the war itself, but a strong song demonstrating how the young people of these late 60s managed to bring the political establishment down. Milos Forman play with some situations at the end of the 70s like the narrow minded justice, the self-centered umbilical righteousness of the rich or of the little ones who have just one rank of power more than the powerless. He also heavily plays with the racial element and the sexual ambiguity he builds all the time. The film remains pleasant and thoughtful. And of course it is a tremendous thrill to remember these years when we have had the privilege, and that was not a chance, to live them. November 11, 1969, Nixon ordering mass celebration for the 1918 armistice, which became the order for teachers at all levels to take their students to the celebration and the march, supporting thus the invasion of Cambodia that was in full swing. And some dare give lessons in democracy to foreign countries. I also remember the long campaign for the impeachment of Nixon in 1973-1974 that will eventually lead to his resignation and the swearing in of Gerald Ford, the first Vice President, and eventually President, of the US who had not been elected, since he was appointed Vice President by the Senate after Spiro Agnew had to resign to face trial, conviction and sentence for embezzlement. Of course that makes us think of today when in 2000 a president of the US was not elected by the people but by the Supreme Court, or of a war that was rejected by millions world wide from the very start, and even before the start, and was started against the better judgment of the United Nations and of three permanent members of the Security Council. And some speak of a new world order based on the respect of others. Modern Western man seems to have some problems understanding that the world is changing and has already widely and wisely changed. Modern Western man seems to be kind of out of sync and to need special evening classes to learn that democracy wants the majority in the world to be the majority, and the West is far from that majority, and that if the Soviet block had been able to understand that market economy is not capitalism but that market economy can be either socialist or capitalist the Berlin Wall would have fallen, but the other way round, and that China has learned that lesson marvelously well and is at the foot of the wall they have to climb over to learn that their socialist market economy has to lead to political democracy, but they will, just like Vietnam was able to reconstruct itself after thirty years of vicious war aggression and damage. In other words, Hair is a perfect food for thought.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines | positive |
An offensively over-the-top action adventure,FIRST BLOOD PART II seemed to catch the mood of the US at the time of it's release in the mid-80's,with right-wing Reaganism and virulent anti-red feelings still not finished yet,though the emergence of a certain Mikhail Gorbachev in the heart of the 'Evil Empire' in Moscow would soon render these types of films redundant;even Reagan himself eventually admitted this truism.<br /><br />In that sense,we can be most grateful to 'Gorby',not for his disarmament treaties with the US,nor his policies of 'glasnost',or even his support of democracy being restored to the Eastern European countries in the former Soviet Union's backyard.No,it's the final diminution of foolish,jingoistic,bloated cold-war adventures like this.The first RAMBO film was hardly perfect,though at least was a mildly literate and adequate action thriller with a not too bad storyline.In this sequel,any sense of even the remotest conviction is instantly jettisoned for silly,senseless plotting and incident in which Rambo single-handedly takes on scores of brainlessly stereotyped Vietnamese and Russian troops to rescue American POW's ten years after the conflict ended,with the Americans on the losing side.<br /><br />Perhaps the reason why the film was a huge box-office success was to let many Americans wallow in fantasy;they may have lost the war,but there was still unfinished business at hand,and ludicrous comic-strip heroics with a robot-like hero killing virtually every red on sight,with as much hardware as possible,fulfilled such whimsically far-fetched ideals.<br /><br />This could have been entertaining on a SUPERMAN/SPIDERMAN level,but sadly everything is played absolutely straight.But that is not to say that there is no humour in the film;sadly it is virtually all of the unintentional kind.The action scenes,though technically adequate,never once carry the slightest bit of conviction or persuasiveness,because they are always placed in the most spectacularly unbelievable of contexts;namely,our hero Rambo is always unscathed (aside from a few cuts and bruises here and there) despite the tons of explosives,grenades,gunshots,etc.going around him.<br /><br />In between the mayhem,what there is of a script consists of the dullest clichés and banalities.Stallone,who co-wrote the script with James Cameron (a long way from the exciting TERMINATOR made the previous year),deliberately seems to have given the Rambo character as little to say in understandable English,and merely comes out with moronic grunts,almost as though he has invented his own brand of patois only understandable to himself.Maybe his colleague Cameron was thinking of The Terminator again with so little communication involved for the lead character! In this sense Rambo seems even less of a human than the Terminator did! The rest of the cast do little better with good actors like Charles Napier and Richard Crenna doing their admirable best with the hackneyed dialogue they are given,and Steven Berkoff hamming it up outrageously yet again with another of his Russian KGB/Red Army villain roles.Berkoff's overplaying is mildly enjoyable but not remotely menacing.How come that Sly managed to survive Berkoff's electric shock torture to kill yet more of those Red Commie scumbags? Well,credibility is never this film's strong point.It is a work of fantasy comparable with THE WIZARD OF OZ.At least that WAS meant to be a fantasy,and an immortal classic it turned out to be.This is only a classic of the most dismal,and indeed offensive,kind.And as for Sly's climactic speech...,rather hypocritical after slaughtering all those people,eh? By the way,in the same year,he also made ROCKY IV..........<br /><br />RATING:3 out of 10. | negative |
This one was marred by potentially great matches being cut very short.<br /><br />The opening match was a waste of the Legion of Doom, but I guess the only way they could have been eliminated by Demolition was a double-DQ. Otherwise, Mr. Perfect would have had to put in overtime. Kerry von Erich, the I-C champ, was wasted here. And this was the third ppv in a row where Perfect jobbed. Remember, before that he never lost a match.<br /><br />The second match was very good, possibly the best of the night. Ted DiBiase and the Undertaker were excellent, while the Jim Neidhart had one of his WWF highlights, pinning the Honky Tonk Man. Koko B. Ware continued his tradition of being the first to put over a new heel (remember the Big Bossman and Yokozuna?). This was a foreshadowing of Bret Hart's singles career, as he came back from two-on-one and almost survived the match. He and DiBiase put on a wrestling clinic, making us forget that the point of the match was DiBiase's boring feud with Dusty Rhodes.<br /><br />Even though the Visionaries were the first team to have all of its members survive (and only the second since '87 to have four survivors), this match was not a squash. This was the longest match of the night, and Jake did a repeat of his '88 performance when he was left alone against four men and dominated. I think he could have actually pulled off an upset. These days, the match would have ended the other way around.<br /><br />One of the shortest SS matches ever was also one of its most surprising. Possibly the most underrated wrestler ever, Tito Santana was the inspirational wrestler of the night, putting on war paint and pinning Boris Zukhov, Tanaka, and even the Warlord in the final survival match. It was so strange to see him put over so overwhelmingly, then go right back to his mediocre career. Sgt. Slaughter also did well, getting rid of Volkoff and the Bushwhackers, but that just wasn't a surprise. Tito was.<br /><br />I think the only point of the survival match was to have Hogan and the Warrior win together at the end.<br /><br />This show was boring and the matches were too short. The Undertaker's debut was cool, but Tito Santana is the reason I will remember this one. | negative |
I first saw the opening of Otto Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" on TV, probably some time in the early 80s, and my younger self found it a bit slow, despite the timeless music. I turned it off<br /><br />Last night, an extremely rare, cobbled together print screened at the L.A. Cinematheque and it was a bit of a revelation. The performances are strong and memorable. Dorothy Dandridge brings a great deal of vulnerability, strength and subtle (at least by today's standards) eroticism to her part. Sidney Poitier is said to be uncomfortable with the movie, but his performance is terrific, as is Pearl Bailey. Even better are Sammy Davis as the amoral, cat-like Sportin' Life and Brock Peters as the villanious bully Crown.<br /><br />Still, I'm no fan of Preminger's earlier, leaden -- and far easier to see -- "Carmen Jones." Porgy and Bess" is far superior to that less controversial film -- though that may have to do with the fact that the source material is also far superior.<br /><br />As seen last night, this is a sturdy but far from perfect work. Not all of the moments quite come alive, and there is some awkwardness in the way the film mixes the overtly stylized Catfish Row set (beautifully done by Oliver Smith) with actual locations. Also, even to my rather untrained ear, some brief portions of the score seem unduly popularized.<br /><br />Moreover, while this doesn't detract from the achievement of the filmmakers -- Preminger's decision to film almost entirely in wide shots, with no close-ups and occasional medium shots, no doubt rendered it unwatchable on TV "panned and scanned" and may doom it even on widescreen DVDs if it gets the restoration it deserves. On smaller screens, we won't be able to make out the many details that are crucial to the way Preminger staged the film.<br /><br />Also, the mix heard last night was odd. Many of the vocals, particularly on the opening "Summertime" seemed unduly soft and were overwhelmed by the instrumental music. Perhaps this can be fixed in a restoration.<br /><br />There is the issue of the film's racial politics. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, at least in a contemporary context. At the time when so few films depicted strong African-American characters, this may have seemed an unfortunate choice for a big-budget Hollywood film. And, while there may not be much "empowering" here, these are recognizable human beings that are not racial stereotypes. These are operatic characters who make poor choices because that's what tragic characters do. That alone made it a giant stride forward at the time.<br /><br />In a modern context where strong and heroic African-American characters are less rare (though still not common enough), these characters seem nothing more nor less than human. They truly could be poor and undereducated people of any ethnic background.<br /><br />Thorny politics aside, the original work is undoubtedly one of the truly great achievements of American music and (secondarily) theater. Poitier, Davis, Dandridge, Peters and, yes Pearl Bailey, were all amazing performers who we'll never see the likes of again. This less than perfect but still solid film clearly deserves to be seen and treasured. | positive |
I am very sorry to say this but "Thunderbirds" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a "spoof" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film. | negative |
Excellent introspective / interpersonal piece that really had some teeth to it without feeling hopeless or worse, manipulative & artificially gratifying. Might be a good double feature with American Beauty as well. Best performance to date that I've seen from Anita Mui, and every actor in this seems like a powerhouse. Hats off to Ann Hui for the direction and Ivy Ho for the brilliant script. Seriously one of the best dramas I've seen in a while, especially if you have a taste for classical literature ALA poetry. Again, excellent. | positive |
the first Scanners may not have been a great movie,but at least it was original.there is no such novelty to this one.the acting is worse,in my opinion,and the story is slower and nothing special.i also didn't like the dialogue.and the special effects are no better than in the original.this is movie is inferior to the first one in all ways.the only thing different about it,is that it is loud and chaotic at times.but that doesn't make a good movie.if they had done something better with the story and made it interesting,this could have been a decent movie.i actually couldn't get through it all without fast forwarding through it.to me,this is a forgettable movie,and not much more.despite all that,there are worse movies.being in a generous mood,i'll give Scanners 2 a 4/10. | negative |
OH WOW. I saw this film at the Irish International Film Fleadh in Manhattan on 12 March 2000. Both stars were in attendance and were available for questions afterward. WHAT A GORGEOUS FILM! Although set in Ireland amid Catholic/Protestant antagonism, the story could have happened anywhere between any two groups of people who hate each other. The horror of how quickly people can get carried away when they are given a chance to vent their hate and anger was woven beautifully with a moving love story drizzled with humor and fun. If this one does not get picked up in the USA, it would truly be most unfortunate.<br /><br />As for the stars and supporting players...FIRST RATE. They call Orla Brady the Irish Meryl Streep, I heard. It is my opinion that she is BETTER than Meryl Streep. They should be calling Meryl the American Orla Brady! And, Liam Cunningham's steady and powerful portrayal of a simple and private man sucked into a political war was brilliant.<br /><br />SEE THIS MOVIE. | positive |
STORY Chinese Tall Story tells the story of righteous monk Tripitaka, who, along with his guardians Monkey, Sandy and Pigsy make their journey west on a quest to recover ancient Sutras, finally, they reach the final leg of their journey in Shache City But all is not as it seems when the city is attacked by evil tree demons. Monkey tries his best to battle them but is overwhelmed, knowing his master is in grave danger, he uses his trusty golden staff to thrust Tripitaka to safety.<br /><br />The monk ends up being knocked out when he land and when he wakes up he finds himself in the presence of a young lizard imp named Maiyan who takes quite a shine to our young hero, after many verbal misunderstandings Maiyan becomes convinced Tripitaka loves her, so when the monk decides he must rescue Monkey and the others, she insists on accompanying him. So the mismatched pair begins their adventure together.<br /><br />REVIEW Okay, so, it's another Journey To The West movie, which isn't a bad thing to me since I love the story and the characters associated with it, so I was a little excited to get my hands on the DVD. So I think I'll start off my review with the story, which is all over the place, at first it was your standard fantasy film, then it became a ridiculous comedy then suddenly became full blown sci-fi, if the director Jeff Lau was experimenting with mixing genres then he did a pretty scatological job with this movie. I think it's a pretty unique approach by having the story centre on a character other then the infamous Monkey King, especially taking a character as pacifistic as Tripitaka and then putting him into what is at it's core a love story. So overall, I liked it.<br /><br />The acting is for the most part solid, with leads Nicholas Tse and Charlene Choi putting in some really good performances, though Ah Char does spend most of her screen time behind some rather ugly make up. The supporting cast is nicely put together, it includes all the usual EEG main stays so Boy'Z and Isabella Leong make appearances, one actor I'd like to mention is Wilson Chen, who plays the Monkey King, he did a good job with the limited material he seemed to have been given, he played a version of the Monkey King who was subdued yet arrogant, I had a feeling he'd be retreading Twins Effect II territory but fortunately that's not the case here. I hope he gets to do a follow up to this with himself in the central role, since the film does leave itself open for a sequel.<br /><br />Okay, so let's get down to the directing, which again is kinda all over the place, Lau gives too much time to the Stephen Chow-esquire nonsense comedy, which includes a scene where Tripitaka in order to toughen himself up, dresses up as Spider-Man, which I assume lead to many a head scratching moment since the film is meant to be set in Ancient China. He does create some really nice and tender moments between the two leads and does delve into sappy territory but this reviewer does enjoy a bit of sap on occasion so it didn't bother me in the slightest.<br /><br />Right, now onto the CGI, which for the most part is quite bearable, there are a lot of moments which probably belong on a PS2 like many other reviews have stated but there are some cool moments particularly the scene in which Monkey battles a flying minion. A lot of the CG gags are provided in the form of the golden staff which turns into a range of different things, ranging from a giant fly swatter to a mech suit straight out of The Matrix Revolutions. So yeah, it sounds crazy but I guess you'd have to see it to believe it.<br /><br />Right, so in closing A Chinese Tall Story isn't a movie without it's flaws but it keeps itself together long enough to be able to entertain and generally be a overall enjoyable movie. If all of the above doesn't swing you to see it how about I put it this way, it's much better then Twins Effect II. | positive |
I still can't believe how bad this movie was. If I wasn't a massochist I don't know if I would have survived the viewing. It looks like it cost about $1000 to make, but it wasn't the money that brought them down. The acting was horrid - not just bad, 3rd graders could have read the lines better. Second, the only other reason to watch this kind of movie is the skin, and that is sorely lacking in this flick. We don't even get to see the more attractive chicas in the buff. <br /><br />Ahh well, better luck next time eh? | negative |
Yet another foreign war movie that puts hollywood to shame. Real in the same proportions that hollywood productions such as harts war and windtalkers are unreal. A moving story backed up by strong acting and great film making. | positive |
David Zucker has directed one of the most enjoyable comedies of the year with this goofy farce. Yes, it's a matter of acquired taste and depends upon a wealth of sophomoric gags, but it is consistently funny throughout unlike some recent comedic efforts. The film is loaded with all kinds of jokes ranging from the blatantly obvious to the more subtler kind that you must pay attention to everything in the frame or you'll likely miss them. Like his previous efforts which include "Airplane!", "Top Secret!", and "Naked Gun," the humor flies out almost every second. There are so many moments that work, it's easy to overlook the few that fall flat. What sets this movie apart from other pale imitations in the spoof genre is that it has an actual story line. While others have depended upon making fun of too many famous scenes in almost random movies (take "Mafia!", please), this film tells a new story with likable characters. It touches upon sports films in general as well as satirizing the real sports industry instead of lampooning any specific movies. Even for people who don't care for "South Park," its creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, make a good pair of leading actors with natural chemistry. The film also makes extremely effective use of cameos of athletes, sports announcers, and other celebrities, especially a hilarious bit with Robert Stack of "Unsolved Mysteries." By the way, stay through the credits for a final joke with Bob Costas and Al Michaels. All in all, Zucker has achieved, in words perhaps applying to the movie's mix of sports, a home dunk. | positive |
For many years I thought I was the only person on the planet who had seen TEMPEST, and I am so glad to learn that I am not the only person who discovered this sleeper somewhere in their movie-going travails. Loosely based on the Shakesperean play, TEMPEST follows an architect (the late John Cassavettes, in one of his best performances), bored with his work and his crumbling marriage (to real life spouse Gene Rowlads), who decides to chuck it all, say the hell with the rat race and go live on an island with his daughter (Molly Ringwald, in her film debut), and new girlfriend Aretha (a luminous Susan Sarandon). Even though Paul Mazursky is credited as director, Cassavettes hand is all over this film...the long scenes filmed without cutting, the improvisatory feel to the dialogue..., the self-indulgent storytelling style, this is definitely his show from beginning to end, and if you're not a fan of his work, the film will seem laboriously long and dull but if you are a fan, there are rewards to be had. Cassavettes is surrounded by a first rate cast...his scenes with Rowlands crackle with intensity and his surprising chemistry with Sarandon is a stark contrast to his scenes with Rowlands. Ringwald shines in her film debut and there is a scene-stealing performance by the late Raul Julia as Kalibanos, Cassavettes' manservant on the island. Julia stops the show in one scene dancing with a flock of sheep accompanied by Liza Minnelli singing "New York, New York". This film is sad and tragic and funny and intense. Yes, it's a little long and disjointed and it works a little too hard at being different (there's even a curtain call at the end of the film), but it never fails to hold the attention of those who like something a little different in their filmgoing. | positive |
Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as "Darling"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a "woman's weeper" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. ** from **** | negative |
It's so rare to find a literary work adequately translated to the screen that I may have rated this film higher than it deserves, but not by much. As a long-time student of Vonnegut's works, I have no hesitation in recommending the film to his readers, at least to those that love him as I do. The casting is inspired: Nolte is understated in triumph, bewildered in defeat, decisive in judgment. Sheryl Lee is luscious throughout, but her handling of the treacherous Resi and her tragic crescendo almost makes you forget her beauty. Alan Arkin delivers a totally lovable, but equally treacherous, Soviet spy.<br /><br />Do not feel you have to read Mother Night to appreciate the film; though, if you haven't read Mother Night, you will probably want to after viewing the film.<br /><br />Notice the shifts from color to black-and-white and back again, and don't miss the final symbolism of Campbell's noose. Watch, also, for Kurt Vonnegut's cameo near the end of the film.<br /><br />Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" will never sound the same (I write in mid-December, when the song is getting heavy radio play, and it's driving me nuts). | positive |
Woody Allen's second movie set in London. Tha Tarot Card murderer is killing prostitutes in London. Aspiring journalist Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson) gets a tip that he may be Lord Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). She starts to romance him but quickly falls in love. She's helped by stage magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen) who doesn't like what he sees.<br /><br />I like this better than the over rated "Match Point" from last year. It was shorter and moved much more quickly. The plot is old but I was entertained and it kept me guessing till the very end. It's not really a comedy but a mystery with a few very good comedic lines (all from Allen of course). It's not one of Allen's best but it's far better than his worst.<br /><br />The acting is, for the most part, very good. Allen is bad but he's played this character a million times before and it's gotten tiresome. But Johansson and Jackman are just great--they look fantastic and give two very appealing believable performances. Also Allen (surprisingly) works on their sex appeal--there is a sequence where they're both in the their bathing suits to show off their nice bodies. The only real debit is that Allen still seems unsure on how to shot London. He's not as off as he was on "Match Point" though--maybe he'll just get better as he goes along.<br /><br />Worth seeing. I give it an 8. | positive |
<br /><br />The play has been heavily edited and the order of the scenes has been completely mixed up. The acting is appalling (especially by Helena Bonham Carter) and the cinematography poor.<br /><br />The result is a slow, confused, boring film which will put those new to Shakespeare off Shakespeare instantly!<br /><br />If you can't see a stage play then at least see the Olivier version (1948) instead of this drivel! | negative |
Rarely seen a movie that deviates so much from the original premise and still remains (more or less) acceptable
Bloodline is a rather short (which is a good thing in this case) escapade that focuses on the mysterious Hellraiser box. Who wanted it to be made and how it cast a spell on the entire bloodline of the man who eventually created it. We're introduced to 3 generations of the Merchant family (all played by Bruce Ramsey); one in 18th century Paris, one in the present day and the last one in a future galaxy far, far away
Opinions on this storyline may differ a lot
either you think it's very idiotic and far-fetched or
original and dared. The initial atmosphere and setting by Clive Barker has completely vanished, yet the morbid surrounding remains and several sequences are still very creepy and unsettling. Hellraiser: Bloodline contains quite a lot of exquisite slaughtering and the charismatic presence of Pinhead (Doug Bradley) still is an extra horror-value. Pinhead accompanied by a pet puppy this time still knows how to kill
too bad he talks too much and his vicious speeches tend to get boring quickly. Best aspects in this production are the newly introduced `cenobites' and the occult Parisian portrait. Giant turn-offs are the weak script, the absence of the typical macabre humor and the lack of references to Barker's initial masterpiece. <br /><br />Although not highly memorable itself, Bloodline stands as the last watchable Hellraiser film. After this sequel, the series went downhill completely. So far, 2 more sequels came out (2 more are still in process) and neither of those is worth seeing. Hellraiser:Bloodline suffered from a lot of production difficulties and the director eventually preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee
Meaning he doesn't want to be remembered as the director of it. Who could blame him? | negative |
I viewed this movie at the Magnolia Theater in Dallas a couple of days ago. Punk! Everyone and everything involved in the movie added to the punkiness of it. The music, well of course. But the movie itself captured the whole punk genre. Even a grandmother and school teacher (me) can appreciate artists who are able to turn their ideas into reality (well, reality, film-wise). This movie takes a handful of ticked-off young film makers and clearly and cleverly shows the "why" of their angst over not being given the green light on finishing the Waldo film. The (relatively) happy girl gave good comic relief, a nice respite from the continual (but understandable) ragging on the dude who left them in a lurch. Gotta love Stu, though. And be sure to watch/read the credits - they're the icing on the cake! | positive |
I love Westerns. I could watch them all day. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is my all time favorite. I watched "Silverado" for probably the 8th time just the other day because it was being featured on CMT. However, this movie, Shiloh Falls is without a doubt the worst Western I have ever watched. The acting was terrible all around. They explain nothing at the end of the mysterious compass looking thing. The only good part I can think of is the good-looking cantina girl. The very noticeable long pauses between the dialog seemed intentional just to make up time to make the movie of acceptable length. This movie wasn't even worth the new rental fee I paid at our local movie rental store. I felt like I was robbed and deserving of a rental refund if there was such a thing. Only reason I finished it was because I hate to not see a movie through to the end. I turned it off half way through because it was so bad. To the director, please do a better job if you decide to make another. This is the kind of movie that has the potential to turn people off to Westerns. | negative |
I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and like robert carlyle.<br /><br />Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster special effects,in saying that though the special effects were decent enough,and the acting was fine also.<br /><br />I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,at almost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.<br /><br />Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to end though,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enough storyline! | positive |
It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.<br /><br />Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.<br /><br />Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.<br /><br />But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.<br /><br />That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.<br /><br />The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.<br /><br />Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.<br /><br />Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.<br /><br />Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit. | negative |
This movie is an extremely funny and heartwarming story about an orphanage that is in financial trouble. When the director goes on vacation, his dad agrees to step in temporarily to run things.<br /><br />This is positively the best work that Leslie Nielson has ever done. His idea in the film to rent out children is immediately innovative, and his sales techniques will definitely make you laugh.<br /><br />The little girl in this movie is so sweet and charming that I know I will never forget her. Just make sure that you don't miss the first five minutes of the movie! <br /><br />Such great family entertainment is so rare these days. If you go for slightly corny pictures with happy endings,go for this one! I could watch this over and over, and I often do! My only complaint about this movie is that it is so difficult to find a copy. | positive |
Having never seen the original Dirty Harry, I judged this movie on a clean slate. And I must say, I quite enjoyed it. Sure, some of the acting by Sondre Locke made me a little squeemish - but hey, it was the 80's. But even if you can't get past her (and I almost couldn't) or her revenge killings (which seemed a little.. overdone ;P), it's worth it just for Dirty Harry. Or at the very least, the bull dog he affectionately names 'MeatHead' :P<br /><br />7/10. | positive |
I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:<br /><br />1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.<br /><br />2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays. <br /><br />3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.<br /><br />4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.<br /><br />Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's "take myself too seriously" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.<br /><br />Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly. | negative |
Fear of a black hat is a hilarious spoof of Hip-Hop culture. It is just as funny as This Is Spinal Tap, if not funnier. The actors are incredible and the documentary style is superb. Mark Christopher Lawrence is a tremendous talent that should be starring in a lot more films. This film is a true cult classic! | positive |
Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.<br /><br />This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).<br /><br />Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off. | negative |
I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.<br /><br />Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. <br /><br />I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. <br /><br />The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. <br /><br />I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud. | negative |
This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, "Hollywood North" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, "Flight to Bogota" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, "Hollywood North" is a great place to start. | positive |
I suggest that in the future, any movie made by the Sci fi channel and subsequently released on DVD must say that it was indeed made by such channel as I would not buy this stuff if I had known this fact. Not that this was all bad, but when you have fade out for commercials in the middle of your movie it just ruins the flow of said film. This in turn makes the movie rather more boring. This one had an interesting story however the light hearted and extremely generic soundtrack distracted one from the film as did most of the bad actors with the exception of Dien and Linda Carter. The story, vampires are on the attack in South America, of course the rules of vampire movies are not in effect, which the usually aren't in any of the movies about vampires I have seen lately with the exception of the Blade trilogy. Group of soldiers are sent down to battle said squad another team is sent to meet up with the team and to track down the ex wife of one of the soldiers...why she is not just his wife, who knows as this part of the plot really goes no where. Still we get an interesting boat ride some nice jungle scenery and a lot of blood. This fact, however, does not save the film from being way to jerky in its presentation and really dull seeming at times. I don't know maybe it was the cgi blood, and smoke and whatever they have to make cgi now even though old effects look better and don't cost that much more. I mean cheap Italian zombie movies could do a bullet hole without cgi why can't we now? | negative |
This film SUCKS!! It looks like they just chose to place scenes together at random. Good gore, but little plot. Sally whines and complains about everything till she becomes a demon. I figured that she had PMS. It sure seemed that way. The dubbing in this film is horrible. One scene the woman was talking and a few seconds before we hear any audio. I knew at that moment my suspicions were correct that it was not from the US. I tried to follow along but got lost about half way through it and found it very hard to believe, even for a horror film. Some good characters, but not many. Not worth wasting one's time. | negative |
First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend<br /><br />-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three<br /><br />overall D-Wars is a pile | negative |
I pride myself in being able to sit through everything. I think "if I've paid the rental fee, then I'm going to at least watch it". I have found the exception to this rule- The Planet. I don't know what the exchange rate is, but reading through the other comments I can only guess that £8000 must be around $150. I'll date myself but this movie reminds me of the old Steve Reeves movies of the 50's. He was a bodybuilder turned actor. He was in these really awful Italian, dubbed movies that starred Reeves as Hercules or some other muscle bound hero. As a kid watching them you couldn't quite articulate why these movies stunk- you just knew they did. Mike Mitchell IS the new Steve Reeves. That's it.. that's what this really was- a new telling of an old Italian "Spaghetti Sand and Sandals" movie. And, I kid you not- where was Reeves born? Glasgow, Montana. This movie isn't so bad that it's kind of fun to watch- it's just plain bad. | negative |
Gene Kelly came up with some really grand ideas for musicals while with MGM. Here he's at the top of his creative powers working with the Arthur Freed musical unit. Hard to believe when you watch An American In Paris that the players never left the back lot at MGM. <br /><br />The magic of An American In Paris is due to the creative editing under the direction of Vincent Minnelli and the sets that MGM designed blended with some background establishing shots. The idea of the film originated with Kelly who wanted simply to do a film with a lengthy ballet sequence involving George Gershwin's tone poem An American in Paris. It sounded good to Arthur Freed who approached Ira Gershwin who said fine with him as long as they used other Gershwin material.<br /><br />Gershwin got the kind of deal for Gershwin music that Irving Berlin normally got. Not one note of non-Gershwin music is heard in An American in Paris. Listen to some of the background music and you will hear things like Embraceable You and But Not For Me which are not real musical numbers.<br /><br />Another guy who was a fair hand at writing lyrics, Alan Jay Lerner, wrote the story which admittedly is a thin one. All about an ex-GI played by Gene Kelly who after World War II never left France, just settled into an apartment on the Left Bank and proceeded to become a starving artist. He lives with eccentric composer Oscar Levant and does that ever sound like a redundancy. <br /><br />Two women are interested in him. Another expatriate American played by Nina Foch who wants to sponsor him as a painter if he'll reciprocate in other matters. But Kelly falls for a shop girl played by Leslie Caron in her film debut. Caron also has musical comedy star Georges Guetary interested in here.<br /><br />Of course the plot is just an excuse to sing and dance to the music of George Gershwin. An American in Paris happens to be the first film I ever saw as an in flight movie on the first airplane trip I ever took. I still remember flying back from Phoenix Arizona to Kennedy Airport seeing Gene Kelly doing I've Got Rhythm. My favorite number in the film however is Tra-La-La which Kelly sings and dances all over the apartment with Oscar Levant playing the piano. At one point Kelly dances on top of the baby grand piano.<br /><br />In a book about Arthur Freed, I read a quote where he said in the American in Paris ballet sequence was to be done with the background of the French impressionists which he felt the public would take to rather than a realistic setting on the streets or back lot. So it happened that way. Kelly had done lengthy ballet sequences in Words and Music, The Pirate, and On the Town. But this one topped them all. Still does in my opinion and that includes some of Gene Kelly's later films.<br /><br />In a surprise upset at the Oscars, An American In Paris was chosen best picture for 1951, beating out the heavily favored A Streetcar Named Desire. I guess fantasy trumped realism that year. Big budgets also have an upper hand in these things as well.<br /><br />Still An American in Paris is one of the best movie musicals ever done and since the studios no longer have all that creative talent under one roof, something less likely to be repeated. | positive |
Ice Age is not only Animation of the Year (in my eyes) it's also the best animated feature I've ever seen!<br /><br />The teaser excited me last year and I've spent many happy hours on the website. Scrat is cool! And so are the rest of the Sub Zero Heroes.<br /><br />The animation is superb. Your heart really goes out to the characters in this film. They have good lines of dialogue and are well developed. It's hard to say which one really steals the picture.<br /><br />I experienced their journey with laughter, tears and amazement. Nothing was forced or over done. The emotion was genuine, especially in the dramatic second half. The last film to affect me this deeply was Anastasia in 1997, also a Fox Production. And before that it was The Land Before Time 1988. All possess real charm and seek to entertain all the audience, not just the cynics. 10/10 <br /><br /> | positive |
I wouldn't have given this film such a low rating (2) if its average hadn't been ridiculously high, but someone had to bring it down to something more reasonable. I sat through most of this film, watching scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. No dialog, just tagging and shoplifting. Finally the two taggers kissed. Something happened. But then back to tagging and shoplifting. I left the screening. I recommend this film only to those who are impressed by pretentious film-making. I disliked the directors previous film (a self-righteous defense of man-boy love) but at least that film had a story, interesting characters, dialog. The Graffiti Artist had only scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. I want more from a film than this. | negative |
I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others "oh my God whats this".There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this. | negative |
Alain Resnais films are uncanny in the way that they aren't really edited for continuity, but instead the shot seems to finish right where a memory has edited. Love unto Death is at times a quiet existential drama and a roundly creative magical realist movie, and either way treats the audience to a whole new aspect of the Eros/Thanatos relationship... or perhaps creates a new relationship, that of Agape/Thanatos.<br /><br />The beginning is like a bizarre surrealist horror movie. A woman desperately runs around the house while a man lays dying in his bed--did she kill him, or what happened? Soon that tension is dissolved as a doctor arrives and pronounces him dead, but from there a newer, stranger drama begins: the man wakes up, and after being dead the woman and man fall in love to actually quite tragic consequences. Meanwhile, their friends, who are both priests, watch on and submit their own debate into the nature of love, faith, and devotion.<br /><br />Resnais always seems to have some device to make these sorts of narratives work, and what's so amazing about his films is that those devices always work. In this case, Resnais intercuts the scenes with shots of snow falling to an arousing orchestral score, which fades off and bleeds into the subsequent shots that continue the story. Trapped in this elegiac aside periodically, the film develops a rhythm not too unlike an epic poem, and I got strange flashbacks to Dante's Divine Comedy from this one, despite the lack of direct reference within the movie. Resnais is known as a very poetic filmmaker but this extends past just the cinepoem structure to something that forces a degree of introspection in the viewer, which has the possibility to bring to surface some odd recollections. Memory-narrative, Resnais creates.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | positive |
I just got the UK 4-disc special edition of Superman 1 for about $5. The additional stuff includes the 1951 feature Superman and the Mole-Men. So I slapped it into the DVD player last night, and here are my findings.<br /><br />Some initial disappointment - I hadn't checked, and I think I had it mentally tagged as one of the Kirk Alyn serials. I'm not a huge fan of George Reeves as Superman, and I hadn't seen anything other than the odd clip of Kirk Alyn - but hey ho, never mind.<br /><br />This black and white production runs for less than an hour. It has the feel of a couple of episodes of one of Reeves' early TV series, a two-parter, put together for cinema release, although IMDb says it was filmed as a cinema release in advance of the first TV series. In any event, it's an odd choice for reasons I'll get to later. I'm of an age where I recall TV and movie productions which are limited to one or two locations and sets, so there were no major surprises here. Even so, for a low budget movie, this one is REALLY low budget.<br /><br />The story concerns the small town of Silsby - population 1,430 - which, puzzlingly, is also home to the world's deepest oil well (6 miles). The story opens with the well's foreman hurriedly taking steps to close the well down. This conflicts with the arrival of Metropolis reporters Kent and Lane to report on the well, at the behest of the oil company. As Clark is sniffing out the fact that the drill has emerged into a radioactive cavern 6 miles down, a couple of odd little guys (small in stature, big in head, black in jumpsuit, and bushy in eyebrow) emerge from the capped-off drillshaft, and start mooching round town with puzzled expressions on their faces.<br /><br />A deep breath now, here is the remaining plot of the picture. The little guys scare some kids, so Jeff Corey (playing the town's rampant xenophobe) incites some pals to kill these "creatures". Superman steps in (moderately ineffectually) and catches one of the little guys who has been shot and takes him to the local hospital. Corey's pals burn down the shack the other little fellow has hidden in and assume he is killed, but he escapes and legs it down the shaft. Corey incites a lynch mob (despite the sheriff arresting him) to hang the hospitalised Mole-Man. Superman stops them entering the hospital and takes the injured chappie to the shaft to return him to his fellows. A total of 4 Mole-Men emerge with a weapon of some sort which they fire at Jeff Corey (I call this an Aargh! gun because its sole effect seems to be to make Corey go "Aargh!") and Superman saves him. He immediately changes his ways because of amazement at Superman saving him after the way he has behaved, the Mole-men go back down the shaft. The end.<br /><br />Despite the film only being an hour long, there is an inordinate amount of creeping around, bewareing and pursuing - I have left out all the "Mole-Man 1 creeps from A to B, looking out to make sure no-one is following him" stuff. The Mole-Men are never engaged in any way whatsoever - they have no dialogue - they just turn up, get persecuted, and go back. They do look a little creepy, but they are hardly the bug-eyed monsters that the town's reaction implies.<br /><br />Reeves is quite a good Clark Kent - very much a hard-nosed reporter, much more so than Phyllis Coates' rather indifferent Lois Lane. But he is a terrible, terrible Superman. Not only does he not look the part (at least his hair is dyed black in this, which is an improvement from the rather light hair he sported in some of the TV episodes), the way he plays it is all wrong in my book. I'm sure he was told to "strike the pose" (which Superman does constantly), but someone should have told him that it should be fists on hips, not fists on ribs. And he plays Superman as a rather strict and touchy schoolteacher - he doesn't actually wag his finger in remonstration, but he may as well have done.<br /><br />And Superman does a huge amount of walking around (I say a huge amount - he isn't actually in it all that much), and a bit of running. He takes off and lands a couple of times, but isn't seen in flight at any point. Oh, some bullets bounce off him, and he uses telescopic vision as Clark, but with no accompanying visual effect. In fact, visual effects are conspicuous by their absence, and the few which are present aren't very good.<br /><br />I've tried to consider this effort by reference to the standards of the time: but even by those standards I think it's a pretty threadbare effort. Thankfully, production standards on the TV series were higher, and at least they took the trouble to come up with stories which had a bit more to them.<br /><br />Something of a disappointment - I shan't be watching it again. | negative |
Let me depart from many comments I've read here, and say that this film ranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only (the ONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzing around). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together -- as co-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia With Love. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting is mature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is in contrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalking through You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through that cartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!<br /><br />This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the sets and machines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior, as well. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo, without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. Kim Basinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once, we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Q are original, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is fun without lapsing into slapstick.<br /><br />Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas and the French Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although close inspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity, Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (which even its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will miss the gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all, owned by Eon Productions.<br /><br />Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but it captures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive. Not surprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his French love song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me, how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally would rather forget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!<br /><br />The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy made more money.) At least Connery's mature 007 didn't swing through the jungle emitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did he fight off "Indian" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon's desperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late Jack Schwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming would have appreciated.<br /><br />If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by a dwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with "Jaws", jump into bed with Grace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco, this is NOT the film for you! | positive |
People don't seem to agree with me that movies can be bad and good at the same time. The same type of people that see a movie with Carrot Top on the cover, surfing through a frickin office and continue to watch the movie with serious expectations. Is Carrot Top funny? Of course not. Was this movie anything special? Of course not. It was a dumb movie and everyone assumed so simply based on what they know about Mr. Top. Movies like this, or Kazaam, or Killer Klowns From Outer Space and pretty much any movie Pauly Shore has ever been in are not meant to be taken seriously and because of this, they really shouldn't be considered some of the worst movies ever made. You watch them either expecting a dumb movie that's hilariously bad or you are like six years old and genuinely think Carrot Top is hilarious.<br /><br />Please people if you ready know Carrot Top is retarded and you want to watch a serious movie and bother writing a serious review....don't watch this. Picking on this movie is like picking on a 5 year old for not knowing the alphabet. | negative |
Released just before the Production Code crackdown in July, 1934, Mitch Leisen's all-star Paramount musical is leeringly suggestive -some even claim misogynistic- and highly entertaining. Two murders occur on the opening night of "Earl Carroll's Vanities" (one on-stage!), but that doesn't stop the manager (Jack Oakie) from putting on a show as a lascivious police detective (Victor McLaglen) investigates. Everyone is hiding something and Gypsy Rose Lee must have seen this backstage murder mystery before she penned "The G-String Murders" as the denouement is similar (although more satisfying here). Gertrude Michael, as a vicious diva, stops the show (in more ways than one) with her exotic "Sweet Marijuana" number and Duke Ellington finishes with the truncated "Rape Of The Rhapsody". The hit song, "Cocktails For Two", came from this film. A bizarre and bawdy camp classic highly recommended! Here's Louella O. Parsons in the "Los Angeles Examiner" on May 17, 1934<br /><br />Earl Carroll's hand-picked beauties' pirouette about on the Grauman United Artists screen in a fig leaf and not much else. But September Morn herself never had a better figure than these charmers, who are made up to please the eye, especially the eye of the tired businessman. But don't for a moment think Mr. Carroll's girls, au naturelle, are the only attraction. Believe it or not, MURDER AT THE VANITIES is a musical comedy thriller, if you know what I mean -a murder mystery incorporated in a musical show. It all happens on the opening night at the time the play is in progress and a search is on for a murderer. Just by way of suspense, a cop threatens to stop the show every few minutes. Victor McLaglen is something new in cops. All the time he is trying to track down the murderer, he keeps his eye fastened on the chorus beauties. The murder mystery is good with the exception of the denouement, which is pretty flat. Probably faulty direction. Dorothy Stickney, who plays the maid, is about as melodramatic as the heroine in a ten, twenty, and thirty show. For no good reason, she rates a never-ending closeup in the big dramatic scene. The girl ensembles are good, and it's a positive relief to get away from the inevitable overhead shots. The costumes are beautiful; in fact, this is a musical that Paramount can feel is really to their credit. As for Carl Brisson -well, he would be an addition to any show. Good-looking with a delightful singing voice and an easy, assured manner, he is all his press agents claim for him. I also like Kitty Carlisle, who plays the leading lady in the show. Gertrude Michael, as the deep-eyed villianess, gives an interesting if rather fictional portrayal. Jack Oakie, as the stage manager, is the same old wisecracking Jack, but we wouldn't change him. Jessie Ralph is excellent as the seamstress. Others in the cast are Charles Middleton, Gail Patrick, Donald Meek, Barbara Fritchie, Toby Wing and Lona Andre. The screen play is by Carey Wilson and Rufus King, and the direction by Mitchell Leisen. The music is by Arthur Johnstone and the lyrics by Sam Coslow. In addition to MURDER AT THE VANITIES, there is a Mickey Mouse cartoon, a Paramount Newsreel, and a two-reeler, THE WRONG DIRECTION.<br /><br />I disagree with Lolly on the denouement, it's satisfying if over-the-top. Why would she blame the director? Was she displeased with the story's ending -or the way it was staged? And what's a "ten, twenty, or thirty show"? Note the swipe taken at Busby Berkeley and his "overhead shots". As hard as it may be to believe today, the public was tiring of Buzz' schtick by May, 1934. Mitch Leisen said, "if you are showing a stage show that's supposed to be in a theater, you should stay within the bounds of the proscenium arch, and not do a Buzz Berkeley routine with a stage set that's acres big." <br /><br />Q: Don't you think Berkeley's spectacular effects justified taking this liberty? ML: Apparently they did because they're reviving all of his pictures and none of mine, but personally I don't like it. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.