Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
"200l: A Space Odyssey" is a supremely intriguing space-travel journey with a profound look at mankind's future... It is one of the very few great films of our times... It gives us something to think, talk and argue... It wonders about our importance in the universe and ignites our imagination and curiosity... It inspires us to dig for insights...<br /><br />As a science fiction fantasy, it is one of the most original films ever made... Kubrick's camera dances to the "Blue Danube" with planets floating exuberantly through the light years... It's an experience in the poetry of motion, a rich statement to the power of cinema...<br /><br />But "2001" reveals that it's not really a science fiction film after all... It's, instead, a philosophical enigma, a magnificent meditation on man's place in the grand scheme of things, and a quest to understand ourselves by knowing all else...<br /><br />"2001" is a unique film about man's evolution told in almost subliminal terms... The people in this classic science-fiction epic hardly matter... Kubrick relates a chronology in images of thingsthe mountains, the desert, the technology, the space capsule, the computer named HAL (who is more interesting than the humans), and the time warp... The final landing scene is the very hallmark of cinematic genius...<br /><br />As a terror story, too, it is a towering achievement (not on the same scream-inducing level as Hitchcock's "Psycho"), but in an innocent and far more haunting way...The film uses invisible but powerful forces to manipulate the plot but perhaps the most overwhelming one is the picture's vision of man... In Kubrick's fantasy, the Golden Age of man was a neglected instant between a man-ape's exaltation at discovering the first weapon and a nuclear-powered spaceship floating in a graceful orbit around the Earth... Man has indeed evolved!<br /><br />As a spectacle "2001" assaults the mind, eye and ear, with stimulating images and suggestions... We are surrounded by a totally believable futuristic environment... The film is filled with brilliant sequences and extraordinary moments: The first interesting minutes in which the story of the apes is told visually, without a single line of dialog; the zero-gravity toilet with its great list of instructions; the stewardess defying gravity by walking the walls calmly upside down; the frightening moment when we realize that HAL is reading the astronauts lips; the magical alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth; the "Starchild" returning home to charm the orb...<br /><br />"2001" is filled with poetic imagery: the view of the Sun rising over the Earth; the tossing of the bone into the air in slow motion; the slow images of the giant spaceship revolving in a cosmic ballet...<br /><br />"2001" is also a work of great visual acuity... It allows us to view more than the mystery of existence and destiny implicit in every man... Its end troubles many viewers as they demand clarity where there can only be mystery... They insist upon an answer where there can only be a question... Every viewer had a different explanation of the mysterious end of Kubrick's film
But for those who can accept mysticism, the climax is deeply moving... | positive |
I saw this movie in my childhood. And after 10 years I did not remember anything about this movie but I found out it I also don't know how I was able to find out this movie. Its my life. My all times favorite movie. My words will fall short of true meaning what I have inside for this movie. I follow this movie. It's a brilliant mix of fantasy, comedy, romance, horror, erotic, scary and martial arts. The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm. It's a masterpiece of Hong Kong Cinema.<br /><br />Sinnui Yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.<br /><br />Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.<br /><br />Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.<br /><br />Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.<br /><br />In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.<br /><br />A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her. | positive |
Two little girls strike a friendship. One tries to convince the other she's a witch. The other is a pushover who bends to the would be witch's will. On and on the movie drags with the pointless interaction between the two little girls, with many a dramatic cut away as they pose "shocking" questions. You know, the kind sweet little children shouldn't ask, such as, "How do you make a deal with the devil"? Oooh... creepy.<br /><br />In the end, the pushover is sick of being controlled by her witchy friend. Her belief that her friend is a witch leads to a tragic end. But by the time it comes, you won't care in the least.<br /><br />I can imagine this film may have been frightening to a very religious 1960s Mexican moviegoer, but it doesn't even hold up as a charming relic. It merely drags on. It is boring. It is pointless. It is not to be watched.<br /><br />There are many here who have a lot of good things to say about it, based on their knowledge of the director's other works and, of course, that common denominator everyone says about pointless films: "Ah, the cinematography is wonderful!" Those reviewers probably have a point. But for the ones who found this movie with no prior knowledge, who don't care about its "photography," its "atmosphere" or its...whatever else it has -- for these viewers, then, who just want a *good* movie that will entertain them for an hour and a half, do yourselves a favour, folks: <br /><br />Skip it. | negative |
Remake of the classic 1951 "The Thing From Another World". 12 men are in a completely isolated station in Antartica. They are invaded by a thing from outer space--it devours and completely duplicates anything it chooses to. It starts off as a dog but gets loose--and has a chance to duplicate any of the men. Soon, nobody trusts anyone else--they're isolated--the radio is destroyed--their helicopter likewise. What are they going to do?<br /><br />The 1951 film had the thing just be a big, super human monster. That movie was scary. This one is too--but the story is different (and based more closely on the source material--the novelette "Who Goes There?") and it's scary in a different way. The movie starts right off with Ennio Morricone's extremely eerie score setting just the right tone and--when the Thing gets attacked--the amount of gore is astounding. There's blood and body parts flying all over--arms are bitten off, heads detach and--in the strongest one--one man is devoured face first by the Thing. The gore effects are STRONG and real nightmare material. I don't scare easy but I had to sleep with the lights on when I saw this originally back in 1982. Rob Bottin's effects are just incredible--how this picture got by with an R rating is beyond me!<br /><br />It also has a very creepy feel--gore aside, it is very suspenseful. You're not sure who is what and Carpenter's direction and the score really build up the tension. One complaint--no one is given any distinctive personality traits. They actors just remain straight-faced and say their lines. That's annoying...but the movie still works.<br /><br />This was a critical and commercial disaster in 1982--it competed with "E.T." and MANY critics complained about the amount of gore and there being no female characters in the movie. It's now considered one of John Carpenter's best. A must-see...for strong stomaches. NOT a date film!<br /><br />An amusing note: When this was released Universal sent a note along with all prints of the film. They suggested to theatre owners that they play the film in an auditorium near the rest rooms. They were afraid that people would be so sickened by the violence that they'd have to be close to a facility to throw up! | positive |
I came here for a review last night before deciding which TV movie to settle in front of, and those I found made this one look unmissable. How misled I feel!<br /><br />Firstly, it needs to be pointed out up front that this is very much a housewife's daytime movie. The performances are wooden, every sentence is an attempt at 'poignant' in the way that housewife's daytime movies and bad soap operas always are, and it is based in that predictable and well-trodden premise that men (particularly soldiers) are essentially violent and incompassionate. The whole movie is about the 'drama' apparent in the moments when the male characters threaten to develop a second dimension.<br /><br />If that sounds tolerable (or even enjoyable) to you, then be warned. Linda Hamilton's German accent, while quite good, is painfully distracting - as is her face, for some reason. The other performances are no doubt an enduring source of embarrassment to their perpetrators, with painfully thin and obvious characterizations being the order of the day. There are few surprises, but do watch for the 'Monty Pythonesque' endless supply of food and drink that miraculously appears from the hungry soldiers' knapsacks!<br /><br />I wasn't expecting action, but I had hoped for beautiful or textural or emotionally charged. What I got was a particularly bad Christmas 'feelgood' story that will have an intelligent audience cringing with the crapulence of it all.<br /><br />Watch it under the folowing circumstances: 1: There's nothing else on. 2: You are a fan of predictable 'housewife takes on men and wins' TV movies. 3: The only way you can appreciate a true story is when Hollywood turns it into a feature film. 4: You've imbibed enough nog that your emotions are easily stirred by unsophisticated storytelling. | negative |
I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.<br /><br />The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.<br /><br />So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season! | positive |
Okay, I'll admit it--I am a goof-ball and I occasionally love a really silly comedy. While I have seen more films by Kurosawa, Bergman and Truffaut than practically anyone on the planet, I still have a soft spot for a dopey comedy that doesn't try to be sophisticated but is simply funny. A few such films that immediately come to mind are MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, UHF, START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME, STRANGE BREW and the Bill and Ted movies. They all lack snob appeal but only a zombie or professional film critic could dislike them.<br /><br />While BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY isn't as wonderful as the original Bill and Ted film, it still is great fun. Also, unlike the original, it actually seems to improve with repeated viewing. I remember not loving the film the first time I saw it--possibly because the other movie set such a high standard for laughs. But, every time I see it again I am amazed at all the great moments--particularly those involving the Grim Reaper. And, by the way, this reaper is about as different from Bergman's in THE SEVENTH SEAL as you can get!! In addition to a lot of laughs, this film features some excellent music--one way that it's actually better than the first film. The Kiss anthem at the end is great but so are the rest of the hard rock tunes--provided you aren't an old killjoy like De Nomolos. Great viewing for kids and adults alike. | positive |
I first saw this absolutely riveting documentary in it's initial release back in 2001,and it really had a profound effect on me, so much that I bugged several of my friends to see it with me on repeat screenings. The bottom line:none of my friends walked away disappointed (ever!). This stellar film is about Scottish conceptual artist, Andy Goldsworthy,who creates some absolutely beautiful pieces of art using natural materials (wood,water,flowers,rocks,etc.)to create pieces that eventually return to their natural form (a statement in the temporary state of everything?). We get to see Goldsworthy create several works of temporary art,as well as some of his long term installations in major galleries around the world,as well as a few pieces in the natural world,as well. German film maker,Thomas Riedelsheimer directs,photographs & edits this meditation on the creative process that is a real treat for both the eye & ear (with an ambient musical score,composed & performed by Fred Frith,who's music is generally edgy experimental/noise textured guitar,as well as a capable ensemble of musicians). Although this film has been available on DVD for some years now,if you can find a cinema that is highlighting a revival of this fine film,by all means,seek it out (it's easily a film that was composed for the large screen,with a proficient sound system to truly experience this film the right way). No MPAA rating,but contains nothing to offend (unless the live birth of a sheep on screen is destined to offend or disturb) | positive |
Well I would say that this is a very enjoyable and somewhat touching movie despite its flaws. I didn't believe for a minute that Matthau knew the first thing about being a dentist. Also, Hawn's character seemed to recover from suicidal depression rather quickly at the beginning of the movie. Not to mention the entire thing seemed rather ridiculous. However, the film does succeed due to a good pace, humor, and its stars. Matthau may not have been a dentist, but he was as amusing as he usually is. Bergman brought a great deal of sensitivity to the film (especially during the scene where her and Matthau go out for a drink after work) and also a good deal of humor. I believe it was her performance that made my brother take notice of this movie after overhearing a couple scenes. Hawn's performance is noteworthy, although an Oscar may have been over doing it a bit. Basically, don't take this movie too seriously and you will enjoy yourself. | positive |
One of the most peculiar oft-used romance movie plots is this one: A seriously messed-up man falls in love with a terminally ill woman, who turns his life around before dying. Occasionally this story is done well and realistically (as in "The Theory of Flight", an excellent weepie), but more frequently it's done like it is here, where as usual the heroine dies of "Old Movie Disease". You know, the terminal illness that has no symptoms but one fainting spell and a need to lie down as you're telling your lover goodbye forever; and your looks aren't affected one bit (and since this is the 70's, neither is your sex life). This is one of the worst versions made of that particular story, where a very silly script puts two incompatible and unbelievable characters together, and they're played by actors who are completely at sea.<br /><br />This has got to be the worst performance of Al Pacino's career, and I say that after having seen "The Devil's Advocate" only two days ago! He plays a control-freak, emotionally constipated race-car driver, and plays an unlikeable character lifelessly. He seems to constantly be asking himself why he's staying around the grating Marthe Keller (so does the audience), and spends most of the movie just... standing there, usually with his mouth hanging open. The only time he shows any sign of life is towards the end, where his character proves that he's changed from uptight to liberated by doing a hilariously bad Mae West imitation. Hey, it *was* the seventies!<br /><br />Marthe Keller is equally terrible as the dying love interest; her character was conceived as bold and free and touching and uninhibited and full of life even though dying, and was probably meant to be played with an actress with the sensitivity of, say, Vanessa Redgrave or Julie Christie. Instead, they got the expressionless face and heavy German accent of Ms. Keller, who comes across as more of a scary Teutonic stereotype ("You VILL eat ze omelet!") than anything like lovable. She's supposed to be reforming Pacino and filling him with courage and spirit and all that, but it doesn't work that way, it's more like she's harping on his faults in the most obnoxious possible fashion. This makes for one of the least convincing romances in movie history, where you can't believe she'd be with someone she finds so worthless, and you can't believe he's with someone who gets on his nerves that much.<br /><br />Some bad-movie fans call this a cult classic, mostly because of Pacino's silly "liberating" Mae West imitation. The scene is a scream, especially in context, but not worth sitting through the rest of the film for. No, only see the film if you're a serious bad-movie aficionado who is especially interested in studying Extreme Lack of Chemistry between leading actors, or Very Bad Casting (not only are the leads terrible, but Pacino's other girlfriend is played by an actress who looks and sounds just likes Keller with shorter hair, I got them totally confused). This isn't one of those laugh-a-minute bad movies like "The Conqueror", it's just a really, really bad movie.<br /><br /> | negative |
Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are "starring" in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun! | negative |
Porn legend Gregory Dark directs this cheesy horror flick that has Glen Jacobs (Kane from WWF/WWE/ whatever it calls itself nowadays) in his cinematic debut. He plays Jacob Goodknight, a blind serial killer who's forte is taking people's eyes out. The plot, be it as it may, has a group of troubled youths cleaning up the historical hotel that GoodKnight resides in and subsequently being offed by him. Hemmingway it's not. Starts of as fun dopey B-movie, but soon gets too tedious to be enjoyable. Glad I went in with pretty low expectations, but even those weren't met. How can you have a porn king directing and still suffer from a lack of nudity??? for shame.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Eye Candy: Samantha Noble bares her ass briefly | negative |
Bette Midler is indescribable in this concert. She gives her all every time she is on stage. Whether we are laughing at her jokes and antics or dabbing our eyes at the strains of one of her tremendous ballads, Bette Midler moves her audience. If you can't see it live (which is the best way to see Bette) then this is the next best thing. An interesting thing to look at is how incredible her voice has changed and matured over the years but never lost its power. Her more "vocally correct" version of "Stay With Me" never loses anything in spirit from THE ROSE or DIVINE MADNESS, Here it is just more pure and as heartfelt as ever. I will treasure this concert for a very long time. | positive |
No, I'm not joking around. If you ever, EVER, have the chance to see this movie see it. If you need chop off your arm to see it, see it. It's worth it.<br /><br />Fatty Drives The Bus is unlike any film you've ever seen. It takes trash cinema and elevates it to a work of art. While it contains poor shots, idiotic characters, bad dialogue, strange acting, and cinematography that belongs on public access in Iowa, it actually succeeds in its goal as a film. It strives to be the dumbest, strangest, most inane movie you've ever seen. And boy does it ever succeed.<br /><br />I will lay out the plot for those of you who worry about such things (the filmmakers obviously didn't), but really you needn't pay too much attention because the entire film's plot is presented in a very long piece of text played before the opening credits. In any event, FDTB (as its admirers call it) is the story of a bus tour through Chicago, which is led by Satan. You see, Jesus is in town, and all the passengers on the bus are supposed to die, and all their souls would have gone to hell, except with Jesus in town, a lackey in hell calls off the job, and this angers Satan because, well he doesn't like looking like a fool in front of the guy, so he decides to get the people on the bus to sign over their souls to him directly, but he's a devil, so he needs to disguise himself, otherwise, who'd go on a tour with him right, so he disguises himself as Roger and he gets on the bus, where the driver is never referred to by name, but he is kind of fat, so I guess he's Fatty. The bus (and the riders) are on a collision course with wackiness!<br /><br />Examples of some lunacy: The title repeats on the screen 3 times. I don't know why. A character appears on the bus in mid-trip without explanation or introduction, and occassionally sits next to the others, and they look at her like she doesn't belong. I don't know why. Two characters fall in love and exchange longing glances, that are really the same shots repeated over and over again. I don't know why. After Satan gives a minute long monologue about transforming into human form a title card flashes "Satan is going to transform." I don't know why. One character is a woman who is very obviously a man in drag, and is referred to by other characters as "the glamorous Bridget." I don't know why.<br /><br />If there was one good thing that came out of my internship at Troma last summer it was getting my own copy of Fatty Drives The Bus. | positive |
I have been a fan of Amanda's since All That, and she is still funny. Too me, it's as simple as that. If you like the Bynes, you will like this film. It's harmless fun and quite funny in parts. Vi's wacky Sebastian accent and mannerisms are entirely unrealistic but made me laugh so hard at some points I almost choked on my popcorn. <br /><br />And anything that gets teens reading Shakespeare (maybe) is a good thing for me. <br /><br />On a shallow note, Tatum Channing is quite *ahem* freaking hot. He also does a good job with some of the film's tougher scenes. <br /><br />Some of the side characters are VERY broad, but they are broad in "Twelfth Night" so it's cool. | positive |
I don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!<br /><br />As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.<br /><br />In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road. | negative |
Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).<br /><br />I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...<br /><br />To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it. | negative |
This is among one of many USA attempts of remaking a old classic British TV show, that's more famous than this one. From what I see none of you haven't mentioned or even acknowledged that you knew there was a TV 50's-60's called "Secret Agent Man" The original Secret Agent Man starred the great Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner,Braveheart,Ice Station Zebra,The Phantom, etc) a man who was tapped to be the first James Bond, but he turned it down because McGoohan was a very devout man and he considered James Bond's bed hopping and violent ways to be against his values.<br /><br />This show was done in black and white, and it's a pity for those who haven't seen it,you are missing out on a lot. The character Mr. McGoohan played in "Secret Agent Man" was named Drake, and after he finished with that show he went on to the do the very popular though at times bizarre and controversial TV series called "The Prisoner". The character he played in "The Prisoner" was that of a agent who's identity is not revealed is kidnapped and transported to a island where he does not know where he is or who it was that is responsible for kidnapping him. What he does know is that his captors want to know the reasons behind his resignation from the British Secret Service, and on this island the populace don't have names but they are referred to by numbers and Patricks character is assigned a number which is "6" It was argued that his Prisoner character was in fact the same character he played in Secret Agent Man but McGoohan himself disputed this.<br /><br />Ofourse there is the unmistakable famous theme song that the original Secret Agent Man spawned. It was written by Johnny Rivers a famous 50's and 60's pop musician and from what I read some of you are actually think that the song comes from THIS version of the show. You're very wrong about that. It was Johnny's and it comes from the original TV series so let me help to set the facts straight. To those of you who complained about the name of the show being stupid, well in England, it was actually called "Danger Man" and in the US it was retitled "Secret Agent Man" For such a supposedly stupid name the show did well enough when it was first aired.<br /><br />Granted this current show has little to do with the original, no such main character named Drake in this one, and I guess they did their best to make this show their version of "Secret Agent Man". But it does use the redone version of the original theme song so that does tell you that this show was indeed meant to be a redone albeit however inferior redone version of the original series. | negative |
Police officer Dirk Hendricks (Jamie Bartlett) files an amnesty application Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofor).<br /><br />A member of the South African Parliament who cant remember the torture he once endured as a captive political activist.<br /><br />South African born attorney Sarah Barcant (Hilary Swank), meanwhile, returns to her homeland to represent Mpondo.<br /><br />As well as Steve Sizela, Mpondo's friend who was arrested along with him, and never heard from again.<br /><br />This film is one of the best films to come out about the South African regime of Aparthied, in the past.<br /><br />Everybody should watch it. | positive |
This movie was just heckled by MST3K and with good reason. First and foremost because it is a "cop" movie starring Joe Don Baker, who we all know is about as good a cop actor as Michael Jackson is a country western singer.<br /><br />All the typical cop movie plot devices rear their ugly heads, bar fights, children hostages in shoot outs, bad acting, lame police chiefs, bad acting, revenge/justice, endless goons , and of course, bad acting. Don't watch this without an MST3K filter folks. | negative |
The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a "So Bad It's Good" movie. Jack Frost 2 is neither of these.<br /><br />It is, to put it simply, a very good movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless "Scary Movies" combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions.<br /><br />The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man; essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself, multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only former weakness...AntiFreeze.<br /><br />What's sad about this movie is that the brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2 is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre.<br /><br />Most of the entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights).<br /><br />The lack of "memorable quotes" disturbs me.<br /><br />As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A HORROR MOVIE. | positive |
Highly recommended!!<br /><br />A well written, funny film which will appeal to everyone out there with a sense of humour!!!. Give it a go, it's good to see an Independent British Movie more than holding it's own against the big established studios!! Definitely worth adding to any film collection. There are scenes in this film that I'm sure a lot of people will be able to relate to. You will laugh out loud at the antics and enjoy the great soundtrack. I especially enjoyed the Orb's version of Jimmy Cliff's Vietnam and The Tower of London's take on Freebird. <br /><br />Go on give it a go............ you won't be disappointed. | positive |
OK ...I watch a lot of bad movies. I pride myself on that fact. many times there are some gems in the B rated bombs. But this movie is one of the worst I have watched. I like a good horror movie...but one with a plot of and sense of movement. The opening scenes seemed pretty good. Decent music and imagery. Then it goes down hill from there. One of the main characters has a disability (Ringing in the Ears called Tinnitus). Now this will in turn threaten to reveal his secret. They made that too much of a focus of the movie. So what he has ringing in his ears and accidentally left an ear plug somewhere where that he shouldn't have been. No need to keep bringing it up. So this guy is having an affair with this girl and in a motel she falls and hits her head on the end table. So instead of letting everyone know of his affair he decides to dump the body. Now her twin sister is trying to find out where she is and what happened to her. Well after seeing her sister over and over again (as a zombie like ghost) and even pointing directly to the location of the body she finally finds her. Now the body is recovered and she is set out to deal with the one and only suspect that killed her. Bad thing is that she didn't have much of a plan. Only to pretend to be her twin and met the guy where the body was dumped. The idiot didn't even believe he killed her. So all is revealed there and even though she had a gun....somehow she manages to get herself strangled. So the last scenes of the movie are of the "spirits" of her and her twin walking out of the water. So you mean to tell me in this movie the bad guy wins. And not one but two innocent people die.<br /><br />Good things about the movie: imagery <br /><br />Bad things about the movie: music sound effects long and drawn out misdirection of plot low grade acting from some not all actors | negative |
A tender movie that represents how our daily life is a catalyst that causes us to change our thoughts, behaviors and emotions into people we're not. This story is a love story where true emotions arise. I credit Malcolm Jamal Warner (Win) and Challen Cates for outstanding performances . A movie definitely worth seeing, a holiday roadtrip that turns into an emotional turn-a-round. I suggest seeing it. | positive |
9, the film I've been looking forward to for months.... was little more then a disappointment.<br /><br />I was deeply surprised by 9's lack of story and strange character development. All the awesome action sequences in the world don't make up for a single unsympathetic character. <br /><br />The strange, almost thrown in occult sequences were not only out of place, they were infuriating. The story is about robots and scientists... why does it suddenly turn into a necronomicon horror wannabe with mystical symbols and green magic ghost lines instead of giving answers to what could have been excellently scary story devices??<br /><br />How, what, when, why.... questions that bode asking only if you care and it becomes less and less likely that you will as you get away from the theater. <br /><br />A film like this is frustrating because of its lack of depth.... I would watch this film drawn in crayon if the story was good. But the filmmakers have relied on CGI wizardry and Tim Burtons name to draw in the crowd. Which... is what drew me in but failed to gain my respect.<br /><br />9 could have been awesome... with a few more rewrites and a little more respect from its own creators. | negative |
I haven't really seen too many of the Columbo films... actually, I think I've only watched one or two, apart from this one. I've always liked Columbo, though, somehow without even having seen that much of him. Peter Falk is and has always been the perfect choice for the character, because of his looks, his voice and his charm. The perfect proof of this is that though the series started all the way back in 1968, the latest(and probably not last) of the films was made in 2003. That's 35 years. And Falk was 40 back when he made the first one. The series consists of 68 films(unless my count is off), all of which are made for TV. Everyone knows the character, even though no one has ever seen a film featuring him in the cinema. That is quite an accomplishment, if you ask me. The plot is pretty good. The only problem I have with it is that the killer and murder is revealed at the very beginning(though that may be the same for all of the Columbo films), leaving no mystery but how Columbo solves it, making it somewhat dull(since there's not much to look forward to at the end of the film). The pacing is good, there's hardly a scene where you're bored. The acting is very good, particularly that of Falk and Ruth Gordon. They have some great exchanges of dialog in the film. The characters are well-written and credible. The dialog and script is unusually good for a TV-movie. All in all, the film is, yes, surprisingly good for a TV-movie, and definitely worth watching for any fan of Columbo and/or crime/mystery flicks. 8/10 | positive |
I have read both the book and saw the movie today. The storyline is so powerful that almost any script or screenplay would have done justice to it. So nothing much there. However, this is still a beautiful movie because it makes one think and feel, just like the book. Watching it is not like watching a documentary on a failed state and feeling sympathetic towards people suffering under an oppressive regime, but is like watching any other common man's story unfold, across generations, across continents. Amir's cowardice, his guilt, his dilemmas and finally his choosing a way of redemption could have been a story of any of us. There isn't a single infallible character to look up to and idolize but all of them are gray, just like all of us.<br /><br />Another important observation is that the movie does a great job of chronicling the lives of Afghans through the twenty some years of turbulent political scenarios. The vibrant, care-free childhood represents Kabul before the Russian invasion and the desolate, shattered remains of the city echo what the Taliban has done to it.<br /><br />The child actors deserve 'thumbs up' all the way. They can put any matured actor to shame.<br /><br />If you have not yet seen the movie or read the book, just walk into the theater keeping in mind that you are going to witness a multi-layered story woven on a multi-colored fabric of human emotions and sentiments. This movie is not meant to stir anti-Soviet and anti-Taliban feelings but to feel the trials of human existence.<br /><br />I read some of the external reviews linked to the site and I must confess I do not see the point in writing reviews that summarize the storyline like a distant spectator and point out technical details about amazing cinematography or something similar. At least for this movie, one should try to connect to it rather than judging it objectively. | positive |
Saw this movie twice at community screenings and really loved it. I work in the Jane Finch community and feel the film really captured some of the essence and flavour of the community - grit, determination, exuberance, creativity, in your faceness with a dose of desperation. The writing, dialogue and acting is solid and I really found myself drawn into the story of the young woman Raya as she struggles to pursue her goals and not lose herself in the process. Great dance sequences and it is not only the bodies that move smoothly and with electricity but the camera moves with great fluidity and intelligence as well. All the characters are multi dimensional - none wholly good or bad and the women characters are admirably strong. This is a film that has a strong beating heart and celebrates the irrepressible spirit of youth, hip hop and communities like Jane Finch. | positive |
OK everybody is so enthused by this film I hardly dare add a negative review but I just did not enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I have to say first I saw the film in Russian language overdub so I will have missed some dialog, but not much.<br /><br />Nice things first. There are some hilarious moments (the Elvis impersonator for instance). Actors seem well casted, also the Russians. Efremova is great and Goldblum is very good. Which brings us to the downsides of this movie. First of all. There is hardly any story and the end we know already: Yeltsin wins. So no drama or suspense. They tried to solve this problem with an emerging affair between the actors mentioned above, but that story kind of evaporates.<br /><br />More importantly, the film does not represent reality. The Russians at the level of politics and society portrayed in this movie are not funny, they are a serious and dangerous lot. I am willing to believe that flying in some spin-doctors from the states helped Yeltsin win his campaign, but the real interesting questions that should be addressed are: who financed the campaign, what did they get in return, how was the opposition handled apart from airing some commercials?<br /><br />So what we have here is a film, loosely based on reality (but strangely avoiding anything that could make the film either historically relevant or just a very good political thriller) without plot or subplot. | negative |
With a special telescope, Dr. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) successfully proves that years ago a meteorite landed in Africa containing an unknown, but extremely powerful element. Dr. Benet(Bela Lugosi) form an expedition led by Rukh to locate the element. Unexpectedly, Rukh discovers "Radium X,", even more powerful than radium and very radioactive and Karloff becomes contaminated and can kill anyone by just touching them. The sparks really fly between Lugosi and Karloff in this classic science-fiction film during the post-World War II era. Director Hillyer used a few standing sets from "FLASH GORDON" series which was being filmed at the same time and also inserted some footage of electrical machines from Frankenstein. Universal kept the public unaware of the special effects being used in this great classic film. Karloff and Lugosi were at their very best and they both enjoyed working together and will be enjoyed by future generations. | positive |
I don't know about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen "exorcist: the beginning" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end. | negative |
I've been working my way through a collection of Lugosi films recently, and having just been blown away a couple of days ago by the combination of Lugosi and Boris Karloff in "The Black Cat" I was really looking forward to seeing their collaboration in "The Raven." Alas, it just didn't work for me, and by the end of the film I was quite disappointed.<br /><br />For the first three quarters of this movie or so I thought the story lacked any real suspense. Lugosi was doing a pretty good job of holding things together as the somewhat mad Dr. Vollins, some sort of surgical genius who falls in love with a young woman (Irene Ware) he treats after a car accident but who can't have her - partly because she's already engaged, and partly because her father (Samuel S. Hinds) disapproves. To deal with that situation, he enlists the aid of Edmond Bateman (Boris Karloff) - a horribly ugly man who wants Vollins to make him look more acceptable. Aside from Lugosi's performance, though, I found little to hold my interest. Then, suddenly, in the last fifteen or twenty minutes, the movie shifts around completely. Suddenly it becomes quite suspenseful, but I thought Lugosi's performance fell apart, largely because the movie tried to shift him from mad to insane - and there's a difference. He plays the "mad" role very well - controlled and in control but evil. "Insane" is a more out of control evil, and I didn't think Lugosi pulled that off well. At one point, he offers some maniacal laughter which just comes across as fake. In the meantime, Karloff was a huge disappointment. He never grabbed me at all. As an aside, it must have grated on Lugosi that - in movies in which they co-star - Karloff gets the top billing, even though in "The Raven" it's clearly Lugosi who is the lead actor. This surely gives a hint as to how Universal ranked their two great horror stars - inexplicably, I would add, because I've always thought of Lugosi as the better actor of the two.<br /><br />In any event, there's no real connection here to Edgar Allen Poe's story "The Raven" - except that Vollins is a Poe fanatic, who tries to recreate some of the torture techniques from Poe's stories. Overall, a disappointment. 4/10. | negative |
San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.<br /><br />First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.<br /><br />Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as "The Killer") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.<br /><br />In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either. | negative |
Psychotic transsexual Bobbi murders the patient (Angie Dickinson) of a prominent doctor (Michael Caine) and then pursues the high-priced prostitute (Nancy Allen) who caught a glimpse of Bobbi in the elevator. Liz (Allen) comes under suspicion of the crime and teams up with the patient's son (Keith Gordon) to catch the killer.<br /><br />It can be summed up in a couple of words: it's very sexy (Dickinson and Allen look great), it's very bloody - with the kind of gore usually reserved for splatter movies, and boy is it well crafted. Writer / director De Palma's script is OK but it really takes a backseat to the man's film-making abilities. It is highly successful on a visceral level and I actually get involved / interested with these characters. I can notice the standard De Palma homages to / ripoffs of Hitchcock - at least from one of the Master's pictures.<br /><br />And to top it all off, it has a professional and believable cast.<br /><br />This was De Palma's third movie with ex-wife Nancy Allen (after "Carrie" and "Home Movies".)<br /><br />By the way, dancer-turned-actress Rachel Ticotin was one of the production assistants. There's a bit of trivia for you.<br /><br />I wouldn't think a thriller could be classy and bloody at the same time but this picture pulls it off.<br /><br />One of the best things about it is a typically striking Pino Donaggio music score.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
This is a poor, poor movie. Full of clichés, unrealistic moments: punching the air in celebration after putting a fire out, never mind that someone's lost their home and possessions!!, announcing a pregnancy in a bar along with all your mates before telling you in private first, walking on the roof of a burning building for no apparent reason, the stereotypical funerals and strained relationships, the very dodgy, cheesy music at the end, the unrealistic treatment of the girl who was rescued from her apartment, the very unrealistic explosion from that same apartment!! Did they have a couple of oxygen tanks in the attic or something!!? Anyone with an ounce of wit can see that this movie was a joke. It's a pity, because firefighters do an awesome job, and they deserve to have a good movie made about what they do, but not at the expense of common sense. | negative |
Bette Davis' electrifying performance is such that it is hard to remember the other female players. They were as perfect in their parts as Davis was in hers - they just didn't have as much to do. Some of the reviewers felt that the book was so much better - it was but to give the film it's due, to condense a 600 page book down to 83 minutes is no mean feat. The first part of the book didn't even make it to the screen - it told of Phillip's childhood, then moved to Germany and Paris, where Phillip had gone to try to make good as an artist. It also chronicles his first romance - with Fanny Price, who kills herself when she realises Phillip cannot return her feelings of love. It is a wonderful book but rambling and I think that anyone who does not think too highly of the film should read the book and will realise how good the film is.<br /><br />After realising that he will only ever be a mediocre painter, Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) comes back to England hoping to take up medicine. When out at a tearoom he meets a sullen waitress, Mildred (Bette Davis). Even though she has no interest in him and basically treats him like dirt, Phillip is obsessed. It is so hard to watch his efforts at trying to find any civility in this vicious shrew. In one scene she promises to meet him in a second class railway waiting room, when they almost miss each other, she berates him with "why would I wait in a second class waiting room when there is a first class one available". You just want to shake him. The only time she is pleasant to him is when she tells him she is going to marry another man, a coarse sales- man, Emile Miller (Alan Hale). With Mildred out of the picture, he meets Nora (Kay Johnson) a lovely woman, who writes romantic novels under a male pseudonym. She jokes about the popularity the books enjoy among servants (in the novel he had seen Mildred reading them.) Nora gives Phillip all the love and confidence he needs but he is incapable of returning her love. When Mildred returns (Miller didn't marry her and she is having a baby), of course he takes care of her and helps her with the baby (in the film it is treated as an object - always called "baby", never given a name or gender) - she repays him by running off with his best friend.<br /><br />At the hospital he meets Sally Athelny (Frances Dee) who is visiting her sick father. He begins to visit her home and for the first time in his life gets a sense of family. Then surprise! surprise! Mildred returns like a bad penny and surprise! Philip takes her in. But he has changed and feels only disgust when she tries to show gratitude the only way she knows how. Then follows one of the most vicious, verbal fights on film with phrases such as "you cad, you dirty swine", "I only kissed you because you begged me" and "when you went I wiped my mouth, I WIPED MY MOUTH"!!! In the book a lot of Mildred's stock phrases such as "you're a gentleman in every sense of the word", "I don't mind", and "Mr. High and Mighty" were associated with prostitutes and when Phillip meets her for the first time he is struck by that.<br /><br />The end of the film shows Phillip (being truly free of Mildred in the only way possible) now free to love Sally. Again in the book Sally tells Phillip that she thinks she is having a baby but that just makes him more sure of his love. That ending, like Mildred's "sickness" could not be in the film - even a pre-code one.<br /><br />Kay Johnson was always called on to play sensible, believable women - which she played to perfection as she was obviously sensible herself. Her Nora was the woman Philip should have stayed with. Frances Dee was one of the most beautiful of screen ingenues. She was obviously being groomed for stardom with some roles that proved she was not just a pretty face ("The Silver Cord" and "Blood Money") but when she married Joel McCrea her career started to peter out. Her Sally did not push her talent to the limits. Apparently Leslie Howard was not very helpful to Bette Davis on the set - he was annoyed that an English actress was not given the part. He used to throw her her lines "whilst reading a book off camera". He did start to take an interest when a newspaper reported "the kid was running away with the picture"!!!<br /><br />Highly, Highly Recommended. | positive |
This movie i totally not funny, and I would imagine to be pretty offensive to Jewish people. (and I am not Jewish) Why? First, the whole movie portray the protagonist Zucker as a lier/cheat running shady business and deals, while his son is gay, his daughter is lesbian, and his niece is a slut. Then there is the incestuous relationship that happens in the family, first his daughter with his Joshua and Jana, and then his son with his niece. Two incestuous relationship running in family. I am surprised they didn't add the plot of having a mentally disabled in the family...Now, that would really complete the Nazi ideal sub-human! (gay, lesbian, Jew...)<br /><br />Totally disgusting film. I am surprised this film gets no response from any Jewish community. | negative |
I really did not want to write a harsh review of this movie because I genuinely appreciate how hard it is to make any kind of movie on an incredibly low budget, let alone attempt something as ambitious as a sci-fi.<br /><br />However this movie is truly awful. The acting is among some of the worst I have ever had to endure and as a fan of low budget movies that is a pretty serious accusation to make. There are plenty of aspiring actors out there who would work on a deferred payment scheme if they believed in the movie and what the director was trying to achieve. I'm sure the actors did their best as did everybody else involved in this production, but it simply was not good enough to pull off something of this magnitude.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. Very poor indeed. There is no excuse for that. I got the impression the script was hastily written on the back of a beer mat after some epic boozing session. I hesitate to use the word 'laughable' but that's exactly what the script is. I had no empathy with any of the characters. Indeed they grated on me with the result that on more than one occasion I wanted to thump a couple of them Mr Stirton has overstretched himself by taking on too many roles. Clint Eastwood he is not. Again, there are talented people out there willing to work on deferment if they believe in the project.<br /><br />Much has been made of the special effects in this movie. For the money, they are exceptional, if somewhat overused. It is like someone said "I have after effects and boy am I gonna use it". Whoever did the CG work was among the most talented of this crew.<br /><br />Quite simply the money was not available to make as ambitious a movie as this attempts to be. Kudos for attempting it, but unfortunately it fails to reach its heady goals in far too many ways.<br /><br />I salute everyone involved with its production, I really do, but for their next effort they either need to get a better producer or lower their sights to something more manageable.<br /><br />In conclusion I cannot recommend this effort to anyone other than the most enthusiastic of film students or habitual insomniacs. If you want to watch a true masterpiece of low budget sci-fi films try the student made "Dark Star" by a certain Mr John Carpenter. | negative |
There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.<br /><br />This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.<br /><br />Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.<br /><br />Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.<br /><br />Direction: Non-existent.<br /><br />Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.<br /><br />Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.<br /><br />In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close. | negative |
This could quite possibly be the worst movie ever made, up there in a league with movies like "Howard the Duck," "Plan 9 From Outer Space," and "Ishtar." I don't understand why I decided to see this movie, as it was a waste of my life. I also do not understand why one would like this movie, regardless of their sense of humor. The acting is among the worst I've ever seen, as is the writing. The characters are all stupid, and there is not one funny scene in the entire movie. Tom Arnold is quite possibly the worst actor ever-- this movie proves it. There is nothing worthy about this movie. Don't rent it, don't watch it, don't even say that it looks interesting. It's bad enough I saw it. | negative |
I have seen films come and go in my years,and when i see a disaster film i keep hoping i wont be disappointed.And with this one i was not in the least.The story of a whole country sinking into the ocean was a great concept written by sakyo komatsu,a novelist with intense theories on where this earth is going.The characters were top notch,and even though i am not Japanese,i didn't need a translator to give the idea of how people in their most desperate needs can come together for the common good.The special effects blew me away,i was literally on the edge of my seat watching the tidal waves lava flows and land explosions that must have taken months of work to perfect.As for the acting i thought yes,this is acting at its best,emotions run rampant throughout the film and i cried at the most severe scenes.For movie goers alike,you don't need to speak or understand Japanese to watch this film,you can get the idea and feeling from each person and character to understand it well and to follow it along like you are there.My hats off to Shinji Higuchi for directing it,i hope he can outdo his work with another mind blowing experience.As i said,....Fantastic Film. | positive |
To make it short and not to spoil everything this film is about Kip (Giovanni Ribsi), a car thief, who messes up a big delivery of stolen cars (50 in total). He is then threatened to be killed by the man who gave him the order'. The objective now is to get 50 cars stolen in 3 days, with the help of Randall (Nicolas Cage), a retired' booster and also Kip's brother and a couple of old friends of Randall's. As you can see this is the same old, big bro' needs to get lil' bro' out of trouble routine and of course Randall is the best thief there ever was. Of course as in all other movies there are also a few setbacks and surprises you never would have thought of, but at times it is predictable too, so there is nothing fancy about the story. <br /><br />You are by now probably wondering why this is about 51 times the HOT STUFF, since there are only 50 beautiful, fast, cool and expensive cars to be stolen. Well the other hot item in this film is Sway (Angelina Jolie (who will be a big STAR (trust me))). She is not only very convincing in the role as a car theft, but she is pretty hot too. OK not hot as in pretty, but hot as in damn cool and sexy. She was very believable in this role, probably because she is some kind of a wild woman in real life too (don't believe me, read her biography) and for the sexy part well just see for yourself man. I only know, that she plays the kind of girl I like in this film, because she is not too mainstream, a bit alternative look and she even comes with a tattoo.<br /><br />OK the only downsides I felt while watching this movie was, that there is not very much action, there is one totally unrealistic scene, the story is only OK and that there are not much jokes. Hey but after seeing the whole film I must say: WHO CARES. Why must I say that, well because it was still entertaining; had a couple of cool car chases; good music; some Bruckheimer scenes (where the combination of music and the lines of actors make your eyes go wet); good actors who all did their jobs; pretty cars; one cool, wild, sexy lady (yes, I mean Mrs. Jolie) and last but not least very nice and cool tools to boost the cars with. So some downsides here but still a pretty good and entertaining movie. All in all the best way to describe this film is that it is an overall OK movie with a cool feelgood ending.<br /><br />As for Nicolas Cage, well
He is actually one of my most favourite actors in the action genre nowadays after such good films as The Rock, Con Air, Face / Off, Snake Eyes and finally this one. Plus what actor has had so many good action / thriller's in the last years and such successful ones ? Well no one!!! Maybe Jackie Chan, but he is one of my favourites too. One thing that is true though about Mr. Cages Bruckheimer films is that they keep getting worse. The Rock, was a clear 9, Con air was a nice 8 and this well this clearly is a 7. Not that that mark is bad. Does it not show that his films under Bruckheimer keep getting worse and that maybe Cage has to think longer before he accepts a role in a movie and probably he should make a few less movies ? No it doesn't show us that, because almost all of Cage's films were successful in the last few years, except for 8mm and Bringing out the Dead. 8mm was not great, I admit that, but that was never Cage's fault and the story seemed good to me. About the latter film I can not say anything, cause I have not seen it yet. One thing though I know for sure, if Bruckheimer would have asked me for those three films, I would have said YES to all of them. I would have said yes to The Rock, because the story was great and because you would get to play with Sean Connery and Ed Harris. I would have said yes to Con Air, because there would be a lot of action in it, because the story was good and because you got to act with John Malkovich and Ving Rhames. In this one I would have starred because I would have gotten a big paycheque, I would have been able to ride some cool and fast cars and because I would have been able to kiss Angelina Jolie (can't wait to see her in that Lara Croft outfit). This one was a good choice of Mr. Cage and it certainly was worth a look at in the theatre.<br /><br />7 out of 10 | positive |
How did they get that cinematic shot of the car colliding with the back end of the semi? And then Roy sits up -- great! Looks like the DVD is scheduled for May of 2006 - about time!! Watch this on a large screen or film revival in a theater if possible in order to fully appreciate the full aspect ratio. My other favorites in this category are: Original Italian Job with Michael Caine; Bullit with Steve McQueen; To Live and Die in LA with the CSI guy when he was young; French Connection with Gene Hackman; Ronin with Robert Deniro; Vanishing Point with Barry Newman; Enemy of the State with Hackman again -- What are your favorites? | positive |
This movie is really funny!! The General is Keaton's finest work but there are many of his works that are more hilarious - in this one are multiple sight gags and creative humor. We watch it over and over and it only seems to get funnier! | positive |
The 1st season was amazing, the whole idea of them adjusting to the island, while mysteries were being explored (And seen) was just phenomenal; filled with suspense, tons of cliffhangers, and an amazing plot. I mean, I love the whole idea of just seeing them get used to the island. And then first seeing the smoke monster in the first episode really caught my attention. From then on, I was hooked The second season was right on par with the 1st season, only a little better. I absolutely loved the idea of the hatches and the DHARMA Initiative. The whole plot and sequences of season 2 were mysterious, creepy, and exciting. I loved all the suspense surround others on the island, but the DHARMA story really made season 2 amazing.<br /><br />Season 3 wasn't quite as good as 1 and 2 ... but nonetheless, great. I loved seeing the back-stories of the others, seeing their camp, and seeing the mysteries further explored. ("Tricia Tanak Is Dead" is one of my favorite episodes). This season, while not as good, was still breathtaking and fun, but most of all exciting! Now, the 4th season. I had hopes for this season, and the 1st couple of episodes we're good, but then it REALLY started to get boring and monotonous. I mean, I REALLY despise the new "rescuers" such as Miles and Daniel. The plot got old after the first couple episodes ... and MOST OF ALL .... Season 4 was stripped away of something which made LOST a perfect series: The mystery, suspense, comedy mixed in (Charlie gone) and overall excitement. Also, some of my favorite characters have left. | positive |
How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.<br /><br />Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.<br /><br />Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.<br /><br />This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.<br /><br />Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.<br /><br />Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.<br /><br />Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.<br /><br />This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism. | negative |
I first saw it at 5am January 1, 2009, and after a day i watched it again and i want to watch it again. Love everything (well, almost, so 9 stars) about it. No color, beautiful naive stories, funny gangsters, Anna, camera work, music. Well, sometimes you just want to listen little bit longer and the music just stops. But this is not a musical after all. I like Anna's acting, this naive wannabe gangster girl, how she speaks, holds the gun, everything makes me smile. No, it's not that funny, though i have laughed a bit at some moments, it's just so subtle. Excellent work by Samuel Benchetrit. Though 3d nouvelle seems weaker, but they are also gangsters, maybe even worse, cause they are stealing ideas. And the last scene is my favorite. Makes me feel so warm and.. romantic. Yes, i would recommend this movie for the romantic souls with a taste for such art-housish movies. And i don't agree with those comparing it to Pulp Fiction. It's not about action and twisted story, though all vignettes intersect. It's calm, and maybe too slow movie for most of the people. It's about characters, their feelings, very subtle. Anyway, probably this review won't be of much help to anyone (my first), just wanted to express my appreciation.<br /><br />SPOILER: This movie doesn't have a Goofs section. Wonder, didn't anybody notice that hand in the 2 part when the kidnappers decided to go home? Looks like a part of crew, hehe. I know i should better post this in forums, but i don't agree with some policies here. | positive |
This film is probably Hal Hartley's best one. The subject, of a unusual originality, is treated (that's usual with Hal Hartley) with great humor. This characteristic isn't at all the only quality of this film: the fussy frame composition (everything is parallel, until the smallest details), shooting angles, lighting, giving a more supernatural dimension to these blurred images (Jesus' coming down couldn't be filmed in a conventional way), the falsely "poser" acting, are qualities that make this Bible re-reading, carried out in the form of an apocalyptic delirium, essential. | positive |
This is probably the greatest war film and certainly one of the greatest films. There's no sentimentality, no patriotic agenda, not even a hopeful message of universal brotherhood in this bleak glimpse of what we can only call hell. It's this quiet rigor and lack of manipulation that give the film its astounding power. There aren't any attempts to make a hero out of Ichikawa's protagonist Tamura either. He's just a poor doomed sap trying to stay alive in a world of horror who hopes, but isn't sure, he can hang on to his humanity in the process. Ichikawa's fierce lack of cant and illusion make Fires on the Plain stand alone. Ichikawa died February 2008. | positive |
This little short absolutely fascinates me.<br /><br />The only thing I've seen thus far like it is some of the work by Sam Brakhage, the creator of Dog Star Man. However, where Brakhage is trying to unnerve by "making us learn how to see again" and provide us with an affront of head-ache inducing bright colors and flashes (which I still totally dig and embrace as high art...), this film I would characterize as very relaxing and hypnotizing. Man Ray's general use of spinning objects/camera does not create so much of a dizzy feeling but a warm flow of senses, intermingling and going along with the gravity of the moving world around us.<br /><br />An interesting conceit of this very short work is that as it goes along, objects become more and more recognizable until we end on a nude torso (of which I feel is the least feminine well-rounded breasts I've ever seen). The circles and spirals of shadow and light over the torso make it an object of surrealistic beauty, something that you could hang on your wall and delve over forever. It's because of this and other images in this film that I had to watch it again and again (eventually a total seven times) just because it utterly fascinates me.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | positive |
You'll probably never see it, but the uncut version is about 50% better than the one you can buy. Put it another way: once you've seen it in its original form, the current version is only half as good.<br /><br />It's still wildly creative and sick, a total success on so many levels.<br /><br /> | positive |
The best thing I can say about the American version is that Jane Turner and Gina Reilly must be raking in the money for this crap. Yes, the American rip-off was shown for about two episodes in Australia but didn't rate; probably by curious viewers who were wondering how bad it would be. Answer: DEPLORABLE, a complete waste of time. The actors are relatively unknown and they don't take readily to the nuances of the Australian-written script. Bad luck for them as they are doomed to plummet with this turkey. My advice to USA viewers is DON'T.<br /><br />Americans should be best advised to find DVD's of the ORIGINAL VERSION on eBay, but be aware that some DVDs are in a different 'zone format' to those issued in the USA. Otherwise, some DVD players will operate discs from both/all zones. | negative |
For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.<br /><br />Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.<br /><br />Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too. | negative |
Story involves ancient demon being released upon a small town on Halloween night. In all my life I have never seen such a cheesy film, but it is so d**m entertaining you can forgive its bad acting, effects, direction, and script. This is the best movie created for the Halloween season since the original Halloween. And when they introduce Linnea Quigley's character for the first time, she is butt naked in the shower for like 5 mins. Goodness they just don't get any better than this. Rush and buy this tape right away. 5/10 | positive |
Zodiac Killer (2005) was an interesting film from German born director Ulli Lommel. He directs, produced and co-stars in this latest production. Not only does he manage to make an interesting film on the cheap. But he reaches a new low when Herr Lommel works in footage from nearly his entire film catalog. I have seen film clips from Boogeyman I and II, War Birds, Tenderness of the Wolf, Brain Waves and Cocaine Cowboys (even Andy Warhol makes a cameo from beyond the grave courtesy of this film). Even though he uses plenty of old footage, he works them in well (and very creatively might I add).<br /><br />The film follows a young man who copies the original Zodiac Killer. he also corresponds with a writer (Ulli Lommel) who originally wrote about the serial killer during the late sixties and early seventies. The writer's friend (David Hess) helps him to try and find this wannabe Zodiac. Can this killer be stopped? Will the writer put two and two together and reclaim some of his old glory? Is David Hess still the man? You'll have to find out for yourself and watch the Zodiac Killer.<br /><br />This film is NOT about the original Zodiac killer. I have also heard people whine about this film being shot on video. So what. The director's old school artistic style outshines the fact that it's shot on video. My only complaint was the over use of stock footage from Herr Lommel's earlier films (but I understand why "wink" "wink".) Don't believe the hype. This is a gritty and street level horror film. Like the disclaimer in the beginning states, this film does nor glorify murder. You got to like that statement.<br /><br />Highly recommend for Ulli Lommel fans. | positive |
This is a Very Very VERY bad movie !<br /><br />The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.<br /><br />The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.<br /><br />The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.<br /><br />I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else. | negative |
You get 5 writers together, have each write a different story with a different genre, and then you try to make one movie out of it. It's action, it's adventure, it's sci-fi, it's western, it's a mess. Sorry, but this movie absolutely stinks. 4.5 is giving it an awefully high rating. That said, it's movies like this that make me think I could write movies, and I can barely write. | negative |
This movie was disgusting. Their should be a warning that some sadistic nasty writer is attempting to make a name for herself before being held hostage for an hour and a half watching garbage. What is garbage? The misuse of peoples time, the misuse of energy, and the waste of whatever type of educational system that taught her how to read and write. Talia you are a sick demented loser. Your psychiatrist needs to prescribe stronger medications for your problem. <br /><br />The acting and plot gave me no choice but to fast forward through the middle of the garbage. I ended up at a scene that was uncalled for. If you want to learn how to shock people watch a Larry Clark movie. I lost all respect for the entire cast of this movie "no more support from me." How could actors or actresses sit on a set while such gross depictions of human behavior is manifested from the mind of a psycho? I feel sorry for all actors that took part in that scene. I think the devil now knows who the writer of this movie is; congratulations you won his attention. | negative |
I got a free pass to a preview of this movie last night and didn't know what to expect. The premise seemed silly and I assumed it would be a lot of shallow make-fun-of-the-virgin humor. What a great surprise. I laughed so hard I cried at some of the jokes. This film is a must see for anyone with an open mind and a slightly twisted sense of humor. OK.....this is not a movie to go to with your grandmother (Jack Palance?) or small children. The language is filthy, the jokes are (very) crude, and the sex talk is about as graphic as you'll find anywhere. What's amazing, however, is that the movie is still a sweet love story. My girlfriend and I both loved it. Steve Carell is terrific, but (like The Office) the supporting cast really makes the film work. All of the characters have their flaws, but they also have depth and likability. Everyone pulls their weight and the chemistry is perfect. I can't wait to get the DVD. I'm sure it will be up there with Office Space for replays and quotable lines. | positive |
The plot line of No One Sleeps is not a bad idea, and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. But, throughout watching this film, we were saying aloud, "These filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations, the lighting is good, makeup and hair are good...why is the sound so bad?" Throughout the film the sound was echoy, garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible.<br /><br />There is some good acting in this film, and I think Jim Thalman is really a good actor. This story, with some of the same actors, would have been worth doing as a high-budget film.<br /><br />I just can't reiterate enough - if you have a limited budget, dedicate more to good sound. Sound is as much a part of a film as the image, and it's worth doing right. Could've earned a 6. | negative |
The Plainsman is an entertaining western, no doubt a classic, which is actual even today. Gary Cooper is Wild Bill Hickok, ideal for the role, together with John Wayne and James Stewart, they were the best actors that played western heroes in their generation. Jean Arthur is great as Calamity Jane, nobody that I know played it better than her. Even if might not be historically accurate, the film manages to capture the most important about Hickok and about the time it takes place. Sometimes you have to sacrifice History to make your point and that is what DeMille does here. The friendship of Hickok with Buffalo Bill, the selling of rifles to the Indians by a great manufacturer to compensate for the losses he would have because of the end of the civil war, Custer and Little Big Horn, the uneasy relationship between Buffalo Bill's wife, a religious woman, with Hickok a man who had killed plenty, also the unusual love affair between Hickok and Calamity all this makes 'The Plainsman' a non conventional and interesting film. Anthony Quinn has a very short appearance, that already shows what a great actor he was going to become. A lot of care was taken to show the original guns of that time. | positive |
Saw this at Newport Beach Film Festival the other day. The film is REALLY exceptional. The crowd I went with all loved it. Funny, poignant and great acting. I'm tired of the tried and true Hollywood romances, who can relate? David Krumholtz (Max) is really amazing as the sure and true lover of the ultra-screwy Grace (Natasha Lyonne, who is also excellent). When Max falls for Grace we believe it. Why? Because love at first sight IS crazy and we're dealing with two lost, and maybe not so crazy, souls. Also of note are Giullmo Diaz as Hector and Rosanna Arquette as a sexless/sexy neurotic, both "roommates" of Max and Grace before they embark on their trip to Sheboygen, WI and finding themselves. Don't miss this one, its something special! P.S. The soundtrack, led by Kevin Hearn (of Bare Naked Ladies fame) is really super super cool as well. | positive |
'The Merchant of Venice' is one of Shakespeare's better-known plays and is still regularly performed in the theatre. Incredibly, however, this film would seem to be the first-ever English-language version made for the cinema rather than television. There were a number of versions made in Britain or America during the early days of the cinema, but these were all silents.<br /><br />The reason for this neglect of the play may be connected with sensitivities about the play's alleged anti-Semitism, a subject which has been even more sensitive since the rise to power of the Nazis in 1933. (This may explain why all previous versions were made during the silent era; in 1908 or 1922 it would have been easier to portray Shylock as a straightforward villain than it would be today). Yet in my view the film is not anti-Semitic at all. It should be remembered that during Shakespeare's lifetime there was no settled Jewish community in England; the Jews had been expelled by Edward I in the late 13th century, and were not permitted to return until the time of Cromwell, some forty years after Shakespeare's death. As far as we know, Shakespeare never travelled abroad, so it seems quite possible that he himself never knew any Jews personally or experienced the effects of anti-Semitism at first hand. The play is not simply about the Jewish question, but is, among other things, an analysis of the corrosive effects of religious prejudice. It may, in fact, be a coded examination of the mutual antipathy between Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England (something of which Shakespeare certainly would have had first-hand experience) and an appeal for greater tolerance between them.<br /><br />Then as now, traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes had always depicted Jews as avaricious, but Shylock's principal sin is not avarice; if it were, he would certainly have accepted Bassanio's offer to pay him six thousand ducats, twice the amount borrowed by Antonio. Rather, Shylock's besetting sin is anger, and the root of his anger is the way in which he and his fellow-Jews are treated by the Christians of Venice. Not only are Jews in general regarded as second-class citizens, but Jewish moneylenders such as Shylock are particular targets for abuse, even though the services they provide are necessary to the Venetian economy. The play shows the corrupting effects of prejudice. Not only do views of this sort corrupt the Christians who hold them, they can also corrupt the Jews who suffer abuse. Shylock's vindictiveness is out of all proportion to the wrongs he has suffered. By spitting on him and calling him a dog, Antonio behaves like a boorish bigot, but boorishness and bigotry are not generally regarded as crimes deserving of the death penalty. Moreover, Shylock seeks to revenge himself on Antonio not merely for the undoubted wrongs that Antonio has done towards him, but also for all the wrongs, real and imaginary, that he has suffered at the hands of the Christian community, such as his daughter's marriage to Lorenzo. <br /><br />It is to the credit of the film's director, Michael Radford and of its star, Al Pacino, that they understand all these issues. Pacino's Shylock has, initially, a sort of angry dignity about him that gradually gives way to vindictive rage and finally, after his humiliation in the trial scene by Portia's reasoning, to pathos. We see clearly that he has been the instrument of his own destruction, but we can still sympathise with him. In my view, none of Pacino's performances that I have seen have ever equalled those he gave in the first two 'Godfather' films (not 'Scent of a Woman', for which he won an Oscar, and certainly not 'Godfather III'), but 'The Merchant of Venice is the one that comes closest to those benchmarks. The other acting performance that stood out was Lynn Collins's luminous Portia, speaking her lines with great clarity and simplicity and bringing out the intelligence and resourcefulness that make her character more than simply a romantic heroine. I was less impressed with Jeremy Irons's Antonio, who seemed too passive. Antonio is a complex character; part loyal friend, part melancholy contemplative, part religious bigot and part enterprising capitalist. Although Irons captured the first two of those aspects, it was difficult to envisage his Antonio either spitting on someone of a different faith or hazarding his all on risky trading ventures. <br /><br />Radford's interpretation of the play was attacked by the film critic of the 'Daily Telegraph' who, although he admired Pacino's performance, disliked the period setting and argued that Shakespeare needs to be placed in a contemporary setting if it is to have 'relevance' for a modern audience, citing a recent stage production which set the action in Weimar Germany. I would disagree profoundly with this approach. The theatre and the cinema are quite different media and, while there have been some striking modernist approaches to Shakespeare in the cinema (Trevor Nunn's 'Twelfth Night' comes to mind), a traditionalist approach is often the best one. (I preferred, for example, Zeffirelli's 'Romeo and Juliet' to Baz Luhrmann's). The idea that we can only appreciate Shakespeare in a modern guise is sheer intellectual laziness; we are not prepared to make the effort to see our greatest writer in the context of the Elizabethan society that produced him, but rather prefer him dressed up as an ersatz twentieth-century man.<br /><br />Radford's traditional approach not only enables us to appreciate that bigotry and vindictiveness are age-old, universal problems, but also makes for a visually striking film. In the play, the scenes set in Venice itself are characterised by turbulent action; those set in Portia's country house at Belmont are happier and more peaceful. In the film, the Venetian exterior scenes were shot on location against a backdrop of misty, wintry grey skies, similar to the look achieved in 'Don't Look Now'. The candlelit interiors, with faces brightly lit against a dark background, were reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effects of a Caravaggio painting; I suspect this was quite deliberate, as Caravaggio was a contemporary of Shakespeare. By contrast to dark or misty Venice, the Belmont scenes (shot in an enchanting Palladian villa on an island in a lake) were characterised by sunshine or peaceful moonlight. <br /><br />This is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of recent years; an intelligent and visually attractive look at a complex play. 8/10.<br /><br />A couple of errors. We see a black swan on the water in front of Portia's house. These birds are natives of Australia and were not introduced to Europe until well after 1596, the date when the film is set. Also, the portrait of Portia in the leaden casket is painted in the style of the Florentine Botticelli, who was active about a century before that date. Lynn Collins may be reminiscent of a Botticelli beauty, but it seems unlikely that a late 16th century Venetian lady would have had herself painted in the manner of late 15th century Florence. | positive |
When I spotted that Noah Wyle and Ricky Schroder were in the same movie, I was like, score! I admit, I was eager to see the movie. And I have to say, the first fifteen minutes or so were nostalgic in a way. Then it went all down hill. I didn't expect it to be a dump of politically correct civil rights mumbo jumbo. They took every possible controversial topic and threw it into one stupid story. I was appalled that Noah was involved in anything of the sort, especially his role. Nobody with a fully functional brain would actually accept all that crap about the Vietnam War. If anyone really wants to know how Communism was like, sit down and read a book on it. And not one that praises it or is against it, just the cold hard facts.<br /><br />I only watched a few scenes here and there only because I wanted to see Ricky's body, but that was all that interested me. Everything else about this movie irritated me. | negative |
To be honest, i'm surprised by the positive votes that this film has received. The movie just drags along its 81 minute life span, and the audience has to suffer the whole way through. Actually there are some positive moments in this film; Charlie Spradling gives a decent performance. She is given some pretty pathetic dialogue and she handles it pretty well. Scott Valentine(Merrideth's boyfriend in Family Ties), on the other hand, is a pretty rough watch. I guess the highlight of his performance is witnessing the guy laying on the beach wearing tiger-patterned chummies....give me a break. Also, Valentine gives us a boorish and pathetic portrayal of a suffering vampire who misses the day(to see a much more convincing rendition of the suffering vampire see Denice Duff in "Bloodstorm: Subspecies 4"). The movie moves so slow and is only positively punctuated by, and to be honest, Charlie Spradling's dance scenes. This movie can honestly only be recommended to the die hard fans of Charlie Spradling (which i am, and i still had a rough time watching it!). | negative |
Newly released on DVD in the US; just stay far away from it.<br /><br />I usually give plenty of room for stupidity in horror films; I'll settle for nearly anything remotely suspenseful, supernatural, spooky, or even just a vaguely interesting concept. This one simply stank. I knew there was trouble when Sara's "best friend" in college, who had considerable screen time, wasn't even listed in the credits on IMDb! I wasn't surprised not recognizing any actors, but that character ("Daysha" or "Day-Glo" or whatever her name was) apparently didn't even exist! <br /><br />I'm so embarrassed that I actually paid a rental fee for this garbage; deeply, deeply ashamed... | negative |
This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.<br /><br />Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. "If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story."<br /><br />In conclusion: Absolute human waste. | negative |
The main problem with the documentary "Czech Dream" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.<br /><br />In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word "inspired" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony "hypermarket" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many "dopes" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.<br /><br />One might well ask, "Why do such a thing?" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the "real" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of "research" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.<br /><br />But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are "greedy" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.<br /><br />No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little "stunt" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.<br /><br />I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed. | negative |
This movie is a sleeper - I've watched every miniseries that was ever on TV, some many times, and this one is the best. Wonderfully cast, superbly acted, and the characters are well-developed. Helen Morse perfectly fits the part of Jean Paget - strident, in control, sharp, and a bit belligerent. She bounces well off of Joe Harmon, the cowboy/taciturn/"It'll be okay" sort of guy. I was sorry that the movie didn't stick to the book, in that there was no romantic interest between Noel Struan and Jean Paget. For those who don't know, this is taken from a true story about English women marched around Malaya for 3 years by the Japanese, who indeed did not know what to do with them. Very few of them survived. Neville Shute talked to one of them, and this is her story. This movie deserves to be in everyone's collection who loves WWII stories. | positive |
One of the more satisfying Western all'italiana, Johnny Yuma has the freshness of many WAI made during the heyday of the genre and is highly recommended for fans of the genre or offbeat, intelligent cinema.<br /><br />Johnny Yuma is, in most respects, not terribly original, but this actually does not count against it. The success of a genre film depends on how well it meets the audience's expectations as well as provides surprising variations on these expected elements. Earlier, pleasing experiences are recreated but with subtle (or major) twist that provide continuing interest. The quality of the execution is also, obviously, important. A tired retread will be less successful than a sincere attempt to entertain or move the audience.<br /><br />Given these criteria, Johnny Yuma succeeds. There are numerous reprises of elements from earlier films. The setting is the brutal, twisted semi-feudal twilight world of shared by many of the best "Gothic family" westerns made 1964-1968 such as Tempo di massacre (1966). The plot is a combination of the basic Fistful of Dollars (1964) plot and the Ringo films, a fact not surprising as screenwriter Fendiando di Leo was involved in both. Di Leo was one of the best screenwriters in the popular cinema coming out of Cinecitta in the 1960s-70s and his work helped provide much of the thematic continuities and coherency to the genre (Along with a couple of other personalities in a few distinct circles of actors, directors, and screenwriters). In the FOD plot, the protagonist arrives in town, stirs up a tense situation, then undergoes a near-death followed by a resurrection (in some films, like Quella sporca storia nel west (1968) it is quite literally a crucifixion). The Catholic undertone to the narrative and the symbolism is intriguing, especially given the implicit populist/explicit socialist leanings of the filmmakers and their films. The Ringo plot, developed more fully by screenwriter Ernesto Gastaldi in a series of films starring Guliano Gemma, a egoistic protagonist chooses the interest of a community over his own through the medium of a relationship with a member of that community (with a healthy dash ironic uncertainty).<br /><br />The relationship between Carradine and Johnny is clearly based on that of Manco/Mortimer from a Fistful of Dollar (1965). The two scene of the exchange of the gun belts provides a clever dialog and understanding between the two. Numerous films, including Da uomo a uomo (1968) or even El Chuncho, quién sabe? (1967), use this relationship between an older and younger man (father/son, older/younger brother, Anglo adviser/adversary and peasant revolutionary) as a central dynamic to the plot.<br /><br />Additionally, there is the focus on deception and misdirection, mazes and mirrors, that recur throughout the best early WAI. The canons and pueblos of Almeria become literal mazes through which protagonist and antagonist play shifting games of cat and mouse.<br /><br />What distinguishes Johnny Yuma from other WAI is the quality of director Romolo Guerriri's use of visual/psychological space together arrangement with the script's intelligent mechanisms to forward the plot. Dialogue was never very important to the WAI and often absurdly unintelligible (thought there are exceptions, such as the cynical commentaries in Django (1966) or Faccia a faccia (1967).<br /><br />Psychological depth of character is created almost entirely through iconic imagery, it's juxtapositions, and it's description of the overall narrative situation. See how the presence of the deadly Samantha is felt during the beating scene watching from the roof or from the background of the action. Or how Johnny strips Samantha and Pedro of their security and confidence in their power through his stealthy invasions of their ranch, hotel, even bedroom (this, again, is a theme from FOD). Finally, note how there is a focus on the search for information. Like many elements, this is borrowed from FOD which was ultimately based on the hard-boiled mystery novel Red Harvest. It is through incidental contacts, wanted posters, overheard conversations, glances out of windows, watches left in the dust, or mistaken identities and movements through the ripples created by the actions of Pedro and Samantha within this surreal and absurd reality that the narrative tacks forward to it's conclusion.<br /><br />The movie was notable in it's time for what were perceived of as excesses in violence. Of course, these films were hardly more violent than many American westerns. What was different was the psychological intensity of the violence and the causes to which it was attributed, which is to say that it was not the violence but it's meaning that had changed. Johnny Yuma is distinct and interesting in it's use and portrayal of violence and this is another interesting aspect of the film.<br /><br />What I personally find most interesting about most of this genre is the link it provides to the anonymous, nameless audiences in Italy and Spain to whom these recurrent narratives held some significance and interest. The artifact may have no intrinsic worth in and of itself some flint debitage from a prehistoric site, a shard of cruse pottery, or a moldering piece of leather and rusted metal but it is reference to some nameless presence, lives, that were significant simply because they existed. While Johnny Yuma has intrinsic worth, much of it's interest for me derives from this connection and mystery.<br /><br />Top spaghetti western list http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849907<br /><br />Average SWs http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849889<br /><br />For fanatics only (bottom of the barrel) http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849890 | positive |
Although I was in this movie playing the part of Sheriff Hodges, it still managed to make me jump in several places and believe me I'm NOT that easy. You might say that I'm biased about the film, and, OK, I am, but I didn't see the finished product until 12/27/2006 and was extremely pleased. I'm not a Horror film fan as such but love the old "B" movies and black and white Sci Fi films. This movie will make you "think" you know when something is going to happen, then it doesn't, then it does. It will keep you completely off balance. I would suggest watching the movie first then the director's notes and special features. It is so well written, directed and filmed and I can tell you personally that it was a real joy to work with this cast and crew. I sincerely hope to be part of Brian and Laurence's future projects. | positive |
This film is a benchmark in non-mainstream cinema history. The use of montage represents a quantum leap from the relatively simple juxtapositions of Strike (Eisenstein's 1st film). Take the scene on the steps and note the repeated shot of the soldiers descending, to reiterate the point of the horrors that actually did happen! A highly intelligent monumental film, a must see for all Film students! | positive |
I saw this film at the 2005 Edinburgh International Film Festival. <br /><br />This film had been compared in the EIFF program to Sideways - which I liked - so I was quite looking forward to this movie. I also liked Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite etc... so I have had good recent experiences with slightly weird American indy films.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I found that Puffy Chair does not compare favourably with any of these movies.<br /><br />I was sitting for 35 minutes waiting for something amusing, witty, insightful or even mildly interesting to happen. It didn't - and the shaky video cam was making me sick - so I left.<br /><br />This is only the second film I have ever walked out from (the first was "Showgirls") which is slightly disappointing. I probably could have lasted the duration had it not been for the nauseating effects of the wobbly picture - but nothing within the first 35 minutes gave me the impression that I would be missing anything.<br /><br />Disappointing. | negative |
I don't see how you can say that Freddy's Nightmares is cheesy and a rip-off. You obviously don't know good TV when you see it. The episodes are packed with drama and blood. Freddy is creative in the way he kills people. I love Freddy's Nightmares and I hope to get all 44 episodes on DVD. The best episodes are: Saturday Night Special,School Daze, and Love Stinks. If you think this series sucked then you're entitled to your opinion but remember it's only your opinion and it means nothing. Freddy's Nightmares will always be one of the best series ever and you'll come to accept that fact soon enough. If you don't like it then don't watch it but don't deny it's brilliance. | positive |
In a film as successful as this, it is difficult to single out any one factor. All departments work in perfect union to create on of the most moving human dramas ever put on film. <br /><br />The production is a tribute to the ensemble efforts of the writers, producer, cast and crew. To name but a few, the magnificent score of Hugo Friedhofer is a subliminal marvel, the subtle yet striking photography of Greg Toland, and the unbelievably effective direction by William Wyler all combine with an ideal cast to create an American classic.<br /><br />The DVD format version is a special treat to view. What a pleasure to see "The Best Years of Our Lives" so beautifully preserved for generations to come to enjoy. | positive |
Cult starts 20 years ago on the 'Quinling Mountain Range, Southern China' as a guy called Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) finds an ancient amulet said to have magical powers, cut to California where Quinlin has set up a cult & the members are about to sacrifice themselves when one of them (Cazzy Golomb) foils his evil scheme... Jump forward to the present day as five college students, Mindy (Rachel Miner), Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) & Morgan (Victoria Venegas) are researching the events of twenty years ago that have become know as the 'Quinling Massacre' for a school project. Unfortunately Morgan decides to kill herself which unleashes the evil spirit of Owen Quinlin for reasons that are rather tenuous, he sets about completing what he started all those years ago by claiming souls so he can finally inherit the magical powers of the amulet for his own evil use...<br /><br />Edited, co-produced & directed by Joe Knee this is not a good film & that's being kind to it. The script by Benjamin Oren which seems to take itself very seriously is a dour supernatural tale about a cult leader who comes back from the dead to finish what he started a few years prior, as you would expect the character's involved now have links to what happened all those years ago & it's as dull as it sounds. The character's are bland & forgettable, the dialogue just as much so, there's no proper horror or exploitation in it, it's slow going at times, it's predictable, it's clichéd, it goes completely off the rails at the end & doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The story never grips or engages you, it's never exciting or particularly interesting & I'd struggle to even call it average. There is very little here by which I could recommend Cult, don't bother with this one.<br /><br />Director Knee does alright but the film has that bland shot-on-video made-for-TV look about it, it's utterly forgettable & flat stuff throughout. There's no scares, there's no atmosphere & it lacks any tension. There is no gore either, sure there's a fair amount of blood splatter but no proper actual special make-up effect gore scenes.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $950,000 Cult looks cheap although it's not as badly made as some low budget horror films I've seen recently. The acting isn't even worth mentioning.<br /><br />Cult is a poor film that didn't do anything for me, I'd struggle to call this average. There are much better horror films out there. | negative |
Cooley High is such a great film that even with the period's sound track, urban landscape, wardrobe and slang...it still doesn't feel dated. The sound track by the way is a timeless classic in itself.<br /><br />Instead it absorbs you right into it. That is a staple of a good movie. From start to finish it doesn't miss a beat and I never grow tired of watching it.<br /><br />It's ending is unique in the respect that it's one of the saddest and at the same time uplifting of all movie endings. There may have been a few since (Backdraft comes to mind) but Cooley was the first and much more emotional. | positive |
Although this seems to be quite an old show (2002), I watched my first ever episode last night and I have to say it has to be the worst show . . . ever.<br /><br />I am not one for placing comments but I was so shocked that a show could exist that blatantly tries to pander to, and I am only assuming that this was their target audience, children under 12 years old or people with a less than average IQ.<br /><br />The episode I was subjected to last night contained so many disjointed story lines, tried to include EVERY possible plot summary imaginable and all the while trying to preach about friendship, family, religion and politics !!!.<br /><br />Basic story that they covered in the episode: Frat House hazing gone wrong wrong with too much alcohol - Death Turns out to be Senators son who wants FBI to investigate. Death is actually murder by peanut allergy Senator thinks it could be his sworn enemy and childhood best friend who did this because Senator was taking money for his votes for legislation but eventually got a conscience and said 'no' to mean mulit millionaire. Everybody a suspect but all have the usual alibi (ex-girlfriend student shagging a married teacher so had to lie, disgruntled student who was reported by victim actually had life changing experience, Senators enemy did not pay desperate student to kill sworn enemies son, he gives money freely to lots of broke students). All the while the heroine of this dribble has her niece staying who is 'at that age' and has a crush on a boy, who she eventually gets the courage to talk to with the assistance of her aunty, but only to dump him because the 'in' girls says he is not good enough and so to keep in with them she dumps him. Don't worry, she gets back with boy after she learns the truth about life and the 'in' girls drop her, Aunty also explains that God is the only one who truly she can rely on (I was almost sick at this point).<br /><br />This 'drama' gets even better when Sue and her FBI team find out who the killer is . . . your gonna laugh at this, i sure did . . . <br /><br />It is one of the Frat boys who only a year ago found out he was adopted and that his real dad is an International terrorist and he is trying to impressive real daddy by killing boy and planting bomb at funeral . . . . . . . <br /><br />The characters are cardboard the acting is cardboard the continuity is cardboard the story is cardboard Anybody who says that they love this show has cardboard for a brain<br /><br />Why the writers of this show have tried to pack in EVERY eventuality into the one show means that they obviously have no faith in the character development or actors capability to carry off a simple plot line. Watching this show is like watching 'Last Action Hero' with Arnie killing 5'000 people with a tooth pick, except Arnie is a better actor (wow, never thought there would be a day that i would say that !!)<br /><br />In the words of the Simpsons beloved character 'comic book guy' . . . . <br /><br />WORST TV SHOW . . . . . EVER. | negative |
My husband brought this home from the video store, so I could watch something while stuck home sick. The sort of sick where you could never concentrate on a book, but a sorta silly, light, romantic flick sounds just right (that, and a bowl of chicken soup). Well, he meant well.<br /><br />My first thought (as some others post here also) was that the house MUST be fake...it's not only isolated alone on the beach, but set on moorings into the loose sand, and so close to the ocean that the surf waves go directly under the house! This looks so obviously dangerous (in hurricane country, in THE FALL), so potentially disastrous that I was sure filmmakers had simply CGI'd the whole thing (or used movie magic to plunk a cute B&B into the surf).<br /><br />But I have to tell you guys, thanks to "teh interwebs", I can say that the house, "Serendipity" is very real, is indeed near Rodanthe and except for some window dressing and shrubs, appears mostly as it does in the film. You can rent it yourself, off season, for $1710 a week (or about $3850 in summer)! Go for it! But...interestingly, the house has severe problems. The second thing that struck me after "would be washed away" was "what about the plumbing/electrical? in that surf?", and sure enough, "Serendipity" was condemned for a break in the sanitation, caused by overwash from the ocean. (They are rebuilding.)<br /><br />And the house isn't from the "Civil War". Not to mention that Viola Davis, playing "cliché black best friend" (thankless role for a fine actress, last seen in "Doubt"), is not remotely old enough that her GRANDMOTHER could have built anything in the Civil War! HELLO! that was 150 years ago! Try great-great-GREAT! (In reality, "Serendipity" was built in 1988, laughably recently.) <br /><br />The basic film is built on a typical Nicholas Sparks weeper, which means a lot of coincidence and trite predictable happenstance. It is also aimed in a very pandering way towards "women" -- you know, us women who love B&Bs, fusty antiques and knick-knacks...who dream of romance and guys who look like Richard Gere and dancing in the moonlight. Don't give us plot, or thoughtful character development; just set up some mechanisms and bring on the love scenes!<br /><br />Gere plays a plastic surgeon, who lost a female patient during a routine surgery for a benign cyst on her cheek. Of course, she died of an overdose of ANESTHESIA, so you wonder right away why the surgeon is guilted up and not the anesthesiologist! HELLO! where is that guy? Why is the wrong doctor feeling guilty?<br /><br />Gere has come to pout and confront the woman's husband, and is staying at the remote B&B...who should be there, why the ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE INN...Diane Lane! She's a lonely divorcée, with rotten kids, and an ex-hubby who wants her back. While she's trying to decide about that, the cliché best black friend has her subbing as hostess at the B&B.<br /><br />Now, in the real world, if this set up ever even happened, the doctor would look like Ernest Borgnine...and the lonely divorcée, like Rosie O'Donnell. He'd spend his vacation horndogging 22 year old girls on the beach, while she sulked and thought about going on a diet. But this isn't the real world; I digress.<br /><br />The couple confess all, fall in love, a hurricane hits...they make love, fall in love, he has to go away, he dies and she cries a lot about that. The end.<br /><br />There, I've saved you from it; now you don't have to torture yourself or any male acquaintances (husbands, sons, boyfriends) from sitting through this tripe. Very wearying.<br /><br />Someone else asked why Diane Lane, a perfect tiny woman (whom filmmakers seem to love to cast, because she's just pretty and thin enough that most women would like to look like her, but she's 45ish and not over-the-top, so she isn't threatening) is constantly covered in big tarp-like shawls. This would make sense if she was chubby, but she isn't.<br /><br />Anyways, someone throw a pretty, paisley shawl over this film. So we don't have to watch it. Conclusion: read a book, unless you are too sick. If too sick, go to sleep. | negative |
This sequel is brilliant and is the last film Donald Pleasance (Dr.Loomis) worked on before his death. I loved the new direction the film took with the story instead of just Michael Myers wanting to kill his family. I love this whole series and apart from the first and second movies this is by far the best. | positive |
Bay Area residents probably remember Paul from The Diamond Center, an unctuous late night huckster who flogged easy credit and cheap rocks on late night television throughout the 1980s and early 90s. I mention him only because there is an actor in Death Machines who looks JUST LIKE HIM playing the owner of an Italian restaurant. He appears in the best scene in this positively dreadful and near unwatchable crime drama about a Dragon Lady (Mari Honjo, who wisely hung up her acting spurs after completing this film) who controls the local syndicate. Our hero (let's call him Not Paul From the Diamond Center) plays the restaurateur with all the subtlety of The Simpsons' Luigi ("you lika da spaghetti?") and seems unimpressed when one of his patrons complains about the food. No, there's no fly in the soup or hair in the sauce: there's a Red Buddha in the pasta, the calling card of the murderous crime boss, who sends a statuette to each of her prospective victims. Death Machines is bad by any measure, and pretty boring, which is an even worse crime. | negative |
Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.<br /><br />So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy. | negative |
I can't actually think of one good point in this film. The story is absolutely terrible. THe acting is as blunt as a carrot, and the script is so bad it makes you want to kill yourself. OK fine if you love (and you have to love it to understand) snowboarding you might enjoy it microscopically better, as it has large mountains and some cool moves but apart from that it is terrible. It has some absolutely stupid ideas and it is racist with both black and white people insulting each others races. The only time you will laugh is when you are laughing at the stupidity or you are feeling embarrassed for the film. I have seen a lot of films and i have to say that this is the worst film i have ever seen. If you have this film i would suggest you take it back to wherever you bought it from and get you money back. | negative |
Not for the squeamish, but the number of twists, inventive uses of situations using vampire mythology, gorgeous visual extremes, together with interesting and quirky characters make this one of the most stunning horror films I've ever seen. It descends into utter madness along with characters, but never seems exploitative or horrific without purpose. There are copious amounts of bloodletting accompanied by some nasty sucking and squishing sounds, but also subtle moments where you laugh out loud. As he tends to do, Chan-wook Park keeps you off center with leaps in time and plot and situation that you have to fill in for yourself forcing your involvement in the story and characters. <br /><br />And there's a lot of literal leaping. Keeping in the vein of vampire myth (pun intended), they have superhuman strength and can nearly leap tall buildings in a single bound (to coin a phrase). The first time our heroine is carried by the across the tops of buildings by the troubled vampire priest, it has all the magical romance of Lois Lane and Superman - but this romance becomes increasingly disturbing - but driven by a strange and conflicted 'love affair' not by mere horror.<br /><br />The acting is superb, particularly OK-vin Kim, the gorgeous actress in the female lead role who, at 22, shows a range that is remarkable. The character borders on a kind of black widow film noir type. She careens from innocent to impish to vixen to demon with utter conviction. This is a really smooth and nervy performance. <br /><br />If you love real art in horror, or are a fan of Oldboy - don't wait for the video, see it immediately. | positive |
This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.<br /><br />This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.<br /><br />Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:<br /><br />"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man..."<br /><br />"oonga-bunga" <br /><br />"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man" | negative |
This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.<br /><br />The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.<br /><br />One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.<br /><br />This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.<br /><br />It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.<br /><br />Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.<br /><br />The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.<br /><br />Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.<br /><br />This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.<br /><br />This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character. <br /><br />It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.<br /><br />The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes. <br /><br />The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.<br /><br />Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability. | positive |
this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around.<br /><br /> Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet)<br /><br /> even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great.<br /><br /> this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... "So say good night to the BAD guy" | positive |
Ever since seeing this film as a child, over 30 years ago, I never tire of watching it. From the opening scenes in the horn factory, to the car motor running from the back seat of the car, to Ollie answering the phone and being accidentally pushed out the window by Stan, I think this was perhaps their best latter day film. After this they moved to 20th Century Fox, and while those films weren't terrible, they lacked the comic timing of this movie. Jimmy Finnlayson, their long time foil, in his last appearance with the boys, showing up as the Doctor is super! quote: " I said goat milk " his reply to Stan asking him how do you milk a ghost! Charlie Hall and even Ben Turpin show up! I'd say all in all one of my favorite L & H comedies. | positive |
Sadly a great opportunity to utilise a superb cast to bring King Lear up to date. However, instead, we got a contrived family drama that appeared to dip into Lear when the writer had run out of ideas, the cast worked hard but it just didn't gel. Recently Stephen Harrigan showed how to adapt and update the classics with his screenplay for the magnificent TV movie "King of Texas". | negative |
The Beatles had just done 'Magical Mystery Tour.' There was the general feel that performance, peace and drugs went together naturally. In LA, there was a film subculture that knew something was up. Nicholson was in several of these gangs.<br /><br />Before he decided to seriously become an actor, before 'Easy Rider,' before 'Pink Flamingos,' before 'Day for Night,' there were several experiments with what to do about this. An important one is 'Saragossa Manuscript.' This is another.<br /><br />Jack writes. He plays with circular narrative, self-reference, film reference, performance self-loathing, the pain of creation, all on the outskirts of safe kiddiepop. You must see this, if only to know something about Jack.<br /><br />Certain actors act by digging into themselves. It is a common technique. Some dig deep, but after a while, they become boring because they are incredibly shallow people. There isn't just enough stuff in there to sustain a career. Think of DeNiro and Hackman.<br /><br />Others are pretty interesting people, who seem to become more interesting over time. When they dig into the barrel, they put stuff back in because of the pain of the digging. Think Sean Penn and Jack. At the bottom of Jack's barrel, at the end of the thread he spins, as the base of every character is this experimental, risky writer/filmmaker.<br /><br />Who cares if it is a bad movie? It is bad because it took risks. Watch when a tear is wiped from Annette's cheek by the director. It is a loving goof on the whole Brando thing, something that I heard Marlon laughed about. That is one of the richest moments in Hollywood film history.<br /><br />There's another reason to watch this. Music in film is has a strong root in dance. Revolution in film often relies on music. Whole cultures are thus swept along.<br /><br />An unsung giantess in inventing how billions now dance is Toni Basil. She was as influential in pop choreography as the Beatles were in music. She was already well into her career when called upon to work on this. But this is one of her earliest screen appearances. You can see her work throughout and she herself in the pretty cool 'Daddy's Girl' segment, over one of Nilsson's better songs. (Followed by the Frank Zappa cameo.) McCartney would reference this scene in his TeeVee special years later.<br /><br />A third reason to watch is early (about 6 1/2 minutes) in the film: a character named 'Lady Pleasure' kisses each Monkey in a long continuous shot and then dismissively departs. She is credited as I. J. Jefferson but is really Mimi Manchu, Nicholson's lover at the time and LSD partner. Red hair, psychedelic demeanor. Lovely. That scene says it all for me, about how Jack feels about the boys.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching. | positive |
An ultra-nervous old man, "Mr. Goodrich," terrorized by the news that a gang is stalking the city and prominent citizens are disappearing, really panics when someone throws a rock through his window with a message tied to it, saying "You will be next!" <br /><br />He calls the detective agency wondering where are the guys he asked for earlier. Of course, it's the Stooges, who couldn't respond because had come into the office, robbed them and tied them up. Some detectives! The moment poor Mr. Goodrich hangs up the phone and says, "I feel safer already," a monster-type goon named "Nico" appears out of a secret panel in the room and chokes him unconscious. We next find out that his trusted employees are anything but that. Now these crooks have to deal with the "detectives" that are coming by the house for Mr. Goodrich.<br /><br />Some of the gags, like Moe and Larry's wrinkles, are getting a bit old, but some of them will provoke laughs if I see them 100 times. I always laugh at Shemp trying to be a flirt, as he does here with Mr. Goodrich's niece, in a classic routine with a long, accordion-like camera lens. The act he puts on when he's poisoned is always funny, too. Shemp was so good that I didn't mind he was taking the great Curly's place.<br /><br />Larry, Moe, Curly/Shemp were always great in the chase scenes, in which monsters or crooks or both are chasing them around a house. That's the last six minutes in here. At times, such as this film, | positive |
This film, in my opinion, is, despite it's flaws (which I maintain are *few*), an utter masterpiece and a great and glorious piece of art.<br /><br />What Mr. Bakshi has done here is to create an utterly beautiful film and has shown his immense talent and versatility as a director of animated films. He does not receive 1/100th of the credit he deserves for literally saving the art of animation for an adult audience. If it were not for Mr. Bakshi, I don't believe animation would have survived the Disney onslaught. What is more, with The Lord of the Rings, he has not only created a beautiful animated film, but he has created an entirely new art form - unfortunately one that never quite made it off the ground.<br /><br />Most people will complain about the use of rotoscoping in the film (the use of live action images which are used as background images and often animated over using various techniques from what appears to be small amounts of tinting to full blown animation). But I feel that the people who complain about it simply cannot accept an art form which is out of the norm. No, this is not Disney animation. No it's not live action. No, it's not "cheating" - what it is is a new, fascinating, and absolutely wonderful art form. Something so fresh, and so new that it feels completely at home in such a fantastic tale as "The Lord of the Rings". Bakshi's pioneering use of this technique brings the subtleties of Middle Earth to life is a very dark and mysterious way, in particular, the darker of Tolkien's creatures, particularly the Nazgul, are realized in a way that traditional animation or live action have not been able to accomplish.<br /><br />Peter S. Beagle's screenplay (based very little, as I understand it, on an early draft by Chris Conkling) is a very loyal adaptation of Tolkien's works. Where possible he uses dialogue directly out of the novel and it feels at home in the world which Bakshi has created. There are many cuts that were made to fit the first book and 3/4 into a single 2 hour 15 minute film, but there are very few changes to the storyline. There are a few holes which it would have been nice to have filled: The reforging of Narsil, the gifts of Galadriel, the Huorns at the battle of the Hornburg, but, again, with the time limitations he had (already the longest animated feature in history), these are certainly understandable (though it makes one wonder how they could have been explained in a sequel).<br /><br />Also there is the delightful (one of my favorites) score by Leonard Rosenman (who also scored Barry Lyndon and Star Trek IV (the score for which is clearly based on his LotR work)). It is bombastic and audacious and, dare I say, perfect. It stands on it's own as an orchestral triumph, but when coupled with the images of the film, it enters a whole new world of symphonic perfection. So far from the typical Hollywoodland fare that it turns many people off.<br /><br />The voice actors are wonderful. Of particular note is John Hurt as Aragorn who just oozes the essence of Strider.<br /><br />The character design is also wonderfully unique, though not often to everyone's taste. But remember that it is the duty of the director of an adaptation to show you what he/she imagines, not what you might have imagined, and so Aragorn is realized with a distinctive Native American feel and Boromir appears in Viking inspired garb. This is perhaps not what you imagined, but I can only applaud Mr. Bakshi for showing us what he "saw". It also might be noted that he spent a significant amount of time with Priscilla Tolkien in developing the character outfits for the film.<br /><br />One farther word - the Flight to the Ford sequence, in my opinion, is one of the most subtlety beautiful sequences ever to be caught on celluloid. Bakshi is not afraid to slow down the pace for a moment, and his mastery is clearly shown by the incredible tension is able to build. Bakshi's artistic ability and Tolkien's incredible work fuse in this sequence to a glorious peak which has yet to be equaled.<br /><br />The recent DVD release (2001) by Warner Brothers, is sorely lacking. While we can offer our eternal thanks that the film is finally available in widescreen format, the package is woefully short of extras. How glorious it would have been to have had a director's commentary, been able to see the 20 minutes of extra footage that were removed for the theatrical release. Another delightful addition could have been the assembled the live action footage which was later animated over. Also present in the DVD release is the utterly horrible voiceover at the end of the film which is a departure from the simple voiceover which occurred in the very final frames of the film. This version is plastered and poorly rendered right over the musical climax of the score.<br /><br />Of course, the greatest tragedy of all is that the sequel was never made. We will never be able to see Bakshi's interpretation of Gondor, of Shelob, of Faramir, of the Cracks of Doom, of Eowyn's battle with the Witch King or Gandalf's confrontation with him. We will never be graced with Bakshi's image of Denethor or the Palatir or the Paths of the Dead. It is a shame beyond all shames that we will, in the end, have to accept Peter Jackson's glitz and glitter Hollywood, action film version of these later events in Tolkien's masterpiece, but, I suppose even that is better than having no cinematic version at all.<br /><br />David | positive |
Snakes on a Plane was such a well hyped film that it was both inevitable and a little crazy to try to release another movie with almost the same title in the same year let alone the same week. Reading the other comments here I see the results. A lot of people are mad. Mad because it doesn't have the best special effects. Mad because it doesn't have a star cast. Mad because they wanted to see Samuel Jackson say "I'm sick of these M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Snakes on this M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Train"! <br /><br />Well, this sure ain't the Samuel Jackson version. And maybe that's good.<br /><br />Snakes on a Plane was lost between cop film and horror, a family action film and a bloody gory movie of death. Saturday Night Live performers got laughs while Jackson swore enough to make a grandmother cover her ears, and as far as kids go, they would be traumatized by the violence.<br /><br />Snakes on a Train however knew exactly what it was. This was a cheaply made horror movie on a train. Sure it had snakes and sure many of them were scientifically harmless garden snakes with fake rattler sound effects. But never once did it miss a step in its plot or intention where as the "on a Plane" version was tripping all over itself from the first scene on.<br /><br />I did enjoy the over the top fun that Snakes on a Plane had to offer and I admit that the "...on a Train" version was a little dry. But hey, in trade, it was a cool and unexpected story. This little horror film could have gone way more wrong than it did.<br /><br />For this it gets a 7 out of 10. | positive |
This is such a great film! Never mind the low rating here. I really have no idea where that came from, they must be discussing a different film then. Because I absolutely loved it and found it to be a little hidden treasure. <br /><br />It's story was so original and charming.. I really can't think of anything bad to say about it. Maybe it has to be ''your type of thing'', but, I saw this with my sister and my mother, and we all were taken by it. <br /><br />The acting was also very good, and that is hard to do in a film like this. But I found all the characters very intriguing and sympathetic. <br /><br />I've always been very fond of Dougray Scott and found his new ''dark'' role very interesting. It is really awful hard to get me to like a bad guy, but I absolutely had no problem with that this time. Even more so, I adored him. <br /><br />Everyone who loves a good thriller/drama that also has a good dose of love and tragedy should definitely go see this film, no question about that! Anyone wanting to see a film with 80% bloodshed, should go rent something else, though.. But I guess the title already kind of gives that away. This is a love story, not Saw 3.<br /><br />I give this film 4 out of five stars!!! Good job!!!<br /><br />xxx Enjoy! | positive |
I hate to admit it, but they were right to sack Schrader. The opportunity is here to build an atmosphere, to draw an audience into a movie. It wasn't done. The characters are weak. The story was weak. The directing was very poor. Schrader was out of his depth and it shows. I've watched it several times now in the hope that there will be at least one redeeming feature. But no, nothing. The next stage will probably be a remake of the original or hopefully it will be left well alone. Anyone wanting to know what the best sequel to The Exorcist was should read 'Legion', penned by Blatty it has to be the best follow up to an original piece to be committed to print. Sadly, it did not translate to to screen very well and I doubt if it ever could be. As for Dominion, Beginning. Avoid at all costs. | negative |
*****Spoiler or two, not that is matters******<br /><br />Two things stand out about this movie. First is it's been titled both "Bruno" and "The Dress Code," and if you've seen this movie you'll catch the irony in that.<br /><br />Second is it's addressing issues completely off the wall. The adventures of a grade school cross dresser isn't something that there was a crying need for a movie about, nor a topic that I think most people would be interested in. Shirley MacLaine manages to walk around the issues of gender by tying Bruno's desire to wear a dress to religion, which probably opens up an even thornier can of worms--what was she thinking? <br /><br />Yes, there's some humor and it's not directly offensive, but the kind of unsettling feeling in the beginning just keeps on growing. It doesn't do much except repeat the liberal mantra that "different" people should be accepted (or maybe excepted?) no matter what. <br /><br />Which is fine----but in order for people to live in a society everyone has to give a little to get along. Bruno doesn't just want to wear a dress, he wants to show up looking like a miniature Gladys Knight on awards night, and his final costume makes him resemble a Cabbage Patch Cowgirl Doll. Yet all the other kids dress and behave, well, like regular kids. So what gives? If it came down to it we all could declare ourselves special or different and behave any way we felt like, and the result would be total chaos. <br /><br />This accepting of people who are "different" is also pretty narrowly defined, I doubt we will ever see a movie about a kid finding his true self and wanting to wear overalls, hunt geese, and go to tractor pulls, and demanding everyone else just accept him as he is. "Bruno" is one stupid movie, and a complete waste of time. | negative |
The spoof genre, which has lacked creativity and humor for some time already, gets spat upon yet again by hacks with no talent. No point, no fun, no originality; just a few cheap bucks for the film makers. <br /><br />It takes more than just referencing some recent movies and giving characters double-meaning names to be satire; to make people laugh. Any clod can pick up a cam-corder, and have some bad-acting buddies in cheap costumes imitate somebody. Since the genre being targeted this time is inspirational sports movies, there are a few lame references thrown out to movies of that type: the jokes are so weak the characters actually have to emphasize the references in various ways, to get you to laugh hysterically. It doesn't work.<br /><br />That's not comedy. However, the same old worn out sophomoric "jokes" ripped off from a middle school washroom (done even more blandly than usual) are all here. If that's not enough, there's a running "gag" of a bus running somebody over. So funny, right? Also, one pathetically poor scene does more product placement than Michael Bay; again with the same unfunny results. A musical bit flops miserably. Pity Carl Weathers, once Apollo Creed in the Rocky series, now stuck with roles in swill like this.<br /><br />Lousy beyond words. Watching a snail run the marathon would be less tedious than watching this film is. Probably a lot funnier, too. | negative |
I saw this movie when it was first released in 1986. At the time I was young and enjoyed all the normal comedy available, i.e.; Monty Python, Jim Belushi & SNL, Steve Martin, Cheech & Chong, so I believe that my judgment represents most "sane" individuals.<br /><br />The absolute best part of this movie was the trailer played at the beginning of the movie for the new "My Little Pony" movie that was coming out.<br /><br />This movie was so atrocious that it was actually yanked from most theaters before the initial week run was completed.<br /><br />I'm surprised that anyone would waste there corporate money to duplicate this steaming pile of human waste.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money to rent or watch this "movie". | negative |
I'm not much for "cop" movies, but this one is supposedly a classic & when I found it cheap I bought it and stuck it on a shelf, only to finally get around to watching it yesterday, and I LIKED it! Now, you can have New York City, but as a setting for a film like this, in the winter months, it's perfect. Roy Scheider is a member of an elite police task group called The Seven Ups, which are 5 guys that fight crime undercover. In an opening scene they recover a shoebox full of money from an antique store by distracting the crooks with a "bull in a china shop" routine. But that's only the beginning. Seems that there are two guys, posing as cops, that are kidnapping mob types and holding them for ransom. Richard Lynch happens to be one of these sleaze-bags, and he's as creepy as ever. When one of the Seven Ups, who is posing as a limo driver at a funeral, gets his cover blown, he's beaten and stuffed into the trunk of a car, which then leads to perhaps one of the most exciting car chases I've seen. Amazing though, how light traffic in NYC is for chase scenes, but still this is rather amazing as Scheider follows the two kidnappers through what I'm guessing is the Bronx and then onto a turnpike and then eventually, Scheider's car comes to a screeching halt in one of the most heart-stopping finales to a chase scene that I've ever witnessed. Anyway, since the cop ends up dying, Scheider and his men are under suspicion because the police commissioner knows so little about their activities he wonders if THEY'RE on the make by kidnapping mobsters, so of course this kind of thinking needs to be nipped in the bud & Scheider is relentless getting to the bottom of things. Overall a decent cop action/drama, not really my thing but I liked this one. Look for Joe Spinell (Maniac) in a small role. 7 out of 10. | positive |
Al Pacino was once an actor capable of making a role work without resorting to constant use of profanity. In other words when he could act, he didn't have to talk like some street junkie. McConaughey must have been impressed by Pacino because he became a promoter of the "F" word also. This might be the kind of society that they actually live in, but most of us have the common decency to watch what we say in mixed company. I don't recall the exact words that a professor used in explaining the constant use of profanity, but it was something like this. "It shows a lack of intelligence, poor language skills and disrespect for all those that have to listen." Maybe it is time that Al takes some acting courses again to sharpen his talent. Oh yes, the movie... Probably the worse thing that McConaughey has played in. Hopefully his next role will be in the company of more talented people. Rene Russo as always was hot. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.