Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This movie is great entertainment to watch with the wife or girlfriend. There are laughs galore and some very interesting little nudist stories going on here. The actresses are all very interesting and definitely worth watching in their natural beauty. Maslin beach life is full of diverse nudists and personality types. The Australian coast scenery is, simply, splendid to see. What a place to visit, to say the least, and one day it may become my hideaway. I really enjoy this movie and every time I watch it I enjoy it more. I would love to see more of these characters and I always wonder what became of them. Although the plot is somewhat soft, this movie is, of course, a great excuse to just sit back on the couch and enjoy the wonderful and famous Maslin beach with these wonderful nudists and their own personal stories. | positive |
A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.<br /><br />The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.<br /><br />I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.<br /><br />If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.<br /><br />Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.<br /><br />Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back. | negative |
It's so depressing when film makers try to be cool and it's so obvious here. This has below average acting, laughable dialogue, split screens that are difficult to watch, and many goofs in it's attempt to be a period film and autobiographical. This film should be avoided at all costs. I was told not to go and see this film. I wish I had listened. | negative |
Sure, this film was retarded. But you expected that the moment you looked at the cover-box. It's a B movie, and on the T&A factor this movie delivered. Truthfully, it was funnier than expected. While it was by no means a work of comedic genius, like "The Party Animal" or "Orgazmo", as far as B movies go it was worth the watch, if you're into that sort of thing anyway.<br /><br />Christians and morally-oriented parental groups, this is soft-core adult entertainment. If you don't want your children watching sexual content and nudity, then you should keep your children away from this film. | negative |
Anyone new to the incredibly prolific Takashi Miike's work might want to think twice about making this startling film their first experience of this truly maverick director. In keeping with Miike's working practice of taking any work that comes his way and then grafting his own sensibilities onto the script, this is at heart a fairly basic yakuza thriller, with a morally ambiguous cop chasing a gang which his lawyer brother has fallen in with. What takes the movie out of the realms of the same-old same-old however, is the utterly unflinching attitude so some of the most sudden and horrific violence seen in today's cinema. And this isn't that nice cool, clean violence so beloved of US cinema - this stuff is nasty, painful and HURTS! That said, the pace is breakneck, the characters are unusual without being just being burdened with stock eccentricities, Miike's sense of humour reveals itself and the most unexpected moments, and his camera is never quite where you expect it to be, making it hard to look away from the screen, whatever he might be showing you! It doesn't have the "Ohmigod" ending of "Dead Or Alive," but if you're not squeamish, now's the time to get on board the Miike bandwagon before he ends up on some Hollywood studio's "new John Woo" shopping list... | positive |
Okay, okay, maybe not THE greatest. I mean, The Exorcist and Psycho and a few others are hard to pass up, but The Shining is way up there. It is, however, by far the best Stephen King story that has been made into a movie. It's better than The Stand, better than Pet Sematary (if not quite as scary), better than Cujo, better than The Green Mile, better the Dolores Claiborne, better than Stand By Me (just barely, though), and yes, it's better than The Shawshank Redemption (shut up, it's better), I don't care WHAT the IMDb Top 250 says. <br /><br />I read that, a couple of decades ago, Stanley Kubrick was sorting through novels at his home trying to find one that might make a good movie, and from the other room, his wife would hear a pounding noise every half hour or so as he threw books against the wall in frustration. Finally, she didn't hear any noise for almost two hours, and when she went to check and see if he had died in his chair or something (I tell this with all due respect, of course), she found him concentrating on a book that he had in his hand, and the book was The Shining. And thank God, too, because he went on to convert that book into one of the best horror films ever.<br /><br />Stephen King can be thanked for the complexity of the story, about a man who takes his wife and son up to a remote hotel to oversee it during the extremely isolated winter as he works on his writing. Jack Nicholson can be thanked for his dead-on performance as Jack Torrance (how many movies has Jack been in where he plays a character named Jack?), as well as his flawless delivery of several now-famous lines (`Heeeeeere's Johnny!!'). Shelley Duvall can be thanked for giving a performance that allows the audience to relate to Jack's desires to kill her. Stanley Kubrick can be thanked for giving this excellent story his very recognizable touch, and whoever the casting director was can be thanked for scrounging up the creepiest twins on the planet to play the part of the murdered girls.<br /><br />One of the most significant aspects of this movie, necessary for the story as a whole to have its most significant effect, is the isolation, and it's presents flawlessly. The film starts off with a lengthy scene following Jack as he drives up to the old hotel for his interview for the job of the caretaker for the winter. This is soon followed by the same thing following Jack and his family as they drive up the windy mountain road to the hotel. This time the scene is intermixed with shots of Jack, Wendy, and Danny talking in the car, in which Kubrick managed to sneak in a quick suggestion about the evils of TV, as Wendy voices her concern about talking about cannibalism in front of Danny, who says that it's okay because he's already seen it on TV (`See? It's okay, he saw it on the television.').<br /><br />The hotel itself is the perfect setting for a story like this to take place, and it's bloody past is made much more frightening by the huge, echoing rooms and the long hallways. These rooms with their echoes constantly emphasize the emptiness of the hotel, but it is the hallways that really created most of the scariness of this movie, and Kubrick's traditional tracking shots give the hallways a creepy three-dimensional feel. Early in the film, there is a famous tracking shot that follows Danny in a large circle as he rides around the halls on his Big Wheel (is that what those are called?), and his relative speed (as well as the clunking made by the wheels as he goes back and forth from the hardwood floors to the throw rugs) gives the feeling of not knowing what is around the corner. And being a Stephen King story, you EXPECT something to jump out at you. I think that the best scene in the halls (as well as one of the scariest in the film) is when Danny is playing on the floor, and a ball rolls slowly up to him. He looks up and sees the long empty hallway, and because the ball is something of a child's toy, you expect that it must have been those horrendously creepy twins that rolled it to him. Anyway, you get the point. The Shining is a damn scary movie.<br /><br />Besides having the rare quality of being a horror film that doesn't suck, The Shining has a very in depth story that really keeps you guessing and leaves you with a feeling that there was something that you missed. HAD Jack always been there, like Mr. Grady told him in the men's room? Was he really at that ball in 1921, or is that just someone who looks exactly like him? If he has always been the caretaker, as Mr. Grady also said, does that mean that it was HIM that went crazy and killed his wife and twin daughters, and not Mr. Grady, after all? It's one thing for a film to leave loose ends that should have been tied, that's just mediocre filmmaking. For example, The Amityville Horror, which obviously copied much of The Shining as far as its subject matter, did this. But it is entirely different when a film is presented in a way that really makes you think (as mostly all of Kubrick's movies are). One more thing that we can all thank Stanley Kubrick for, and we SHOULD thank him for, is for not throwing this book against the wall. That one toss would have been cinematic tragedy. | positive |
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!<br /><br />I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.<br /><br />This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.<br /><br />There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.<br /><br />The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.<br /><br />I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all. | negative |
THE PLOT: A trucker (Kristofferson) battles a corrupt sheriff (Borgnine) by getting his fellow truckers to band together and form an unstoppable convoy that stretches for miles and soon creates a national media frenzy.<br /><br />THE NEGATIVE: The film's setup is weak and the ending even weaker. It has all the good-ole-boy/trucker clichés without adding anything new in the process. It ends up making SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT look brilliant and inspired. Kristofferson is much too laid back for a leading man role and cannot carry the picture. Borgnine's character is portrayed awkwardly. At the start he is made to look like a real jerk of a sheriff who overacts to a minor contrivance that starts the whole thing rolling. Then at the end he is made out to be a little more sympathetic and even secretly siding with Kristofferson, which doesn't work at all. In either case Jackie Gleason is a much better actor for this type of role. The worst part about the movie though is director Peckinpah's attempts to throw in a 'serious message' into this silly action flick that does nothing but slow it down and bomb in the process.<br /><br />THE POSITIVE: The only good scene in the whole film is the fight sequence inside the truck stop restaurant. Director Peckinpah puts a funny spin to his trademark 'slow motion' violence and the result is amusing. Unfortunately he starts putting all the action into slow motion during the rest of the picture until it eventually becomes tiring. McGraw is always a pleasure to look at, but unfortunately she is given very little to say or do.<br /><br />THE LOWDOWN: If you've read the synopsis than you have essentially 'seen' the movie. The song that this movie is based on is pretty good, but the movie adds nothing to it and should never have been made. This is all very uninspired stuff for such a maverick director.<br /><br />THE RATING: 3 out of 10. | negative |
I had the misfortune of seeing this crapulous effort on television a few years ago. Suffice it to say Michael Gross phones in his performance, and Hasselhoff is the least convincing thief/psycho...EVER! If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch it and prepare to laugh. | negative |
Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star in Creation, which recounts the period of Charles Darwin's life prior to the publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his infamous, world changing tome on evolution and natural selection. Darwin's research created an enormous rift, a schism between the believers of his day and scientists. He was said at the time to be going to war against God, and even to have "killed God".<br /><br />The film revolves around Darwin's life with his wife and four children. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as his extremely devout and loving wife. A revealing scene at the beginning when she leads the dinner table in prayer and Charles fails to say "Amen" is foreshadowing of what will follow and of the stark differences between the two. She is convinced that he will be eternally damned and bring misfortune to their family by rejecting God.<br /><br />Darwin is torn between his strong love for his wife, her faith and his even stronger reason. There are beautiful moments of him observing animals, dissecting their behaviors and the sequences that make up their lives, explaining phenomenons of selection to his children, the first born, Annie, having a very morbid curiosity. We see him interacting with England's first orangutan, Jenny, playing with it as if it were a child, deciphering her every look and action. <br /><br />Annie, the eldest child, later dies and Charles becomes haunted by her death, having been closest to her. In my opinion this part was too long, bizarre and drawn out. I did not like the trippy scenes where he seems to be losing his mind and is pursued by the ghost of his daughter, shouting and ranting. Although Charles thinks that his wife blames him for her fatal sickness, she very poetically says: "The truth is, if I knew then what I know now, I would marry you tomorrow". Their bond is solid and unbreakable despite tremendous differences of belief. <br /><br />When Charles finishes his manuscript he hands his wife the final copy, telling her she can burn it if she does not agree. She stays up reading it nights on end and finally presents him with a package, the book ready to be sent to its publisher. In the end, reason and perhaps love as well, triumph, as he makes an accomplice out of his staunchest adversary.<br /><br />It is fascinating that Darwin received a full Christian burial at Westminster Abbey, proof that his ground-breaking ideas were seen as controversial of course, but were already then recognized as vital knowledge for the advancement of the human race. <br /><br />The movie definitely draws heavily on Darwin's family life, its joys and its troubles. I happened to like this aspect but Fabio said it was like watching a documentary on, I quote, "Hitler's passion for ping-pong". This is true in some respects and I can't disagree with his desire to have learned more about Charles Darwin's theories from this film than we do. It remains nevertheless a well executed and flawlessy acted period drama. <br /><br />My rating: 7 Fabio's: 7 Total score: 14 | positive |
CHEERLEADER MASSACRE (2003)<br /><br />starring: Tamie Sheffield, Charity Rahmer, Erin Byron, Leonard Johnson, E. Eddie Edwards, Samantha Phillips, GiGi Erneta, April Flowers, Nikki Fritz, Tylo Tyler, Brad Beck, Summer Williams, Brinke Stevens, Melissa Brasselle.<br /><br />plot: A group of cheerleaders, along with their coach and three guys, are on their way to a game when suddenly their van breaks down and they take refuge in a nearby cabin. Soon, they drink, have sex, and are brutally murdered one by one by an unseen killer.<br /><br />the good: A few laughs, surprising identity of the killer, a Brinke Stevens cameo, my favorite scene from THE SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE used as a flashback. <br /><br />the bad: I was excited about this film, I loved all three Slumber Party Massacre's because they were just so fun, and I was expecting a lot from this "Slumber Party/Sorority House Massacre with Scream tones), but it just sucked! They overdid it on the "We're cheesy but proud" thing and basically made soft-core porn but with a good who-dun-it.<br /><br />** | negative |
Um... okay, this is very poor indeed if compared to the first film, the very-much-so critically acclaimed Rosemary's Baby. In fact, it's a pretty poor film in general. Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities, but I'll get to that later.<br /><br />Well, it has been quite a while since the last film took place... in fact, it's been pretty much eight years I believe. Rosemary is still trying to escape with her child and influence him in a good way, rather than let him succumb to the evil future that the coven (or "tribe", as it is referred to as here) has laid out for him. When she runs off with him and an empty bus comes and picks her up, leaving her child with a hooker, the hooker raises him until he comes of age, where Satan tries to possess him since he seems to be rejecting his evil heritage in every way.<br /><br />Obviously, things don't go as planned, and then there is the ending that I would have felt seriously ashamed at had I not seen it coming since hearing that there was a sequel to "Rosemary's Baby"! Okay, when I was around 11 years old, I witnessed the masterpiece Rosemary's Baby and then read the book sequel. Thinking that this film was an adaptation of that, I tracked this film down and got it... was I right in doing so? Well, in some way, yes... I am a true fan of this "franchise" and can say that I have seen the sequel, and I have some idea as to what happens after the events in the first film (speaking of both this film AND "Son of Rosemary", Ira Levin's own book sequel, not yet adapted to film).<br /><br />Ruth Gordon, who played Minnie in the first film, is shown a few times in this film, but why-oh-why is the coven so different? The knife Rosemary had dropped in the first film is shown sticking out of the ground, yet Minnie pulled it out! The coven is now called the tribe (as I said earlier). They now go around in hooded capes chanting "Hail Satan... Hail Adrian... Hail Satan... Hail Adrian..." and so on and so forth. The Gothic building is now like a two-story house on a lawn in the middle of nowhere, it looks like a little nice suburb home or something! And the child itself is pretty normal-looking, with his eyes only going all "catty" when he gets mad and kills someone or something in that vain.<br /><br />As far as the acting goes, it's pretty poor on all parts, except for Stephen McHattie, whom plays a very-grown up Adrian. Pattie Duke Astin, replacing Mia Farrow as Rosemary, has to have one of the flat-out WORST performances ever to be caught on film! It is so bad it's almost not even funny... when she screams "OH MY GOD!" and cries for like the fifteenth time in the movie, you're just like "Okay, it's not funny anymore," and then by the time she is gone and the movie has been on for twenty minutes only, you're like THANK THE LORD I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR HER SAY "OH MY GOD" ANY LONGER!! SHEESH! In the end, this movie has very, very, *very* few redeeming qualities, enough to get it at least four stars. But, if you look at it as a serious sequel to the first film, it's pretty much non-existent. | negative |
All right guys, here's the deal with this movie. it's not the best but for all of you 80s kids out there it'll bring back fond memories of your childhood. Personally, i love this movie. i still love rainbow brite and the care bears. so, in my opinion, if you aren't a kid now or were a kid that loved and/or loves rainbow brite you won't like this movie at all. | positive |
"Julia Kerbridge (Catherine Mary Stewart) is working hard to become a doctor. Suddenly, Julia finds herself the guardian of her young niece, Amanda, after her parents are found murdered. Julia has a new neighbor, the mysterious Kevin Finney (Rob Lowe). Her hectic life comes crashing down when it becomes apparent that the young Amanda holds the key to a terrible secret. For she too is now the target of the killers. Julia must discover whether Kevin is friend or foe, and unlock the sinister mystery before the murderer strikes again," according to the DVD sleeve synopsis.<br /><br />This thriller quietly falls apart at the seams, but it is interesting some of the time. Stalker Sean Devine's background telephone scene (outside the police station) and Mr. Lowe's violin (restaurant) are tensely played. But, early on, it's difficult not to miss the fact that one of the supposedly sophisticated killers purposely twists his foot in some red paint at the murder scene. Unfortunately, this is not an intricate plot point; and, there are worse story stumbles afoot. Overall "Dead Silent" is not a bad way to spend some time, if there is nothing better on, or you're into Lowe and his co-stars.<br /><br />**** Dead Silent (1999) Roger Cardinal ~ Catherine Mary Stewart, Rob Lowe, Arlen Aguayo-Stewart, Larry Day | negative |
This short was nominated for an Academy Award, losing to Anna and Bella. Not since Doctor Strangelove has nuclear war been so hilarious! Condie takes a situation and turns it on its ear and then gives it a spin for good measure. Visual gags abound in Condie's work and I always see something I missed before every time I watch this. On The World's Greatest Animation, well worth seeing for thisand many other shorts. Recommended. | positive |
This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.<br /><br />One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.<br /><br />The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.<br /><br />(Spoiler warning!)<br /><br />I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.<br /><br />I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to "play the best case for their character they could". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well. | positive |
Almost a masterclass in how not to direct a movie. From the misjudged, often incomprehensible script onwards Dr Rey builds on a series of poor decisions that make the film an excruciating viewing experience. Sadly the film never rises beyond a kind of old fashioned, almost misogynistic gay camp in which women are over-wrought, OTT and middle aged and the men are young, vacuous and forever on the hunt for sex. The director was unable to pitch either the tone of the film or the level of the performances.<br /><br />There is certainly a great deal of 'acting' going on. Dianne Wiest slips into a pale impersonation of her Bullets Over Broadway performance and poor old Jane Birkin flounders in her attempt to give a comic performance. Though you have to pity her as there is very little real comedy here. The whole thing feels like a very low rent version of Merchant Ivory's Le Divorce which, to be quite honest, wasn't very good, either. | negative |
Admittedly, I watched this piece with already VERY low expectations. Dieter Bohlen is a rather untalented composer parvenu whose lack of talent is only surpassed by the size of his ego.<br /><br />This was the first cartoon movie that I watched that was 100 per cent humor free. It is rude, offensive, redneck and blatantly anti- women. As such, it is a creation befitting Bohlen, but the average viewer will be rather put off by it. No wonder that it was never shown in a cinema theater: It would've bombed BIG time!<br /><br />Not even the expense of 6.5 MegaEuros were able to save this utter piece of crap. Save your time... and money! | negative |
Okay, so I'm a sucker for a good documentary, particularly where it tells a modern-day Don Quixote story. A caveat: I met Mark Borchardt in the winter of 1995/96 while he was still working on Coven. But I'll save that story for later. American Movie, which commenced production not long after, accurately portrays the person that I knew, although in greater depth than I expected or believed existed. This is simultaneously a very funny and very sad film, and is brilliantly executed. Mark comes across as his own worse enemy: his childlike ambition and optimism -- which I admire -- is undermined by his apparent artistic ineptitude as well as his bizarre fiscal expectations. But he's also a charismatic guy. His loyal Sancho Panza sidekick is equally likeable: loyal, if frazzled, to the core. Like Don Quixote, American Movie presents an often-ignored inefficient aspect of freedom -- that people will be drawn toward professions to which they are not particularly well-suited, irrespective of repeated failure. It is a great film. | positive |
(Honestly, Barbra, I know it's you who's klicking all those "NO"s on my review. 22 times?? How many people did you have to instruct to help you out here? Don't you have anything better to do, like look at yourself in the mirror all day?)<br /><br />Steven Spielberg told Barbra that this was "the best movie I've seen since 'Citizen Kane'". That pretty much says it all - and serves as a dire warning!<br /><br />What are the ingredients for a sure-fire cinematic disaster, and one that will haunt you, never letting you forget the tears of both laughter and pain? The ingredients: Barbra Streisand's face, a musical, feminism, Barbra Streisand's voice, Barbra Streisand directing, and an ultra-corny/idiotic premise.<br /><br />Hollywood is full of egomaniacs, this much we know. In fact, nearly everyone by definition has to be an egomaniac in Hollywood. Why would anyone want to act? For the "art"?!? Well, if you're dumb enough to believe what they tell you in their carefully prepared interviews
And Streisand has the biggest ego of them all! This is quite an achievement. To be surrounded by narcissistic cretins, and yet to manage to top them all remarkable.<br /><br />The movie, like all her "solo" endeavors, is an ego trip straight out of hell. Every scene Streisand is in is automatically ruined. Stillborn. But as it that weren't enough, she sings a whole bunch of Streisandy songs you know, the kind that enabled the Mariah Careys, the Celine Dions, and the Whitney Hustons of this world to poison our precious air-waves for decades now. Just for that she deserves not one but 100 South Park episodes mocking her.<br /><br />The premise, Streisand dressing up as a man to study to become a rabbi, sounds like a zany ZAZ comedy. Apart from it being a cliché, the obvious problem is that Streisand doesn't look like a woman nor does she look like a man in fact I'm not even sure she's human. The way she looks in this movie, well
it cannot be described in words. E.T. looks like a high-school jock by comparison. She looks more alien than Michael Jackson in the year 2015. She looks HORRIBLE.<br /><br />The songs. They made me shiver. Particularly "Papa Can You Hear Me Squeel Like A Demented Female Walrus In Heat?" and "Tomorrow Night I'll Prepare the Sequel, YENTL 2: THE RETURN OF THE BITCH".<br /><br />Did you know that Streisand considered having a nose-job early on in her career, but changed her mind when they told her her voice might change? Can you believe that? She should have done it! Killing two flies with one swipe, that's what it would have been.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my biographies of Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.<br /><br />SHOULD BARBRA STREISAND FINALLY GO INTO RETIREMENT? CLICK "YES" OR "NO". | negative |
Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.<br /><br />I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts. | negative |
From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always laugh when I think of this film. | positive |
I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.<br /><br />I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.<br /><br />0 out of **** stars. | negative |
Average viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.<br /><br />While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.<br /><br />This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.<br /><br />Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.<br /><br /> | negative |
Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her "smash-hit one-woman show."<br /><br />There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her "superstar summer," to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back "to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room."<br /><br />There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is "Shashonna," a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from "Like a Virgin," there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.<br /><br />But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.<br /><br />Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song "Four Women" while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as "my skin is black," "my hair is wooly," and "they call me Sweet Thing."<br /><br />She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: "Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening."<br /><br />She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying "Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!"<br /><br />Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, "I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!"<br /><br />Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: "When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real."<br /><br />Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, "Eventually everyone will funk!"<br /><br />All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.<br /><br />In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.<br /><br />If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.<br /><br />But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend "in the know" because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else. | positive |
Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*<br /><br />I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.<br /><br />The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.<br /><br />Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?<br /><br />If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously. <br /><br />This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.<br /><br />Respect | negative |
I don't play video games at all but my children do.<br /><br />I got a big kick out of this. Would like to see more of this type of film. "very cool" as my youngest would say.<br /><br />Interesting characters and the overall story line was interesting. Like I said I don't play video games but I think that my children would enjoyed this. It was not full of bad language and that is a pleasant change. This visual concept was different which caught my eye. Plus the sound track was pretty good. I might even try out some of the games my sons plays to see because of this film. Who knows maybe I'll be a gamer someday. | positive |
Always enjoyed "DOA",1950,which starred Edmond O'Brien and was very curious about this film. Dennis Quaid,(Dexter Cornell), was a professor who loved his wife and finally found out she was having an affair with one of his students. Dexter gets involved with Meg Ryan(Sydney Fuller), who was a student in his college class and at the same time had a big crush on him and wound up having a one night stand and in some ways loved him deeply. Dexter learns that he received a drink which had bad contents and would cause him a great deal of health problems! If you like Dennis Quaid and love Meg Ryan you will enjoy viewing this film, Meg gave an outstanding performance and kept this picture worth watching! | positive |
Well then, thank you SO MUCH Disney for DESTROYING the fond memories I USED to have of my FORMER favorite movie. I was about 5 when the original movie came out, and it was one of the first movies I remember seeing. So, now that I'm 16, and feeling masochistic enough, I decided to rent this movie. Thus, I managed to poison all my memories of the original movie with this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie takes everything that made the original endearing and wrecks it, right down to the last detail.<br /><br />In this movie, Ariel and Eric celebrate the birth of their daughter, Melody, and go to show her to everyone in the ocean...BROADWAY STYLE! After the musical number ends, within minutes, the sea witch Morgana shows up and threatens to kill Melody if Triton doesn't give up the trident. Thus, he gives it up without even a fight. Eric stands there gaping, though Ariel figures out how to use a sword and save Melody. Morgana escapes, so Ariel and Eric decide that Melody should never go near the sea until Morgana is caught.<br /><br />Well...uh, nothing of note really happens. Eric is a total wuss. He never really manages to do anything. Ariel sort of does something. Melody manages to screw things up. Plus, the animation is a new low-point for Disney. The computer graphics wind up clashing with the backgrounds. Ever single opportunity for character development is wasted. The songs bite.<br /><br />Look, don't waste your time. I'm pretty sure even the little kids are going to be bored out of their skulls with this, since nothing even remotely exciting ever happens. They won't want to sing the songs. If you manage to grab a copy of this, throw it out into the ocean and hope that nobody ever finds it. Ever. | negative |
I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.<br /><br />I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy. | negative |
It is enjoyable and fast-paced. <br /><br />There is no way on Earth that the actor playing Mat could be eighteen. However, the main thing is that he does act eighteen very convincingly. It must be a credit to his audition that he convinced them to cast him. I quite soon accepted him as being a naive young country boy.<br /><br />While his was the best performance, most of the others were also very engaging. In particular, the interplay between the policemen was natural and well-balanced, and worked very well.<br /><br />It is only about 45 minutes long, so the plot is not complex. More key is the style of the whole thing. It is very slick and vibrant, and the backdrops are atmospheric, especially from the fact that all the colours are extremely rich. The gangland is identifiable to foreign audiences, but still manages to be distinctly Australian. | negative |
Despite its age, this film retains its undoubted charm and attraction, and is a fine, surviving example of early British cinema. It has an underlying air of eeriness, interspersed with shafts of humour which are not out of place, and serve to demonstrate the assured direction & production values involved. So many episodic type films are disjointed and untidy, but this is not one of them. The standard of acting helps a great deal, and the various disparate characters come across as interesting and believable. All in all, this long-forgotten little gem is well worth anyone's attention, in spite of the one jarring note in the film which, surprisingly, escaped the censor's attention! | positive |
Watching this movie and then listening to the commentary, it's clear that Michael Radford doesn't understand this play. The first clue that he fails to fully grasp the work is that he takes pains to set the film in seventeenth-century Venice. Which sounds truly odd, yes, that misunderstanding the film would mean trying to make it as accurate to its location as possible. But anyone who's studied Shakespeare knows that, while he set most of his plays in exotic locals, the culture and values are always contemporary England. This doesn't hurt the film, but it displays a lack of necessary knowledge.<br /><br />Where Radford kills the film is in making it so dead serious. He manages to suck every joke out of the script, leaving the whole production flat. Every ounce of passion is beaten out of the characters. Even Shylock's 'Do we not bleed' speech is a mild, awkward ranting from a choleric who seems to only be saying and doing what he does because he's supposed to. The lovers are solemn and far too restrained (Joseph Fiennes delivers some of the most romantic lines in the cinema this year in a barely audible whisper), Gratiano (who has to promise to behave at one point) is more sober and collected than Bassiano (who makes him promise to behave), Jessica is reluctant to leave her father and spends her life with Lorenzo pouting.<br /><br />In the commentary for the bland and watered-down court scene, the director voices his shock that an audience laughed at Portia's 'A pound of flesh, no more, no less' sentence; ultimately concluding that it had to tension release laughter. 'The Merchant of Venice' is a comedy and Radford scoffs at the idea that the most absurd and hysterical portions of the story are anything but the most daringly provocative drama.<br /><br />The film has no intelligible focus, yet cuts out some of the most entertaining scenes. The characters are forced into high drama veils, so they come out sounding like Ibsen characters reading Victorian poetry. And the comedic ending, where all of the good guys go to bed happy, is drowned in a dignified despair that feels like they're finding stiff- upper-lip peace with impending death, rather than reconciling with lovers. Even Lancelot and Antonio exit the film holding their hats like aristocratic mourners.<br /><br />The film is poorly done because the creative powers that be don't understand the script. It is stern where it should hysterical. It is reserved where it should be passionate. It is Michael Radford where it should be William Shakespeare. | negative |
Please...if anybody gets the chance to read this BEFORE watching the movie, if it can be called so, refrain from it... do not waste your time!!!! I too watched this film right after finishing the book, and was seriously disappointed... the main character is basically a new made up Fanny, for she shows NO resemblance whatso ever to the book...she's so lively and laughing all the time... if there was one thing the author wanted to set on this was that she was a very shy, introverted character.... please!!!!! All the most important parts of the story, which are supposed to convey to the heppy ending, are simply not taken into account...and the rest made up!!! I think one is better off using the time to either read a little bit of the actual novel or simply do nothing. | negative |
GoldenEye is a masterpiece. The storyline is amazingly depicted, the characters beautifully animated and the weapons are tyte. The storyline is so interesting, even when you complete every single mission, to get more levels you have to beat them on a higher difficulty. And the multiplayer mode is so tyte. You pick the weapons you want to play with, then play. Me and the three of my friends, along with my brother, always play Goldeneye. If you don't have this game, I suggest you buy it. | positive |
I read somewhere (in a fairly panning review) that this is something of a live-action mecha anime, and I think they're on the right lines. I first watched this movie when I was very young and I've been dying to see it again, and when I finally did just recently all the memories came flooding back. I don't think this is to be taken too seriously - it's just a bit of good old 80's almost-a-TV-movie fun (it is set against the backdrop of a fairly dark future, although this point isn't stressed too much). What I admired most about this movie was that the dialogue didn't sound generic - no clichés, no predictable lines - all in all just good fun! Maybe time hasn't been kind to this little movie, but still I can find appreciation for it in me. It's by no means perfect, but it's entertaining and doesn't try to be anything other than that. Let the nerds and comic-store-guys worry about technicalities - who cares? See it for yourself and make your own decision. No-one else's opinion matters. | positive |
Comedy is a hard beast to conquer. Ishimoto fails on all accounts, as a writer and director. Some things, like making movies that are funny, just need to be left to the professionals. 1 out of 10. Awful. It wasn't funny. I tried to laugh but it just wasn't funny. I wasn't the only one, no-one else at the Chicago festival was laughing either, at least at the showing I saw. Simply very bad, sorry :( | negative |
'Ernest Saves Christmas' is comedian Ernest's Christmas special film. In this film, Ernest has to find a successor to Santa Claus in order for Christmas to continue. Along the way, he meets a young girl who is a thief and who ends up stealing something very important of Santa's (I won't tell you what that is; you'll just have to watch the film for yourself). Like most Ernest films, there is a lot of slapstick humor involved.<br /><br />This film is probably one of Ernest's best films. It's funny, and it has some important lessons to learn regarding friendship and family and not being afraid to show love. It's not the best Christmas film around, but it is a good one to get you in the Christmas spirit. It's a little bit sad that the film is a little dated now. | negative |
This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by "ground-breaking" and "original" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the "Bill Cosby Show" or "Hill Street Blues" it's original. Definitely. Next to "Law & Order" TP spews originality left and right.<br /><br />Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed "weirdness", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...<br /><br />Whenever I watch the "weird dream" sequence in "Living In Oblivion" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? "Eraserhead" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch "The Prisoner". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.<br /><br />In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for "unique faces" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced "hunks" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a "weird show with weird-looking people". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable "eccentricities" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-"Elephant Man" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling. <br /><br />So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this "great mind" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality. <br /><br />Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story.<br /><br />Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my "TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism" list. | negative |
With a cheap pound shop having just opened,i thought that it was worth looking to see if their were any cheap DVDs that looked good.and while the back of the cover made this sound like a Jeepers Creepers type of film,it is actually an anthology film! and thought one or two of the stories feel very familiar.Its still a fun light horror/comedy. The plots:<br /><br />Story one:The classic.<br /><br />A young couple feel the it is time that they should try to in prove their financial life by picking up a $1500 car.But,when the guy goes to pick a car,a car starts to talk to him.The car (called Banns) says that to get everything that he has ever wanted in life,that he must buy Baans for $5000.So while the guys relationship crumbles,Baans does everything he can to show who really is in charge.<br /><br />Story two:Kitchen culture.<br /><br />A guy that might get thrown out by his land lord,due to how messy his flat is,discovers that due to keeping a tuna pasta in his fridge for six months,the it has now moulded and evolved into a green mouldy version of himself!.And while they start off as friends,they end up having a big falling out,the leads to a final battle to see if the real guy or his fridge clone will survive.<br /><br />Story three:Too good to be true.<br /><br />A girl signs up with a dating agency and she gets matched with a guy the is perfect for her.But she is unsure that the guy is too perfect,and when she thinks that she sees him 'shut down' she starts to get spooked. View on the film:<br /><br />The first thing that i have to mention is the rating for the film in england,where it has been given an eighteen rating,even thought it has no nudity,swearing or blood at all.And the other odd thing about all the stories is that they all have happy endings,where the goodies win!.And while the first story is too close to the Stephen King classic Christine,the second story is easily the highlight of the film,with director Tom Parkinson making the nuttiness of the story feel like a low-budget Muppets episode!.<br /><br />Final view on the film<br /><br />While it does have a bit of a 'remake; feel,their is enough wackiness to make this a good horror 'comedy'. | negative |
How can you go wrong with the amazing Ramones? What a crime that two of them are already dead. It reminds me of the Dennis Leary joke about great musicians dying in kitchen fires while useless ones live forever. I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea.<br /><br />ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL tells the story of a group of disenfranchised kids fighting against their oppressive high school's administration. It's extremely silly stuff, but there's an optimism about it that's refreshing (even if they do resort to blowing up the building). Who knew that this would actually become a concern for students around the world? ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL is a time capsule of an era when people still believed that music mattered and that it could make a difference to the larger society. It's full of kids who know authority doesn't have the correct answers. Rather, rock and roll is the only thing they can trust.<br /><br />But most important, this is pure exploitation.<br /><br />Take none of it seriously. Just go in and have a good time. If this wasn't what high school life was like in the seventies, then it should have been. | positive |
This movie is worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. There are some interesting visuals.<br /><br />Aside from that, it's typical nineties/aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. True to the title.<br /><br />It's not worth picking apart the story. That's like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. There's not much there to begin with. It's nothing original and not very special. So don't go in for the story at all. Just look at the effects.<br /><br />As has been mentioned, it got a little flashy at the end, diluting the purity of great FX treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. However if you ignore the "standard" pyrotechnics, it's a sight to behold (or not to behold).<br /><br />All in all, it's a decent FX film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone. | negative |
Did the other reviewers watch the same movie I did? This was poorly written, poorly acted, and just overall boring. I made it well past the halfway point in the movie and then just gave up. I can't possibly imagine an ending that would have made the rest of the movie worthwhile. Don't waste your time with this dog. Seriously. | negative |
When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - "Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara" which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this "Loser-like Sacrificial" attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent. <br /><br />The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner. <br /><br />Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!! | negative |
I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.<br /><br />The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it. | negative |
This movie seems a little clunky around the edges, like not quite enough zaniness was thrown it when it should have been. But I mostly enjoyed it.<br /><br />The storyline is more than a little bit preposterous, so no expectation of "something real" should be included in your viewing experience. Check your brain in at the door. It will not be needed and might be an impediment otherwise.<br /><br />I quite enjoyed Clennon's performance as the real Dr. Baird. His role was spot on for giving Aykroyd's character a protagonist. What a putz the real Dr. Baird was.<br /><br />And Matthau was quite good as the lead character's sidekick. Annoying at first, but ultimately lovable. Sort of. Kind of. Or at least something the use of a bar of soap and a lot of water would have been more than helpful.<br /><br />Actually worth watching? If you're in the mood for a spoof on the psychiatric profession, sure, why not. | negative |
I have read the novel Reaper of Ben Mezrich a fews years ago and last night I accidentally came to see this adaption.<br /><br />Although it's been years since I read the story the first time, the differences between the novel and the movie are humongous. Very important elements, which made the whole thing plausible are just written out or changed to bad.<br /><br />If the plot sounds interesting to you: go and get the novel. Its much, much, much better.<br /><br />Still 4 out of 10 since it was hard to stop watching because of the great basic plot by Ben Mezrich. | negative |
Daniel Day Lewis is one of the best actors of our time and one of my favorites. It is amazing how much he throws himself in each of the characters he plays making them real.<br /><br />I remember, many years ago, we had a party in our house - the friends came over, we were sitting around the table, eating, drinking the wine, talking, laughing - having a good time. The TV was on - there was a movie which we did not pay much attention to. Then, suddenly, all of us stopped talking and laughing. The glasses did not clink, the forks did not move, the food was getting cold on the plates. We could not take our eyes off the screen where the young crippled man whose entire body was against him and who only had a control over his left foot, picked up a piece of chalk with his foot and for what seemed the eternity tried to write just one word on the floor. When he finished writing that one word, we all knew that we had witnessed not one but three triumphs - the triumph of a human will and spirit, the triumph of the cinema which was able to capture the moment like this on the film, and the triumph of an actor who did not act but who became his character.<br /><br />Jim Sheridan's "My Left Foot" is an riveting, unsentimental bio-drama about Christy Brown, the man who was born with cerebral palsy in a Dublin slum; who became an artist and a writer and who found a love of his life.<br /><br />I like every one of Day Lewis's performances (I have mixed feelings about his performance in GONY) but I believe that his greatest role was Christy Brown in "My Left Foot" | positive |
One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a "famous quote" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because "after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse," or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the "streets of New York" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period. <br /><br />The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look. | negative |
Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor. <br /><br />This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it. <br /><br />Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits. <br /><br />Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think. <br /><br />I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face. | negative |
A well written screenplay. A moving story showing the middle class English at it's best. Some great acting by Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson. Tom Wilkinson is one of Britain's best actors. He knows how to be subtle and honest. Emily Watson is an actress I was not familiar with, but to her credit she does a great job of playing the ****** wife. The director, Julian Fellowes did not succumb to the typical Hollywood gimmicks to give the film some meaty storyline. It has not over dramatized it's portrayal of the English middle class. The films pace does not falter although it is not a faced paced film. A good twist in the plot, that is not predictable A lovely English country village setting. I enjoyed this film very much The locations were also very well selected. If you enjoy films about relationships this is one to watch. Better to have some tissues ready! | positive |
I'm not a big fan of most anime, but Gundam Wing is truly something else. Gundam wing lacks all of that stereotypical melodrama that you might think of when you think of anime, since the number of jokes made over the 17 hours would only be in the double digits, Gundam Wing gets right down to business. <br /><br />Gundam Wing is as much of a political thriller as it is an action series. Large parts focus on the diplomatic dealings of a war, not only the battles. Though battle animation lacks extreme detail in cases where it would just be a pain to animate, individual duels between gundams are almost pieces of art considering the animated use of complex mechanics and rapid movements. <br /><br />To my knowledge, this 49 episode plus one movie series was picked up by cartoon network in 2000, and then professionally dubbed by them too. the dubbing is simply flawless. not only does every word said match up, but the voices use truly make the characters much more believable. many believe that it is best to watch anime with subs in English, but i simply don't have the determination to do that. <br /><br />Not only are the voices good, but the score used over the series is quite impressive. I'll just say it left me scouring the net in vain to find a soundtrack. <br /><br />The plot of this series is what will truly hook viewers, and no, not hook you like some prime time drama like Lost which was only made for the purpose of hooking you. explaining the plot deeply would lead to many spoilers, since many of the characters do not even have names until quite a few episodes into the series. The rough idea of the series is that earth and its now independent space colonies are having difficulty maintaining peace. Thus a war is started, leading to military coups and elaborate diplomatic situations. I feel that any more detail would begin to give away information, which is crucial to the plot. <br /><br />I'll end here saying that this series is great for anyone that likes anime, anyone that thinks ALL anime is stupid (they have good reason to think so), and anyone looking to get into anime with a serious tone to it. | positive |
This is one peace of art! If you like comedy you should watch this! Here comes a funny moment from the movie: "spoiler"<br /><br />Nikolai and Goroshkov are walking together in Paris for the first time. They are visiting the local market. And Goroshkov goes: -"Look Nikolai, how much food they have! Look! One-two-three-ten-thirty-fifty-hundred kinds of meat! But if ask for a tiny-tiny peace, just for the taste, they won't give you. French are very greedy!" Then Goroshkov takes Nikolai to a TV-shop...Goroshkov: "Tell me, who needs all these televisions? Look at this monster here, for example!" Goroshkov points a finger at the "monster"-TV and goes: "And this motherfu*ker...he is supposed to be digging a ditch, but no, he's on TV...wait a minute... that's ME! hahah!"<br /><br />Wanna laugh? Watch the movie, you won't regret! | positive |
This film was such a mess I actually reimbursed my friends who I dragged to see it. The only reason I went to see it was that my friend was an apprentice editor on the shoot.<br /><br />I'm sure that this film was meant to be campy, but the approach was so heavy-handed and self-reflexive it turned out really flat. Judd Nelson stars as an obsequious garbage man who is a hack comedian on the side. His life is hell and made worse by his obnoxious and overbearing companion Bill Paxton (who I feel embarrassed for - this was a really tasteless role for a talented actor). A freak accident alters Nelson's career course and mayhem ensues.<br /><br />The attempts at humor were corny, predictable and often base and tasteless. Wayne Newton in the cast as a talent agent is a novelty but he adds nothing - comedically or otherwise.<br /><br />Overall, it's a very weak and uncreative attempt at camp humor that goes over like a lead balloon. At least you could laugh AT Plan 9 From Outer Space. This one just makes you wonder who thought this was a good enough idea to finance and film. One of the all time worst bombs you'll ever witness. | negative |
This film has, over the past ten years, become one of my favorite pseudo noir experiences. The three storyline threads given us by Kazan each have their unique and separate pleasures. The domestic chitchat between Bel Geddes and Widmark, the movement between rooms, the small gestures such as the phone book Barbara places on the chair under her son so he can reach the table, those small intimate exchanges between husband and wife, all are well crafted and natural. More than anything else, I love their porch, that second living room where it is clear they spend much of their summer time. The second thread is the professional relationship between many in the film but especially between Widmark and Douglas' characters. It may not be totally original and does get a bit blustery but all in all, it comes across as real, respectful and efficient. The third thread,the grungy tale of Blackie and his tattered little gang, gets us closest to a dark and frightening noir world.Palance's Blackie is as cold as a block of ice. This self-proclaimed business man, this self made man clearly has a complexity we only briefly tap in to. For me, this film continues to be a completely satisfying experience. | positive |
Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare "Wiedzmin" and "Conan the Barbarian" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare. | negative |
Excellent and moving story of the end of a uniquely intimate affair. Then again, the point of the film, to paraphrase another comment, is that every relationship can be unique and intimate. A truly quality short film which caught me at my busiest, yet had the power to pull me down onto the sofa and watch, fixed and quiet, for the duration. Bobby and Tessa are powerfully moving characters and anyone who has suffered the end of a love affair will find this film to be a cathartic exercise. Beyond that, the 'film within a film' idea plays out very well with this cast and is quite riveting, though in a somewhat melancholic way. | positive |
I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.<br /><br />I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.<br /><br />Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond "art". His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...<br /><br />Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides.<br /><br /> | positive |
I caught this movie about 8 years ago, and have never had it of my mind. surely someone out there will release it on Video, or hey why not DVD! The ford coupe is the star.......if you have any head for cars WATCH THIS and be blown away. | positive |
I have to say this, this is the first movie I'm reviewing on here I didn't finish watching. I mean.. I COULDN"T CONTINUE! No matter how adamant I am for watching things until the bitter end, 'The Ballad Of The Sad Café' proved no match to this viewer. Vanessa Redgrave stars as the Strange Woman in Town who does things like walk through the river with a full set of clothes on. Anyways,. A long lost relative comes to visit, he's a midget and
well, that's as far as I got. What the heck was the point of all of this? I didn't even bother to wait for Michael Carradine to come on, as I was already pummeled senseless by the combination of the slow script AND having to deal with a midget in a dramatic role. I call this coffee table cinema. The type of cinema that appeals to just a scant few of you, but the others just STAY AWAY. | negative |
i read the book before i saw the movie i knew the movie was going to be good because the book was great i seriously recommend you see this amazing fantastic movie. i know you will like it. when i went to see it i was there with my sister and there was nobody that was with us i was a little disappointed but nobody that i know has gone in to that movie and came out saying that was a horrible movie. nobody can it is so great i think everyone will like it (to bad nobody wants to see it) anyway i hope from what you have heard about this movie from me will make you want to see this movie i guarantee you'll like it as much as i do (im obsessed) literlly i am | positive |
In 2023, in a world ruled by the economical interests of the great corporations (and not by the people will or politicians), Kam (Bobbie Phillips) is a human hybrid and IBI (International Bureau of Investigation) agent. She is denominated a `sub'(from sub-human), and her genetic composition is 80% human and 20% animal. She has a combination of genes of cougar, that gives her strength and flexibility; falcon, that giver her a increased capacity of seeing and hearing; and chameleon, that gives her the power of camouflage. In the first film, she was a very seductive and amoral woman, using sex to achieve information. I do not have watched the second yet, but in this third one, the story is full of action. A group of scientists has been developing a new and dangerous form of power generation for fifteen years. The research has not been concluded yet, when one of them betrayal the other and steals the research. The problem is that, due to its molecular instability, a black hole will be created and will suck the whole planet. Kam saves Dr. Tess Adkins (Teal Redmann), the survival of the team of scientist, and tries to retrieve the dangerous invent from the hands of the `bad guys'. There is a very strong `sub' in this gang that causes many difficulties for Kam. This action and sci-fi television movie is better than the first one, recalling `The Terminator' in some parts of the plot. Bobbie Phillips is a very beautiful actress, and her outfit is very cool. I am becoming a fan of this good entertainment. Fans of sci-fi movies will not be disappointed. Now I am trying to buy `Chameleon 2'. My vote is seven. | positive |
When plague breaks out in New Orleans, it's Richard Widmark to the rescue in "Panic in the Streets," one of the lesser-celebrated films of the great Elia Kazan. Kazan keeps the pace brisk, and there are lots of marvelous touches - the scenes between Widmark and Barbara Bel Geddes, who plays his wife and the scene in the police station show family life and work life and the relationships of average citizens, which is in sharp contrast to the lives and relationships of the low-lifes, portrayed by a menacing Jack Palance, his weak yes man, Zero Mostel, Tommy Cook, and Louis Charles. There are also some interesting visuals - Palance has a couple of scenes with actors who seem to come up to his knees in height.<br /><br />The acting is marvelous and the dialogue sharp if the story isn't quite up to the direction and performances. It has a few questionable aspects which will be spotted by the viewer quite easily. That aside, it's well worth viewing. Kazan was a masterful director. | positive |
And again, Columbia Pictures decides to merely make "hash" using the original version with Curly and without any of the gags or jokes to boot! Toward the end of this pitiful flick when Joe gets stuck riding the bull, the studio didn't even make much of an effort to re-record the sound for if you listen carefully you can still here Curly going "Woo woo woo woo". Also, when Moe and Larry throw the darts in order to "slow the bull down so he can get off", that's lifted right from the original because you can actually see Moe and Larry "magically" appear 15 years younger. Why oh why did Moe allow all this to happen? It's a burning question that probably can never be answered because as far as I know, in real life he was quite sensitive to any type of criticism and had rather high standards for his work, as also did Larry, Curly and Shemp. Don't waste your time on this one. | negative |
I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life. | negative |
Los Debutantes is the story of two orphaned brothers who have moved to Santiago from the South after their mother dies. The confident and streetwise Silvio, the elder brother, gets a job working for a sleazy strip club's owner after taking the naive Victor there for his 17th birthday.<br /><br />As Silvio blossoms under his boss's tutelage, both brothers get involved with the owner's sexy and manipulative mistress, Gracia. As the film unfolds, characters are redefined as we begin to see the subtle and overt ways that each one manipulates the next.<br /><br />The film is well made, with good cinematography and fast pacing. It's also pretty sexy, with a lot of nudity and some fairly explicit sex scenes. It uses the now-popular technique of layering different scenes from different points of view, out of chronological sequence. Many people hate movies like this because they don't understand what's going on - Memento, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and many other good films use this device. The plot itself is really nothing new, there are elements of Body Heat, Pulp Fiction, and many other good film noir.<br /><br />As the different layers are revealed, our understandings of the characters and their motivations evolve. While the plot may be somewhat cliché, it is also clever and entertaining.<br /><br />I would call it an enjoyable movie, worth watching, but nothing memorable. I haven't seen many films from Chile, and it's always interesting to see film noir from other countries. Other than that, rent it if it's available but don't lose any sleep if it isn't. | positive |
Mark Pirro's "Deathrow Gameshow" of 1987 is a black comedy that is extremely cheesy in many parts, but occasionally very funny nevertheless. This movie could certainly have been a lot better, the acting is terrible, and some extremely cheesy scenes make it hard to watch at times, but the concept is funny, and it has some hilarious moments.<br /><br />In the near future (the year 1991), game shows have changed. Chuck Todean (John Mc Cafferty) hosts a game show called "Live Or Die", in which convicted death row inmates have the chance to play for their lives, and for money. Candidates who fail, get executed on the air using many different methods, such as guillotines, electric chairs, and other, more bizarre devices of execution, followed by applause from the cheering studio audience. The show is, of course, more than controversial, and Chuck has made lots of enemies...<br /><br />"Deathrow Gameshow" is incredibly cheesy and crappy in many aspects, and the acting is terrible, but it is without doubt fun in many parts, especially if you're a fan of dark humor. You haven't missed anything if you haven't seen it, but it is definitely funny and a good time waster. 4/10 | negative |
This is one of those movies that, after watching it, you will keep thinking about and coming back to even months after viewing. The acting is spectacular for starring two children (I usually hate movies with whiny kid acting). Bill Paxton is awesome, his directorial debut is even better than what I expected of an actor whose most memorable line is "Game over, man! Game over!" (from the movie "Aliens").<br /><br />The best part about the movie is the dichotomy between those scenes where the actors play a family, and when they are doing their "work." It really makes the movie believable and memorable.<br /><br />Keep it up, Bill. I'll be waiting for more movies I"m sure to love! | positive |
As a huge fan of the original, I avoided this film like the plague when the bad reviews started coming in eight years ago, but I just finished watching this film and found it to be a really pleasant surprise.<br /><br />Okay, if you are looking for a retread of the original, you're in for a big disappointment, but if you are looking for something quite different, a bit edgy and political, then this is the film for you. <br /><br />Gregory is now thirty four and works as a teacher at his old comprehensive school, where he's being pursued by a fellow teacher and having sexual dreams about one of his students. When the student insists on meeting up with Gregory, a series of misadventures ensue that include torture, breaking and entering and all manner of unexpected twists and turns that left me feeling elated and moved.<br /><br />If you are looking for something original, then I highly recommend this film. I only wish that more people had gone to see this when it was released and seen it for what it really is. | positive |
I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk. | negative |
It's one of my favorite movies as much because of the location and music as the story line. Don't matter how many times I watch it, it doesn't seem to ever get old. I can almost say all the lines along with the characters now. The movie is supper funny and really sweet. | positive |
its a gem movie if anyone who hasn't seen movie sholey he cant understand what is going on there. a thakur call men for catching a big terrorist who is like god and even police don't know abut him but these ppl do.<br /><br />biggest advantage of film is its speed u never know what is going on and the part is completed. actors are at there best of worst acting and actress is here for time-pass of songs. and what u cant forget is the cool dialouge which seems to come in very long time but u cant understand them so easily try hard for that and last word i haven't seen movie complete due to a brain roast so plz tell me ditz end if it have | negative |
Some would argue that Argentinean director Esteban Sapir's La Antena is an exercise in anachronistic futility; that, while the silent films to which Sapir's pays homage were at the cutting edge of cinema when they were made, they are outdated today, leaving La Antena a meaningless oddity.<br /><br />I would disagree. Fervently. La Antena melds the conventions of the silent film with 21st century technology, making it the ultimate exercise in post-modern film-making.<br /><br />The film is set in the timeless "The City Without a Voice", so called because the citizens have been rendered speechless by Mr. TV, a dictator/media mogul with his hair painted on. The City resembles the titular one in Fritz Lang's seminal Metropolis (1927), perhaps 100 years before that film. It is all expressionist skyscrapers, TV aerials, and animated billboards.<br /><br />The citizens of the City are mollified by La Voz (The Voice), the only person with the gift of speech. Her face perpetually shrouded by a hood (kept on even when she is naked), La Voz is forced to sing on Mr. TV's television network. But when Mr. TV concocts a plan to steal the written word as well, La Voz and her eyeless son join forces with a renegade family in an attempt to return the freedom of speech to the people.<br /><br />La Antena is nothing but pure cinema. Burdening himself with the conventions of the silent film, Sapir has to rely upon images to tell his story. There is sound, most notably in the almost continuous score by Leo Sujatovich. It evokes the best of silent movie music, as well as ingenuously working itself into the film's diegesis, such as the beeping of car horns, or the rhythmic ra-ta-tat-tat of gunfire. And, underlying the whole film is a familiar whirring, as if it were being shown on an ancient projector.<br /><br />There is a fair amount of dialogue as well. But instead of using intertitles, Sapir has the characters' words appear in the frame. They are larger or smaller, filling the screen or hovering meekly in the air, depending on what is being said. Think a more imaginative version of the subtitles in Night Watch (2004).<br /><br />Thankfully, the words don't distract from the images. Which is very fortunate indeed, because La Antena boasts some of the most creative and original images we've seen in a long time, all captured by Cristian Cottet's sumptuous black-and-white photography. There are the expressionist cityscapes. The hooded singer and her eyeless son. There is the city's abandoned aerial, which looks like the decayed remains of some colossal spider. And there's the sinister Dr. Y, whose jabbering mouth is displayed on a television screen attached to his face.<br /><br />La Antena has been criticised for relying too much on its imagery, while skimping on the allegorical depth. But, again, I would disagree. It is true that the sudden appearance of a mind-control machine shaped like a swastika, or the eyeless boy seemingly crucified on a Star of David, feels out of place, a tad over the top in what is otherwise merely a well-crafted fairy tale.<br /><br />But the lack of overt symbols (the two previous examples aside) works in the film's favour. It allows us to make up our own minds: to decide whether to infer political meaning, to see La Antena as an allegory for fascism, the danger of capitalist monopolies, and the power and responsibility of the media; or to just take the film at face value, as a visually stunning adventure through a world simultaneously unique and familiar.<br /><br />The sacrifice of explicit depth in favour of unique imagery may seem like a compromise. But, really, when a film looks as good as this, it's hard to care. There is more imagination and artistry in every frame of La Antena than Hollywood can shake a derivative stick at. Evoking films almost 100 years old might be futile, but in doing so, Sapir may be showing us what is lacking in the films of today. He may be telling us that it is time for another artistic revolution. And he may be right. | positive |
I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: "You sons of a thousand fleas".<br /><br />It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
You'd better choose Paul Verhoeven's even if you have watched it. | negative |
I think that this is a disappointing sequel. I miss a lot of the old characters (King Gator, Anne Marie, etc.), and I don't like it due to the fact that not even half of the original voices are back to do the characters. A lot of personality was lost in Charlie, and the villain Red is not even half as bad as Carface was in the first one. If you're a big ADGTH fan like I am, it's worth seeing just to see how the story is continued, but don't count on it being 5 stars in your book. | negative |
Written by, directed by and starring the champ of camp Bruce Campbell. Easy on its easy to tell this is a budget on a shoestring affair; filmed independently in Bulgaria. All I can really say for sure is that silly is not always funny. Campbell plays an affluent American business man with a cheating wife(Antoinette Byron)and trying to close a business transaction before he is murdered. He hires a cabbie to drive him around a strange little town; not knowing that his wife is 'carrying on' with the taxi driver. Within moments of Campbell being bludgeoned; the cabbie is killed in the same location. A mad scientist(Stacy Keach)proceeds with an experiment putting the cabbie's brain inside the American's head. With massive stitches on his forehead, Campbell breaks free and roams the streets looking for his wife; all the while he is arguing with a strange voice inside his over-sized head. Campbell contorts his rubbery face making silly expressions as he argues with himself. Thus, Bruce is doing what he does best and no doubt his many fans will be pleased. I get the impression this must have been written as a straight comedy. Rounding out the cast are Ted Raimi, Tamara Gorski, and Vladmir Kolev. Watch for this on the Sci-Fi Channel. | negative |
Start of with the good bit: several times Swayze talks Zulu to his friends or that language is heard among the tribes. That's a great plus, as normally USA & UK movie audiences think all people on this planet speak English (just in case you're one of them: no they don't).<br /><br />But the acting is 'tenenkrommend' as we say in The Netherlands (it makes your toes curl -and not in a good way). I like Swayze but in this he's awful. The muscles in his jaws make overtime and he's frowning the whole movie -some one must have told him it looks butch. No Patrick: it looks silly and is compensation for lack of character. Alison Doody (Elizabeth) has opted for a style of acting that does not meet the style of her co-workers. Her acting is só relaxed that this movie could have been set in the current days. And it's not. Your frock was a clue, Alison.<br /><br />The best acting came from the people from the African Continent and Sided Onyulo as Umbopa I liked best. Clear, warm and in character, his performance is a joy to watch. <br /><br />General: it is mwah-entertaining on a rainy day. Pity. Could have been better. Sack the director. | negative |
lets start off by saying that "JAWANI DIWANI" is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said "I missed the joyride". lol. <br /><br />The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.<br /><br />MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA. <br /><br />Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.<br /><br />the movie is horrible. The songs "SINI NE SINI NE" is fantastic the remix version is even better. "DIL DIWANA" is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE. | negative |
Basic meaning of the story is a reality. Cruel true reality. Situations are very funny. You have to laugh when you see, how people can be stupid, obstinate and crazy. The best description will be, if you watch it on your own. | positive |
I have to agree with most of the other posts. Was it a comedy? a drama? to me it leaned a little to much towards the comedy side. I could have been a great movie without the comedy and it was horribly contrived. Jamie keeps running into the Julio and whats his name. In New York, how many times do you run into someone you know in downtown Cleveland.And just how could Robert Pastorelli dig up Yankee Stadium to hide the gold. Again, a comedy or drama? But it was still entertaining especially for a Sunday morning. I enjoyed Kimberly Elise's performance, she certainly a beautiful actress and seems to take her craft seriously. She is a younger actress that is going to be viable. | positive |
The Woman In Black was a British made for TV movie which was first broadcast on the BBC on Christmave Eve of '89, and again in '92. I believe it made a round on American TV on A&E. It was released on VHS in Britain in the early 90's but went out of print. A U.S. company released it on DVD later, but that version also sold out. According to the website of the author of the book, the rights to the movie are now owned by someone else and that it won't be released again, and that there are unofficial bootlegs being sold on ebay.<br /><br />I first heard about this movie just recently on a message board and had to check it out. I found a copy on ebay for about 28 bucks. It's certain to be a counterfeit from a seller in the far east, even though the DVD says, "made in Canada," ha ha. But it's a good copy, and you can't really fault the bootleg labels for releasing stuff that is rare, out of print, and lost in legal disputes.<br /><br />I love the movie. It's a period piece set in the 1920's, with all the very authentic and quaint British settings of that time. The Woman In Black is very atmospheric and dark. For the most part, the movie is very low-key, but effective and scary. There is no self indulgent gore, violence or much at all in special effects, but The Woman In Black is still able to create absolutely chilling moments. It's a chilling classic styled ghost movie. The movie itself looks like it could have been made in the 1930's except for the color. Without all the flash of all the modern horror movies, I'm afraid this film will always just be a lost gem. For me, it places itself as one of my all time favorites. | positive |
I must say, I thought I had seen it all. I am an extremely jaded movie buff. This movie didn't shock me, by any means. I'm way past that point. But it did take me to certain emotional places I didn't know I could go to. I had no idea I could ever find (ick) the idea of beastiality erotic. Never never never. Ever. Ever. But there you go. He did it. I have to give the director credit. He pulled it off.<br /><br />For the first 40 minutes this movie is a TOTAL bore. We start off with some very explicit footage of two horses having sex. After five minutes of this I started wondering if buying this movie wasn't a mistake. Then an old guy in a wheelchair talks to some other old guy about two people getting married. Then some nervous guy shaves. Then we see (briefly) a hot chick getting it on with a butler (but this is very brief). At this point I was cursing the movie out loud while trying to stay awake. In fact, I fell asleep at about the 40 minute mark and forced myself to finish it the next night.<br /><br />We finally get the good stuff when a girl (who knows who she is, or who anyone is in this movie) has a dream about a Victorian-era gal being ravaged by a beast-thing in the forest. The scene goes on for quite some time and is really the meat (heh-heh) of the whole deal. It's beautifully shot, superbly edited, and does deliver the goods. They do try to wrap up the plot at the end and it sort of makes sense but sort of doesn't either. Oh well. I would definitely recommend this film. The first 40 minutes made me want to shoot myself (and my TV) but the last 50 minutes totally redeems it. | positive |
Accepted...let's see. The only reason why i had chosen to see that movie was the hot dog shown in commercials when Shrader(sp?) said, "ASK ME ABOUT MY WEINER". After that i HAD to see that movie and i watched it with a couple of my friends...and WOW amazing. One of the best films of the year. THe entire movie i was laughing like crazy! The plot in this story is that Bartleby (Justin Long) doesn't get accepted into any of the schools he applied, so he makes another fake college for him and his friends so that he can fool his parents that he DID make it into college. So he makes the finishing touches and he fools his parents...until, more students look at the website and see the clicker (ACCEPTANCE IS ONE CLICK AWAY) and all these rejects come to this school. They face many problems and they just cant seem to get anything right 10/10 LOVED IT NOW WATCH IT | positive |
One of America's most brilliant film directors was without question Elia Kazan. His directorial genius was not particularly suited to taut thrillers, since Kazan needed more room to breathe and to be slower and more subtle. However, 'Panic in the Streets' is a first-rate social thriller and is if anything more relevant to today than it was to 1950 when it was released. The themes of illegal immigrants, people-smuggling, imminent plagues, rapid transmission around the world of diseases (a worried Richard Widmark says: 'I could be in any American city in ten hours and in Africa tomorrow.'), ethnic isolation and ghettoism are today's concerns more than ever. This film features a spectacular film debut by Jack Palance, and a wonderful performance by Barbara Bel Geddes, two casting strokes of genius. Richard Widmark is allowed not to be a psychopath for once, and is a deeply caring, warmly loving, intense hero of the people. He leads basically a one-man campaign to stop an epidemic of pneumonic plague in New Orleans, struggling to convince sluggish politicians and complacent policemen that there is a problem. There is a race against time to find the small-time crooks who have contracted the plague from a dead illegal immigrant within 48 hours, before the whole city, and as they are always reminding us, the whole country, are endangered with the worst thing since the 1919 flu. One amazing scene where Jack Palance, who is infected, is prevented from climbing aboard a ship by a rat-barrier on the rope is ironic in the extreme, reminding us in the most gruesome terms that humans can be the worst carriers and vermin of all. The highly dramatic chase scenes in what they call 'the coffee factory' at the wharfs rivals the most inventive climax scenes of Hitchcock, and with just as spectacular a setting. Many non-professionals appear in the film, which has the gritty realism of, well, something called reality. Kazan really takes the cameras into places where even people rarely went, and where even rats would have thought twice. This film was a major feat of social realism. If it lacks the electricity of the most highly charged thrillers, it is because Kazan took it so seriously that he could not hype it up, for after all, the threat of plague is serious enough to scare anybody without the need for extra guns and molls. The only unfortunate thing about the film is the title, which gives a false suggestion of superficiality. But Kazan was anything but superficial. He clearly considered this project a public duty, to alert us to genuine possibilities. If only those possibilities had diminished today, but alas, they are getting worse every day. One day, after a worldwide plague, this film may be shown to a few survivors as an example of how an outbreak was contained on film, but its lessons were forgotten. | positive |
algernon4's comment that Ms Paget's "ultra lewd dance in (this film) is the most erotic in the history of films" is certainly one doozy of an exaggeration. It isn't even Debra Paget's most erotic dance. Her near nude gyrations in Fritz Lang's "The Indian Tomb" make this number look decidedly tame. As for being the most erotic in the history of dance. Well! Where do I start? Salma Hayek's performance as Santanico Pandemonium in "From Dusk to Dawn" (1996); Jamie Lee Curtis in "True Lies" (1994); Jessica Alba in "Sin City" (2005); Rose McGowan in "Terror Planet" (2007); Sheila Kelley in "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" (2000), blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I love the sequence and have included it in my "Cheesecake Dance" series on Youtube. I just think that making a claim like "most erotic in the history of film" is really going out on a very fragile limb. | positive |
When people harp on about how "they don't make 'em like they used to" then just point them towards this fantastically entertaining, and quaint-looking, comedy horror from writer-director Glenn McQuaid.<br /><br />It's a tale of graverobbers (played by Dominic Monaghan and Larry Fessenden) who end up digging up more than just silent, immobile corpses. After the initial shock of this they soon realise that they can actually turn the situation to their advantage. And that's just what they try to do. Mind you, it seems as if things may not have worked out quite as they planned as poor young Arthur (Monaghan) is actually relating his tale to a priest (Ron Perlman) before being taken to the gallows.<br /><br />Looking at the detail of his filmography, McQuaid seems to have taken the core of his first, short movie and expanded it to this feature effort, which is no bad thing. Fessenden returns and does well, Monaghan is one of those guys who can actually still get you to like him while he goes about the nefarious business of stealing from the dead and with other genre favourites such as Perlman and Angus Scrimm on the scene this film is a lot of fun for genre fans.<br /><br />It also benefits from a unique and favourable design and look, at times moving from E.C. Comic-style panels into live action (a la Creepshow) and always somehow feeling quite authentic in it's Hammer Horror feel. Maybe everything is just covered over with so much dry ice but that's beside the point. Whatever was done to capture everything on film, it works. It works well.<br /><br />It may not have any actual scares but this film does have a great vein of black humour and definitely soaks every minute of it's runtime in macabre material that should please all of those who have the patience for horror that's a little bit more sedate and feels like it definitely could have been made back in the days of Hammer.<br /><br />See this if you like: The Flesh And The Fiends, The Doctor And The Devils, Creepshow. | positive |
This movie has all the qualities to be good, Stan -singing (?), dancing, falling- is very funny, I think he handled his character in the best way possible. it's a parody and very well done, maybe times can change, there's another audience, but if you want to laugh, come on, see it! | positive |
Sometime in 1998, Saban had acquired the rights to produce a brand-new Ninja Turtles live-action series. Naturally, being a fan of the TMNT back in the day, this obviously peaked my interest. So when I started watching the show... to say I was disappointed by the end result is an understatement. Some time later (more like recently), I got a chance to revisit the series.<br /><br />First off, let's talk about some of the positives. They managed to re-create the Turtles' lair as it was last seen in the movies fairly well given the limited budget they threw in with this. There tends to be this darker atmosphere overall in terms of the sets and whatnot. And the Turtle suits, while not the greatest piece of puppetry and whatnot, were functional and seemed pretty sturdy for most of the action stuff that would follow in the series.<br /><br />People tend to complain about getting rid of Shredder quickly and replacing him with these original villains who could have easily been used in a Power Rangers show. But you can only have Shredder get beat so many times before it gets boring and undermines his worth as a villain... and besides, most fans don't realize or don't remember or just plain ignore the fact that in the original comic, the Shredder was offed in the very first issue! Never mind the countless resurrections that would follow. So on a personal standpoint, I was sort of glad they got rid of Shredder because then the anticipation would build to the point where they would eventually bring him back in a later episode. I find that Shredder in small quantities work best because then his encounters with the Turtles are all the more memorable.<br /><br />Unfortunately, they end up replacing him with these original villains who, as stated, seemed more fit for a Power Rangers show than a Ninja Turtles show. And with these new magic-wielding generics comes a new female magic-wielding turtle, the infamous Venus De Milo. I'll be honest; I never got comfortable with her. I'm not against the idea of a female turtle; I'm just against the idea of one who uses magic and thus sticks out like a sore sight among a clan of ninja turtles who seem somewhat out of their domain. I almost get the impression that this could have easily been the Venus De Milo show dealing with her make-believe enemies and the TMNT are just there to provide the star power (or whatever was left considering the timeframe this was released). Fortunately, they all share the spotlight together.<br /><br />Next Mutation was canned after a season on the air and the creators were more than happy to ignore it. Given time and maybe another season, I really believe this live iteration of the TMNT could have been something and might have gotten a chance at greatness. But while the idea was sound, the execution was flawed (although there are a couple good episodes in this series). As it stands, Next Mutation is one of those oddities in Turtledom that is best left buried and forgotten. | negative |
I just returned from viewing this academy award-nominated doc, and I was thoroughly touched and interested in exploring the works of this fellow I'd never heard of before. Of course I'm someone who's captivated with beautiful architecture, so I realize others won't care.<br /><br />We can only imagine if there had been a couple more visionaries in Philadelphia back in the late 60's when Kahn's plans were a possibility, what a wonderful city center there would be. If you wonder whether you'll see more about the Bangladesh building at the beginning of the movie, be patient, for there it will provide the climax of the film at the end. <br /><br />His son's personal discoveries in the process of making this film are quite interesting, sometimes touching, and even funny at times. There is one of the most comical anti-visionary rants ever captured on camera.<br /><br />Rounding out the good points of this doc is a touching musical score with some excellent expressive string music. And expressiveness is a major point to be found in Kahn's architecture. The points made by other architects about the spiritual nature of matter, and how Kahn's buildings brought that out tie together the overall experience of this movie. | positive |
Terribly disappointed with CITY OF MEN after being swept away by CITY OF GOD. Lost is the exciting and unpredictable storyline, and instead, in its place, is bland predictability with the obvious attempts at audience manipulation by a superficial pretentious production and distribution team. This story ended up feeling like a sappy soap opera rather than a gritty indie feature, which is what is should have been. This is what happens when distributors try to seek a wider audience (ridiculous sweeping shots of the Rio coastline, etc) at the expense of a gripping story and characters. I really couldn't care what happened to any of the characters in this film - they were all so 2 dimensional. In short, sad waste of potential that should have been a slam-dunk following the exceptionally inspired CITY OF GOD. Boo! | negative |
Rated TV-14 for Sexual Content and Language.<br /><br />I remembered hearing about this show back in 1998 when it used to play on the channel Teletoon.I didn't watch it then but now, it plays on the channel, Razer.I have seen about four episodes of this show and I must say, it is fairly intelligent and funny.<br /><br />The show stars Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame and also Tim Curry of Rocky Horror Picture Show and It fame.The show is about a duck who is a police officer.He basically does his job as a policeman, while coping with personal problems.This show is fairly funny at times and fans of animated-comedy will like this. | positive |
I've expected a comedy about the NVA, but this is a parody. It shows the national army of Eastern Germany in a light that is not appropriate, and definitely not true.<br /><br />One can make a comedy about everything, as long as the underlying facts are not changed. Even a comedy about the German KZ is possible, as Roberto Benigni with "LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL" has shown.<br /><br />The movie NVA would be an "OK" comedy, because the jokes in it are overall OK. Nothing special - not hilarious, but enough to live with it.<br /><br />The point is, that the movie makes a farce and a parody about the NVA. A death machine that was ready to attack WESTERN EUROPE along with it's friend the RED ARMY. An institution that used everything to get the utmost from it's soldiers. An army that marched into the CSPR in 1968, and was ready to march also in POLAND to destroy the SOLIDARNOSC. You can't make a movie without showing the tiniest bit of evil, or would you make a parody about a KZ,Guantanamo or 9/11??? Showing Osama bin Laden as a funny screwed guy? 90 minutes about a funny Osama in a Afghan Taliban camp, where he makes jokes and is training his soldiers would be comparable to what this movie is doing about the NVA! | negative |
The bittersweet twist to this movie contains a wonderful element of romanticism that evokes an impetuous passion! These characteristics of idealistic imagery which "Moonstruck" possesses, spur on an end result of a resounding thumbs up verdict by virtually every prominent critic in Hollywood. Let me describe the circumstances to this film, simply put, they are "yesteryear". "Moonstruck" is a cohesive film which sparks the naivety of an old Italian neighborhood in New York City. New York City has always been one big melting pot that is galvanized by many bicker-some mannerisms which are indicative of typical New Yorkers, this includes a lot of Italian Americans living in New York as well! The mid and late eighties brought on an abrupt conclusion to many strong associations with various cultural stereotypes. Ethnicity polarization was a firmly embedded scourge in American history that was far more prevalent several generations before this movie was made. These generalizing proclivities still exist today, however, they are more mollified and less identifiable! For this Italian family of a bygone era, confusion, indecisiveness, agitation, and yes, of course, love, all have the comical camaraderie of an utterly human understanding to them! The kindred spirits with everyone in "Moonstruck" seems to be that of comprehending individual frailties. One might wonder about Cher playing the lead role, as she is more known as an entertainer than a big box office first billing star in a movie. In "Moonstruck", however, I think she was incredibly well suited to her role, and came off as thoroughly believable in a relatively unbelievable situation. All of the characters in "Moonstruck" are very rough around the edges, really tough, and not afraid to have a formidable duel with adversity. The most hilarious aspect to their lives is imperfection, and they are thoroughly aware of the fact that weathering the storm definitely serves a constructive purpose! I thought the acting in this movie was sensational. All relationships in this movie garner an auspicious potential to vividly illuminate because everybody knows how everybody else's basic nature is really like!! For this family, nothing is glamorous, nothing is pretentiously romantic, and nothing is overly emotional (just moderately so). The fact is, this entire family is plainly and perpetually afflicted and overcome by an extremely zealous and candid cupid in all of their lives. Taking moon beams literally can indeed have a pleasantly enervating impact on one's resolve, masqueraded mystique, and resistance to the proverbial am ore'. Thus signifying everything!! The homey and mercurial tenet in this film is basically one of ; Be honest, get angry; Be honest, get confrontational; Be honest, get distorted and emphatic; Most importantly; Be honest, and fall in love!! This is Cher's best performance ever as an actress!! Nicholas Cage, Danny Aiello, and Olympia Dukakis, were wonderfully flawed in "Moonstruck" Such performances by these three were perfectly appropriate for the kinetic energy of the characters in this movie! Director, Norman Jewison (Famous for "Cincinnati Kid", "Thomas Crowne Affair", and most famous for "In The Heat Of The Night" which won the academy award for best picture in 1967) depicts many keen and humanistic instincts in the process of purveying the deliberate incongruity to this film! I am Italian American in descent, (Partially anyways) Cher is not Italian, and, for that matter, neither is the writer nor the director! I guess since non-Italians like eating our food, they may as well use our culture to make a fabulous film too! It is refreshing to know that a film can be marvelous and have an incredibly happy ending!! For those of you who didn't like this movie, I just have one thing to say "Snap Out Of It!!" This movie "Moonstruck" is totally happy go lucky!! Totally eighties!! and Totally five stars!! See it!! | positive |
When I saw Gone with the wind I thought that there could not be better actors than Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable to play Scarlett and Rhett but then I saw the movie Scarlet. I fell in love for this dramatic story. I love Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler, he's fantastic. This is a movie I could watch a thousand times and it still wouldn't bore me. | positive |
"The Seven-Ups" seems like a replay of "The French Connection," which was released two years prior. Both the late Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco make appearances, as well as stunt driver Bill Hickman.<br /><br />But we aren't dealing with French drug baddies; instead, we are dealing with a war against assorted hoods and criminals after a cop is brutally killed by a hoodlum. We get to see unpleasantness and a pre-1990s New York City.<br /><br />I love watching this film because it is exciting to see the action, and it is a reminder of a cooler time. That said, when one compares the car chases, Mr. Hickman had involvement in the three most compared: This movie, Bullitt and The French Connection. Each chase scene has its own qualities, and this one is simply superb.<br /><br />And I am glad this title has seen the light of day on DVD. | positive |
Everyone involved with this project should be ashamed as to the result of their efforts. Oh. I laughed a coupe of times , but I laughed a couple of times during Schindler's list also. They really screwed up a good premise. | negative |
The video opens with a scene from a horror movie, in which a man proposes to his girlfriend. He begins to tell her that he is "different." As the full moon rises, he morphs into a werewolf. He then pursues her through the woods, and right before he attacks, we're taken to the inside of the movie theater. Inside the theater are Michael and his girlfriend. She's too scared to watch any longer, so they leave. As they exit the theater, he begins to tease her. ("It's close to midnight, something evil's lurking in the dark...") Michael then sings and dances his way down the street with his girlfriend. This scene shows Michael's skill with the camera. He never once acts "aware" of its presence, as many other artists do. As they make there way past the graveyard, the graves begin to open... Once they arrive at an alley, they are confronted with a horde of the undead. We then see the horror stricken face of Michael's girl. Who wouldn't have a horror stricken look if their date morphed into a zombie? Yep, he becomes one of the undead. (A very bright and shiny one, though.) He and his fellow zombies then begin what may be the most well known dance choreography of any music video. To tell you any more would give the ending away.<br /><br />This is my favorite music video of all time! You don't want to miss it! I give it a 10/10. (Yes, I know you can see the curtains in the back of the sound stage, and the werewolf looks kind of cheesy by today's standards.) | positive |
Hey, you are not alone! I remember Nichols! I was just 17 when it was on. I remember James Garner was one of the coolest actors, and Nichols was such a great show. I couldn't believe it was on such a short time, wish I could remember the last episode, I probably didn't see it...there were no vcr's back then so it when it was on you saw it, and if you missed an episode it was gone forever unless it came back on summer reruns. Anyway, sure would be great if it came out on DVD, but I don't think that many people even knew about it. What a shame.<br /><br />Garner would hit it big a few years later with Rockford Files, and he brought along his buddy Stuart Margolin from Nichols to play his sidekick Angel. | positive |
I would like to know if "The Outsiders" (Australian TV series) will ever be released on DVD sometime in the future? And is the music (Title Theme) available on CD?<br /><br />There was only one series of 13 episodes of this drama and should have gone on to at least three or even four series in total.<br /><br />The Young German Actor in the series was also in a German TV series called "Black Forest Clinic" which aired here in the UK with English dialogue superimposed with the lip-sync. <br /><br />I look forward to hearing any comments from TV Industry personnel on the above questions, thank you in advance. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.