Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS. | negative |
Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy. | negative |
This is a standard action flick as we have seen them many times before. Not much action in this one though. Again it's about the guy protecting the president. He's macho - as usual, and at the same time soft and melancholic - as usual. Does he have the guts to take a bullet for the president?! And then there's the girl and the usual conservative flirting around. Stereotypical and predictable to the last toe-crumbling minute. | negative |
You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings. <br /><br />And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.<br /><br />The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.<br /><br />It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me. | negative |
This film was one of three that were later combined by Chapin into a compilation that was released to theaters in the late 1950s under the title "The Chaplin Review".<br /><br />This was an odd film in some ways because later in life, Chaplin was anti-war and his movies stressed peace and brotherhood. This film, in contrast, is a propaganda comedy meant to bolster the US efforts in WWI. It's truly odd to see Charlie as the "super soldier" who single-handedly captures 13 Germans, casually and coolly shoots several Germans in mere seconds as a marksman and then goes behind enemy lines to try to capture the Kaiser himself! Truly, this was a major departure for the Little Tramp, though it was, at the same time, very very entertaining and funny. The film is exceptionally well-paced, well made and I'm sure did a lot to bolster support at home for our troops (too bad it was such a pointless and costly war). | positive |
"Hell To Pay" bills itself as the rebirth of the Classic Western... it succeeds as a Western genre movie that the entire family could see and not unlike the films baby-boomers experienced decades ago. The good guys are good and the bad guys are really bad! . Bo Svenson, Stella Stevens, Lee Majors, Andrew Prine (excellent in this film) Tim Thomerson and James Drury are all great and it's fun to see them again. James Drury really shines in this one, maybe even better than his days as "The Virginian." In a way, "Hell To Pay" reminds me of those movies in the 60's where actors you know from so many shows make an appearance. If you're of a certain age, Buck Taylor, Peter Brown and Denny Miller and William Smith provide a "wow" factor because we seldom get to see these icons these days. "Hell To Pay" features screen legends along with newer names in Hollywood. Most notable in the cast of "newbies" is Rachel Kimsey (Rebekah), who I've seen lately on "The Young and The Restless" and Kevin Kazakoff, who plays the angst-ridden Kirby, a war-weary man who's torn between wanting to live and let live or stepping in to "do the right thing." William Gregory Lee is excellent as Chance, Kirby's mischievous and womanizing brother. Katie Keane plays Rachel, Rebekah's sister, a woman who did what was necessary to stay alive but giving up her pride in the process. In a small but memorable role, Jeff Davis plays Mean Joe, a former Confederate with a rather nasty mean streak. I think we'll be seeing more of these fine actors in the future. "Hell To Pay" is a fun movie with a great story to tell
grab the popcorn, we're headin' West!. | positive |
"The Blob" qualifies as a cult sci-fi film not only because it launched 27-year old Steve McQueen on a trajectory to superstardom, but also because it exploited the popular themes both of alien invasion and teenage delinquency that were inseparable in the 1950s. Interestingly, nobody in the Kay Linaker & Theodore Simonson screenplay ever refers to the amorphous, scarlet-red protoplasm that plummeted to Earth in a meteor and menaced everybody in the small town of Downingtown Pennsylvania on a Friday night as "The Blob." Steve McQueen won the role of Josh Randall, the old West bounty hunter in "Wanted: Dead or Alive," after producer Dick Powell saw this Paramount Pictures' release. Meanwhile McQueen's attractive girlfriend Aneta Corsaut went on to star opposite Andy Griffith in "The Andy Griffith Show" as Sheriff Taylor's school teacher girlfriend Helen Crump. Of course, neither McQueen nor Corsaut were teenagers, but then rarely did actual teenagers play actual teenagers. Director Irvin S. Yeaworth, Jr., made his directorial debut with "The Blob." Linaker & Simonson's screenplay synthesized four genres: first, the alien invasion; second, teenage delinquency; third, a murder mystery, and fourth; a horror chiller. Moreover, while the gelatinous substance assumes various shapes, it remains largely anonymous. In other words, the eponymous Jell-O neither talks nor communicates by telepathy. Instead, it kills without a qualm and discriminates against nobody. The tone of "The Blob" is fairly serious in spite of its somewhat campy nature.<br /><br />As the filmmakers point out on the Criterion DVD release of "The Blob," the movie opens uncharacteristically for a sci-fi horror thriller with our hero and heroine in a remote rural locale making out and kissing. Jane (Anita Corsaut) and Steve (Steve McQueen) see a large meteor fall to the earth and drive off to find it. Meanwhile, an old man finds the meteor and prods it with a stick. The meteor cracks open and a slimy bunch of goop clings to the stick. When the old timer (Olin Howland of "The Paleface") gets a closer look at it, the goop attaches itself to his hand. The old guy runs screaming from the crater and Steve nearly hits him with his jalopy. Steve and Jane pick the guy up and take him to see Dr. Hallen in town. <br /><br />Hallen is poised to leave town for a medical conference when Steve and Jane bring the old guy to his office. Hallen phones his nurse to return since he may need to perform an amputation. Of course, Hallen has never seen anything like the substance on the man's forearm. Hallen sends Steve and Jane to find out what happened. Our heroes run into another group of teenagers that ridicule Steve's fast driving. Steve fools him into a reverse drive race, but the local police chief Dave (Earl Rowe) lets him off the hook. Steve and the teenagers visit the site of the meteor crater and find the warm remains of the meteor. After they visit the old man's house and rescue a dog, the teenagers split for a spooky late night movie while Steve and Jane return to Dr. Hallen's office. During the interim, the blob has entirely absorbed the old geezer, killed Hallen's nurse and attacked the doctor. Neither acid thrown on the protoplasm nor Hallen's shotgun have any effect on the blob. Steve catches a glimpse of the blob absorbing Hallen. When Steve and Jane go to the police department to report the incident, Dave is frankly incredulous, while Sergeant Bert (John Benson) believes that it is a prank. Bert has an axe to grind with teenagers because his wife died when one struck her car.<br /><br />Steve and Jane take them to Hallen's office, but they can find neither hide nor hair of anybody, but Dave admits that the office has been vandalized. Against Sgt. Bert's advice, Dave turns the teens over to their respective parents. No sooner have Steve and Jane fooled their folks into believing that they are snugly asleep in bed than they venture out again. They drive into town and spot the old man's dog that got away from them in front of a supermarket. When they go to retrieve the mutt, Steve steps in front of the electric eye door of the grocery store and it opens. They find nobody inside, but they encounter the blob. Steve and Jane take refuge in a freezer and the blob doesn't attack them. Later, after they escape, Steve persuades the teenagers that challenged him in a street race to alert the authorities because he is supposed to be home in bed. Police Chief Dave and the fire department arrive at the supermarket. Steve tries to convince Dave that the blob is in the store. About that time, the blob kills the theater projectionist and attacks the moviegoers. Suddenly, a horde of people exit the theater and Dave believes Steve. Steve and Jane wind up at a lunch counter that the blob attacks. The proprietor and our heroes hole up in the cellar and Steve discovers that a fire extinguisher with its freezing contents forces the blob to back off.<br /><br />The authorities collect every fire extinguisher in town and manage to freeze the blob. The Pentagon sends down a team to transport the blob to the North Pole. As the remains of the blob drift down to the polar ice pack, the end credit appears with a ghostly giant question mark. Producer James B. Harris obtained stock military footage of a Globe master military transport plane depositing the parachute and its cargo.<br /><br />"The Blob" proved to be a drive-in hit and Steve McQueen's surge to stardom gave the film added momentum. Unless you are a juvenile, this little horror movie isn't scary at all, but Yeaworth and his scenarists create a sufficient amount of paranoia and sympathy for our heroes. They never show the blob actually assimilating its victims and leave this to your imagination, so "The Blob" isn't without a modicum of subtlety. | positive |
The film was disappointing. I saw it on Broadway with Bernadette Peters and she was outstanding. Maybe as she, herself graps on to the end of her musical career, her condtion of desperatation lands her in role that she flaunts, re-invents and triumps as her own. Bette's singing is always belted, always flat and lacking to show her ability as an actress. To be entertaining, this performance was dying for a stronger lead and a stronger cast, so that the others would be memorable in Bette's absence. Another criticism: she smiles directly into the camera every time she start singing! I know it is musical theater, but please leave some grace sociale-- Middler cannot perform like Liza or Streisand might in a retrospective tour - out of character and out of context. | negative |
I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.<br /><br />Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.<br /><br /> The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.<br /><br /> Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.<br /><br /> And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.<br /><br /> But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.<br /><br />If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.<br /><br />Two stars out of ten | negative |
I just can't understand why people are surprised this movie makes no sense. It was never supposed to make sense. (Duh! The writers were completely wasted on Frodis at the time.) It was just supposed to entertain and mock, and it does both wonderfully.<br /><br />The Monkees are good actors. They wouldn't have been hired if they weren't good actors. Mike has a thing for deadpan and darkness, Micky is the best at sheer psychotic comedy, Davy is a Broadway veteran, and Peter actually had people believing he was that dumb in real life. Don't tell me they can't act, because they most definitely can.<br /><br />They can also write. Sure, Jack & Bob get the sole credits, but in reality, they got a big helping hand on that script from the Monkees, who were also in that smoke-filled room.<br /><br />(it is absolutely impossible to spoil this film) Head is very highly symbolic. Among the more memorable elements is the black box, which was actually based on 2 things: the Monkee image that the boys were bound to, and the real black box on the Screen Gems lot where the band was kept between takes. There's so much more symbolism in the movie that I'll just let you watch it and figure it out.<br /><br />The music is awesome. "Circle Sky" is one of Papa Nez's best tunes ever, and "Porpoise Song" & "As We Go Along" will have you enthralled. If you'd rather be weirded out, then "Ditty Diego", "Can You Dig It?", and "Long Title" should be satisfactory, great songs that they are. And then there's "Daddy's Song", without a doubt a homage to Davy's Broadway days, and the editing/color scheming for that sequence is superb. (At least for '68.)<br /><br />Oh, For those of you who won't watch a 'PG' film, you're missing out. Especially since Head was originally rated R in 1968. The rating was lowered about TWENTY years later!<br /><br />Now where was I? Ah, yes: "We were speaking of beliefs. Beliefs and conditioning...." | positive |
It's actually a good thing Sean Connery retired as James Bond, as I'm sure he wouldn't be able to keep up in the nowadays spying-business, where fast cars have been replaced with hi-tech brainwashing techniques and gorgeous women are considered to be less sexy than advanced computer equipment. "Cypher" is a pretty inventive Sci-Fi thriller that often evokes feelings of fright & claustrophobia despite being utterly implausible. You know the trend in these types of movies: nothing is what it seems and just when you think figured out the convoluted plot, the writers make sure to insert a new twist that confuses everyone again. The events in "Cypher" supposedly take place in the most prominent regions of the computer world, where the major companies don't really do a lot apart from trying to steal each other's thunder. Company Digisoft literally spends millions brainwashing people and providing them with a new identity, only to let them infiltrate as spies in their biggest competitor, the Sunways Corporation. Sunways, on the other hand, constantly tries to unmask the Digisoft-rats and recruit them again as double-spies. In between this whole unprofitable business stands Morgan Sullivan; a seemingly colorless thirty-something employee who's been selected by Sebastian Rooks (the über-spy) to diddle the secret policies of BOTH companies. Trust me, it's actually less complicated than it sounds and director Vincenzo Natali (the dude from "Tube") carefully takes his time to introduce all the important and less important characters. The first half of the film is rather reminiscent to the sadly underrated John Frankenheimer gem "Seconds" starring Rock Hudson as it also deals with erasing identities and drastically altering your former life style. Even the set pieces seem to come straight out of that 60's film, with loads of empty white rooms and eerie corridors that seem to be endless. There's also plenty of great action and suspense, most notably when Morgan soberly experiences how the Digisoft crew inspects the results of their brainwashing-techniques during boring conventions. The middle section of the film drags a little, mainly because you already realize that it's all just building up towards multiple misleading plot-twists, and I hoped for a slightly more grim portrayal of the not-so-distant future. Jeremy Northam is perfectly cast and the adorable Lucy Liu is convincingly mysterious as the foxy lady who appears to be on his side. Regular director's choice David Hewlett has the most memorable supportive role as the uncannily eccentric Suways engineer Virgil C. Dunn. "Cypher" is well made and adrenalin rushing Sci-Fi entertainment, highly recommended to people who fully like to use their brain capacity from time to time. | positive |
I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.<br /><br />It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).<br /><br />It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.<br /><br />Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.<br /><br />avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN. | negative |
Man, this would have been a bad episode of the original series. I can't believe they actually spent money on this one... I caught the second half of this on tv and, having never seen this one before, thought I would watch it... Boy, what a waste of time... More cheese than Wisconsin!!!<br /><br /> | negative |
I watched this movie as I liked the plot, a group of strangers are held captive trying to figure out how they're connected.<br /><br />The setting and the premise were obviously influenced by the first (and best) Saw movie & although there wasn't much action the story moved at a relatively good pace.<br /><br />There was comedy relief ion the form of the two bickering 'Alpha males' and it was a welcome surprise (for me anyway)to see Melissa Joan Hart hasn't given up on acting yet.<br /><br />A few things let it down for me personally; 1. The paedophile was way over characterised making him get turned on by everything from children to dead bodies.<br /><br />2. MJH's line about her cop ex 'getting her into this' when in reality, he was the least deserving person to be there, he hadn't KNOWINGLY contributed to the events leading up to their capture.<br /><br />3. The ending..... what sort of movie just ends in the middle of something going on? There was no resolution, no cliff hanger, no obvious end... it just ends.<br /><br />And for that alone I dropped two stars off my rating. The first 2 points I would let slide but not the end! | negative |
One of his lesser known films, many horror fans have yet to catch this Dario Argento offering, which is unfortunate. It is underappreciated mostly because of the fact that really not enough people have seen it. The film boasts grade-A Argento gore, with his customary close-ups set to savage rock scores. While it true that this script is not very complex, it is not nearly as bad as other entries in its genre, or his own personal resume for that matter.<br /><br />This movie symbolizes more of the 'dread' that he likes to portray in his films by his own admission. Worth a good look on any night. | positive |
I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. "You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded," he said with a smug smile, "but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon." The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.<br /><br />There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.<br /><br />The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.<br /><br />About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.<br /><br />I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.<br /><br />I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting. | negative |
If pulp fiction and Get shorty didn't exist this might be an OK film.When i say this i mean that nothing from this film is it's own unless it's another bit of terrible dialogue or a cliché full scene.All the lines like 'i won't say more than i have to if that' from Get shorty seem to appear in this rubbish sequel, all the cameos like Steven Tyler's are acted terribly and are not needed and as for Christina Milian, man, don't get me started.Sadly some of the coolest actors and actresses like John Travolta and Uma Thurman seem like they are trying to be down with the kids and hip and have nearly ruined there reputation because of this film and frankly i think the best acting is from The rock who plays alongside one of my least favourite actors, Vince Vaughn.The man tries to be funny throughout with him taking the mickey of how apparently rappers talk.Cedric the entertainer and Andre 3000 play another terrible double act {i personally think the background actors were better than Cedric and Andre} and the only funny part of the acting of Cedric,Andre and the rest of there gang do is the way there trousers are down to there knees so you can clearly see there boxers and the only reason i find this funny is because lots of people actually do that.So in conclusion this film tries to be funny and fails miserably, it doesn't have any new material, comedy or coolness throughout as it copies every other film and finally the only reason you should see it is if you want to compare how bad it is to it's brilliant predecessor Get shorty.Oh yes i forgot to mention there is a BIG cliché at the end. | negative |
It's cheesy, it's creepy, it's gross, but that's what makes it so much fun. It's got over the top melodramatic moments that are just plain laughable. This movie is great to make fun of. Rent it for a good laugh.<br /><br />The film centers around three women newscasters, during a time way before cellphones. They go to a small town to cover a festival, but they can't get a room to stay the night. And that's when they meet Ernest Keller. He's creepy in a Psycho kind of way. And he offers to let them stay at his home. But he doesn't tell them the truth about who lives there.<br /><br />Stephen Furst's performance is so amazing as "The Unseen", that he really carries this film. Most of the movie is kind of dull, although finding out the truth of Ernest's family is kind of interesting. <br /><br />Just seeing this cast in these scenes makes it worth a look. Barbara Bach and Doug Barr make nice eye candy. <br /><br />I consider the movie an old gem, hard to find and worth a look. | positive |
I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.<br /><br />That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.<br /><br />And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable... | negative |
I thought the movie was pretty good. I really enjoyed myself as I viewed it. However, the last scene at Johnny's birthday party was cut way too short. I, myself, was an extra in that scene and was upset with the results. But other than that, (and the weird casting), the movie was superb. | positive |
This is a good movie, although people unfamiliar with the Modesty Blaise comics and books may find it a little slow and lacking in action. For the Modesty fan, the movie will be very enjoyable, particularly because it is very faithful in its presentation of the Modesty Blaise "history". Peter O'Donnell is listed in the credits as "Creative Consultant" and the film makers must have actually paid attention to him as the plot follows quite closely the details that have been presented in the comic books over the years {although the events have been recast to modern days). The only thing that the true fan may find disappointing is that there is no Willie Garvin in the story. This lack of Willie is again just being faithful to the Modesty Blaise chronology since the movie takes place in the very early days of Modesty's career. Alexandra Staden makes a very believable young Modesty who actually looks a lot like Modesty is supposed to look. A welcome change from the travesty of the Monica Vitti portrayal of Modesty. | positive |
Visitors is a hard, hard movie to enjoy. It's so slow and leaden in it's pacing that at times I was drifting off during the film. This was about 11AM on a hot, sunny day, I might add, not midnight on a cold winter evening, so you get an idea of just how slow this movie is.<br /><br />Strange thing is, it's not long. At 100 minutes it's only ten minutes longer than the average straight to video, and it's only fifteen minutes longer than the superior Darkwolf that I'd quite happily watched the day before. It just drags an awful lot, enough for you to lose interest.<br /><br />When it's not mistaking S-L-O-O-W development for atmosphere, Visitors is good enough at action to almost make it excusable how slowly things happen. While the flashbacks are both cheap and annoying as a way to round out Radha Mitchell's boats-woman, the hauntings/aliens/whatever are actually quite creepy and effective, especially when her suicidal mother turns up and starts groaning in the night. Full marks for not splurging make-up all over the shop too. The single person boat is a creepy place, and at times the movie uses the full power of the location and the deserted sea to scare the hell out of you.<br /><br />Still though, I find it hard to recommend Visitors. I came out of it not only feeling like I'd just watched a 4 hour film, not a 100 minute one, but also feeling like I'd been cheated somehow, as while offering many explanations as to the hauntings (Mind games? Real ghosts? Space aliens?) Visitors doesn't pick one for definite. All that watching Radha Mitchell talk to her cat and Dominic Purcell smoulder for no obvious reason about some unexplained horrific event in the past, for nothing?. Say what you like about Shyamalan, but at least he tells you what happened, however crazy/stupid you might think it. If you don't watch a lot of these movies, your fresh perspective will probably improve matters somewhat, but I found this slow, boring and highly derivative. If you want to scare yourself silly there are much better places to do it, if you want a clever thriller there are many that are smarter. | negative |
I love ghost stories and I will sit through a movie til it's end, even if I'm not really enjoying it. I rarely feel like I wasted my time... BUT, this adaptation of the Bell Witch story was horrible! <br /><br />It wasn't scary in the least bit. What is with the comic relief moments? The dialog was tedious. Acting inconsistent The movie was WAY too long and some scenes were unnecessarily drawn out in my open. (Like the birthday party)<br /><br />The only good think I can think about mentioning is the costumes and props were well done.<br /><br />I am curious about other adaptation, but until then, I will stick to reading about the story. | negative |
Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.<br /><br />Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.<br /><br />Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing. | positive |
Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.<br /><br />On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results. | negative |
Laughable.<br /><br />Clichéd.<br /><br />Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.<br /><br />Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show a cartoon from the mid-90s featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.<br /><br />I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.<br /><br />To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.<br /><br />The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.<br /><br />3/10 | negative |
Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.<br /><br />Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.<br /><br />Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?<br /><br />Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period." <br /><br />Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.<br /><br />Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.<br /><br />Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.<br /><br />In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.<br /><br />Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia. | negative |
This film was a surprise. The plot synopsis sounds kinky, and stars Clint Eastwood and the great Geraldine Page. I didn't know what to expect. There is that opening scene where the wounded soldier says that age 12 is old enough to kiss and proceeds to give a child a lingering, and very adult, mouth to mouth kiss. The child takes him to the girls boarding school where she lives. He takes advantage of the situation by attempting to seduce the headmistress, played by Page, her assistant and another student. Jealousy, sexual tension, incest, intrigue, and the macabre all meld in this wonderfully original story.<br /><br />I've read the other comments here and find little to disagree with. However, I wanted to clarify a point made earlier that there are no sympathetic characters in the film. I find that there is one. The attractive female slave successfully resists the soldier's advances in a scene that works well because it touches upon the common history of black women slaves taken advantage of by white men. Even though her strength and lack of illusion are the sum total of her experience, she is what I would consider a sympathetic character. She, more than any of the other women and girls at the school, has a legitimate reason for participating in what happens in the end. | positive |
I was sick one day and was skimming channels and I came upon this terribly rank movie. The plot and even the subplots (if you can find one) have been done to extinction. BUT, as bad as the story was, I reserve a special comment for Liza Minelli. Her character was absolutely one of the most annoying characters I have ever has the misfortune of seeing on film. Her only two competitors in this category are John Leguziamo in "The Pest" and Julia Stiles in anything she's done (or half-done). Maybe she performed exactly as the script suggested or maybe (groan!) that is the limit she has to her acting range. Either way, they should have had a rewrite and killed her off in the first 30 seconds of the film (eg. Like the girl that fell off the balcony in Lethal Weapon (I) (but at least she had nice breasts))<br /><br />Most Humbly Submitted...Douglas Neidermeyer | negative |
This review contains spoilers. I didn't have any expectations about this movie. I pulled it off the video store rack with the movie, "White Noise".<br /><br />First, the credits for this stupid movie run about 5 minutes into it. The pacing from start to finish is slooooow. The main heroines don't like to wear a bra and the director appears to enjoy the jiggle effect as Anna Paquin descends the stairs. If you like movies for boobies, this one has a low level buzz factor.<br /><br />Second, it's nice that the movie rips off elements of Lovecraft and other horror genre mechanisms, but in better movies, there is at least some rational or consistently irrational behavior. This stinker tries to establish some sense of modernity and reality but then you have situations where no one calls the police even though they've uncovered a treasure trove of potentially incriminating forensic evidence, and otherworldly rituals are nicely spelled out in a comprehensive book on otherworldly rituals like on Buffy. I was waiting for Miles to show up and give some consultation on how to slay a certain demon type of so and so.<br /><br />The premise is that it is possible to open up an age of Darkness where creatures that crawl on the ceiling can cut your throat or turn the meat grinder effect on you. Ho hum. To do this you need to have a sacrificial circle and then have seven kids who must have their throat cuts by people who love them. This opens the world to the age of Darkness. At least that's what it says in complete detail in the book of ancient occult rituals. Which raises the annoying question of, uh, well, how did the ones who wrote the book know, and, if this is what happens, would you really leave this information in a book you can take out from the library, much less get it from a library in a world that is not covered already in Darkness, an age brought on by lunatics who could have performed this like much earlier using the "Occult Practices to Bring the World to Darkness for Dummies, 2nd Edition"? It turns out the father in the story is the 7th child, the one that ran away from the ritual 40 years ago; he was released by his father, who is the doctor/grandfather in the movie, who wanted to try the ritual with presumably, other stupid parents, who just wanted to see if dumb sh*t like this opening the world to darkness actually works. The grandpa let the father go because he "didn't really love him". Aduh. Stupid stupid movie written by a moronic director who appears to think he's some kind of Eurofilm Auteur. There's also a scene in the movie where the kid appears with big welts on his face and the mother grabs him and has this total lack of reaction. The whole movie is like this. People seeing really weird sh*t going on and not reacting to it in any sort of normal way. Must be bad plot and direction.<br /><br />Anna Paquin does her best to play her character realistically without cracking a smirk, and she does look smashing in a halter top, but at several critical moments in the story, her character doesn't bother to call in for back up. You know, more of the same, "I will walk into a likely demonic evil situation without any knowledge of defense or help from others carrying flashlights or firepower even though I sense impending doom." And even dumber as it may seem, even if you bring on the age of Darkness, these creatures who make you bloody can't attack if you have a light source, but they appear as people you know, and tell you to turn off the light source. Reminds me of the video game "Alone In The Dark"; maybe this movie is a rip off of that game's concept.<br /><br />The best actors in the film are the young kid and Anna. They both die at the end. The entire family dies. The Darkness creatures lead them to their death, but really, the stupidity of the characters in the family was the main cause of death. The other adults could be interchangeable with any other actors from the Red Shoes Diaries series of fine cinema.<br /><br />So to wrap up, the worst things about this movie are the stupidity of the characters in bumping around blindly in an obviously abnormal situation, the really crap plot (there is an old architect in the story who designs a house with a sacrificial altar hidden in it - the architect has suspected from the beginning there would be occult sacrifices in the house but doesn't tell anyone because, well, no real reason, they couldn't find the kids, but he didn't bother to tell authorities about the HIDDEN ROOMS which he designed into the house but he does like to hang around the house for a 40 year period because he worries about what is going on inside...derrrrh...duuuuh), the hackneyed use of scare mechanisms (more children standing around in the dark or only showing up in photographs, and blood on the wallpaper), and the egotism of the director which when you see him in the DVD features describing his crap work as a new and original rendition, makes you understand where the real horror of this movie lies.<br /><br />Is it entertaining? At 2x speed on a DVD player with the subtitles turned on, it can be entertaining, until your reach the end and realize the movie is crap, otherwise it draaaaaaaags on. The cinematic equivalent of a fatty shake; the empty calories are horrid.<br /><br />The movie gives the feeling the director must have seen "The Ring" and wanted to attempt to create something similar in mood, which in this respect, the film fails miserably, and so, also, in this respect, Jaume Balagueró, it is my opinion that you suck at what you do. | negative |
This Western was set in 1861 and had to do with the creation of the first transcontinental wireless lines that were laid by Western Union. While nice guy Dean Jagger (sporting lots of hair) did his best to get this done, there was a bad guy just waiting to undo this for his own selfish reasons. So, it's up to either Randolph Scott or Robert Young to save the day.<br /><br />This is certainly one of the better 1940s Westerns I have seen and it nearly garnered an 8--it was that good. However, for the life of me, I have no idea why Fritz Lang was assigned to direct this film--after all, he knew nothing about Westerns. His forte was drama--and I guess this movie is a drama of sorts--just set in the old West. Strange, yes, but it seemed to work out okay, though I wonder how this great German director felt about being given this job.<br /><br />As for the rest of the film, it's exceptional--with vivid color, great location shooting and very good acting. As usual, Randolph Scott put in another relaxed and realistic performance. I was surprised, though, with Robert Young being also cast in the film, but it was a good casting decision--he was supposed to be a Harvard-educated Easterner. When I saw Barton MacLane was also in the film, I pretty much assumed he'd be the "baddie" and my thoughts were well founded, since he made a career out of playing jerks! As for the script, it seemed pretty ordinary for the most part, but the final showdown between Scott and Barton MacLane was a lot better than I'd hoped--making this movie ending on a very high note. | positive |
Meryl Streep was incredible in this film. She has an amazing knack for accents, and she shows incredible skill in this film overall. I really felt for her when Lindy was being persecuted. She was played realistically, too. She got cranky, upset, and unpleasant as the media and the government continued their unrelenting witchhunt. I didn't expect much from the film initially, but I really got interested in it, and the movie is based on a real person and real events. It turned out to be better than I had anticipated. Sam Neill was also outstanding; this is the best work I've seen from him, and I've really liked him in other movies (The Piano, for example). I gave the film a 7, but if I could rate just the acting, I'd give the it a 9.5, and a perfect 10 for Streep. | positive |
Seldom do I ever encounter a film so completely fulfilling that I must speak about it immediately. This movie is definitely some of the finest entertainment available and it is highly authentic. I happened to see the dubbed version but I'm on my way right now to grab the DVD remaster with original Chinese dialogue. Still, the dubbing didn't get in the way and sometimes provided some seriously funny humour: "Poison Clan rocks the world!!!"<br /><br />The story-telling stays true to Chinese methods of intrigue, suspense, and inter-personal relationships. You can expect twists and turns as the identities of the 5 venoms are revealed and an expert pace.<br /><br />The martial arts fight choreography is in a class of its own and must be seen to be believed. It's like watching real animals fight each other, but construed from their own arcane martial arts forms. Such level of skill amongst the cast is unsurpassed in modern day cinema.<br /><br />The combination provides for a serious dose of old Chinese culture and I recommend it solely on the basis of the film's genuine intent to tell a martial arts story and the mastery of its execution. ...Of course, if you just want to see people pummel each other, along with crude forms of ancient Chinese torture, be my guest! | positive |
What a terrible film.<br /><br />It starts well, with the title sequence, but that's about as good as it gets.<br /><br />The movie is something about rats turning into monsters and going on a killing spree. The acting isn't so much poor, but the script is pointless and the film isn't even scary despite the atmospheric music.<br /><br />It really is amazing that some group cobbled together this bag of rubbish and thought it would make a good film.<br /><br />It isn't a good film. It's trash, and I urge you not to waste a minute of your life on it! One out of ten. | negative |
Kon Ichikawa had lived through world war two, and saw what its effects it had on his people in Japan. But so did novelist Shohei Ooka, whose book was the inspiration for Ichikawa's film, Fires on the Plain. It's a film about the men in this war, or perhaps more universally in wars in general, who lose their humanity. The soldiers trudging along through these fields and jungles of the Philippenes in this story are almost completely without hope, if not already just that. It makes Stone's Platoon look like a picnic: at least they had certain things, like food, after all.<br /><br />They have little to no reserves or supplies or ammunition, no back-up, no sense of anything going their way in this combat that they've been thrust into. They can't even get some proper hospital care, unless if they can no longer walk at all or have lost limbs (for example, say, if you have TB, you're on your way). But its really through the prism of one soldier, a private Tamura, that we get a full sense of the futility of war, both in its bleak scenes of nothingness and boredom and decay, and those flashes of intense and brutal violence.<br /><br />In the film Tamura just wants to get some medical care. This is right at the start, and his told by his superior officer- already he is with eyes that stare off and an expression that has been drained by years of battle- that he will die if he doesn't find a hospital. He doesn't, really, but does end up in with some soldiers: at first with a platoon that seems to sort of have their act together, but is really led on by a power-hungry brute who just wants Tamura's stash of salt, and then later with two other stray soldiers who are part of a group that had previously been ambushed while crossing a road at night.<br /><br />The story isn't entirely a straight line, but it doesn't need to be. Tamura's path in Fires on the Plain is told in vignettes, little stories like when he comes upon a seemingly deserted enemy village. Two of the populous comes back to get some supplies, and Tamura sneaks up on them. It's an excruciating scene, since so far with Tamura we haven't seen him do anything outright *wrong*, but he does so in this scene, not even so much out of evil but out of fear and desperation (this is also, without spoiling it, how he gets a stash of salt). Little scenes build up so brilliantly and with devastation, like a simple task of finding a pair of walkable shoes, which there seem to be none. Or when Tamura, later in the film, discovers his teeth are becoming torn apart and falling out from lack of total hygiene. So much for food, so it goes.<br /><br />It should also be mentioned that this is a hauntingly realized film from Ichikawa, shot in a stark black and white view of the fields and woods, the cinematography filling everything we see in black-blacks and white-hot white. Ichikawa also makes sure to get everything authentic from his actors, not simply emotionally but with their own emaciated look and looks of desperation right on them. It's as if Ichikawa has to have them all surviving the film as well as characters surviving out in the wild; by wild, by the way, I mean also cannibalism. The shock of this is two-fold; first is the way that a soldier says half-jokingly early on about eating other soldiers to Tamaura, who asks if it was true and only in response getting a "don't ask" word of caution, and the second with the depiction of cannibalism itself, from the crazy starving man on the hill who pulls out guts out of his lap and says with a straight face to our hero that "You can eat me when I die." <br /><br />This makes thing especially more brutal when it comes to the director filming the brief 'action' scenes. These are, I would argue, more brutal than 'Private Ryan' in their depictions of violence in battle, the carnage that is completely random. A scene I would point to, and that contains just a shot that is excruciating to watch, is when from a high angle we see a group of about twenty soldiers walking slowly along, a hail of gunfire comes that kills only four or five, but it just happens so fast, and the soldiers just keep walking along at the same crawl. This isn't the only shot of horrible carnage that's shown - when needing to be bloody its there, but splashed across the screen like something completely of the macabre - but it drives the point completely.<br /><br />All of the acting is staggering (Funakoshi especially, who looks to be both most at peace and most horrified by what he sees in the subtlest of looks most of the time), all of the major set-pieces provide something else to the gruesome experience, and it all amounts to the ultimate question with an anti-war film: how can, or why, do people fight in wars like these? It's almost too depressing to put into words, and so Ichikawa pushes our noses right up into the muck and filth and blood and demands for us to take it in, so maybe, some day, it will never happen again. Or one can hope this, by the end of such a bleak and great film as this. | positive |
Shot in the Heart is wonderful. It brilliantly illustrates the plight of Gary Gimore, a convicted murder who requested death. Shot in the Heart shows the ordeal that Gilmore's family, torn up by hatred, went through. This movie is an incredible psychological study, and is wonderfully depressing and uplifting. 10/10 | positive |
It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip this one. | negative |
A documentary about two rocks bands, spanning a number of years. Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. What makes it special is the examination of the complex contrasting personalities and the ironies of success and failure.<br /><br />Anton Newcombe, the main man of Brian Jonestown Massacre, is widely recognised as a musical genius not only by his colleagues, his friends and rivals the Dandy Warhols, but also by record producers and most people who have worked with him. Sadly he and his band members are also incapable of integrating with the real world. Newcombe picks fights with band members on stage or with members of the audience (getting arrested at one point for literally kicking in the head of a fan). Newcombe knows no limits he plays between 40 and 100 different instruments, writes and produces all BJM's music, can produce enough songs to fill a whole album in a single day, has a prophet-like obsessiveness with his own musical genius, but is also a heavy drugs user, flies into rages at the slightest compromise of his own artistic integrity, orders his band members about as if they are lower forms of life, and can blow deals as fast as he makes them. BJM go through a large number of record labels in fast succession they sign them up as soon as they realise Newcombe's talents and let them go as soon as they realise he is totally uncontrollable.<br /><br />The Warhols acknowledge their debt to Newcombe's creativity and don't even put themselves in the same exalted sphere of greatness but the Warhols have something that BJM don't the ability to integrate their talents with common sense, the real world, and their market as a mixing pot of talent (even if much of it is distilled from guru Newcombe) and accessibility, they are the very definition of 'cool.' DiG! follows the parallel careers of the two bands with increasing poignancy. At one point, Newcombe pulls stunts designed to generate publicity by sending apparent death threats and hate messages to the Warhols (in a box containing live ammunition and insults like a bar of soap 'to clean up their act') only he forgets to tell them it's a stunt and they get so paranoid they take out a restraining order against Newcombe. By the time the Dandy Warhols take off in Europe with hits like 'Every Day Should Be A Holiday' and 'Bohemian Like You', Newcombe is becoming increasingly isolated. BJM are stopped and the band breaks up when they are arrested for possession of marijuana the Warhols get busted for drugs around the same time, let off with a warning, and even allowed to keep the grass.<br /><br />The wider appeal of DiG! is that the lessons of genius versus accessibility go way beyond two bands or even rock music. The downside is that it is still a documentary, however intimate, and it will mostly only appeal to dedicated film fans or people who are already interested in the music of one or both of the featured bands. Newcombe may well be a largely unrecognised genius, and there are feint glimpses of this in the film, but to the unattuned ear there is little more than the assertions of the people interviewed to attest to this. In the words of one of the band members: "In every spiritual tradition, you burn in hell for pretending to be God and not being able to back it up." Newcombe isn't pretending but numerically there are maybe still insufficient people to appreciate him in his own lifetime, and DiG! has an uphill struggle to rectify the balance in favour of a tortured but largely unrecognised genius. | positive |
WARNING - POSSIBLE SPOILERS!<br /><br />'Rock Star' is one of the solid rock movies I have ever seen. The original idea of the script focuses on a young singer in the 80s, leading a tribute band of one of the most famous hard rock bands of the period. He is not only playing their music to the note, but also living the life of his idols. When his friends in the tribute band expel him, in search of some originality, the destiny plays him a good turn, and gets hired to replace the lead singer of the idols band. A dream came true? Well, almost. While starting to live the life of the famous, including the drug and sex excesses of the rock scene of the 80s, he will also have to face the problems in relationship with his supportive girlfriend, and will be eventually need to answer questions about creativity and having a saying in the music of the band.<br /><br />I liked the film, one of the reasons being that it is one of the first times that the life and music of the hard metal rock bands is shown in a realistic manner. Fans of the music genre will be satisfied by the soundtrack. The overall idea is original, and the issues of how an artist lives his life and creates his art are being rendered in a sensible and balanced manner. Acting is quite good, with Mark Wahlberg better than in most of the other action flics I saw him lately, and Jennifer Aniston in tune with the nice-girl-who-knows-a-lot-about-life role. More problematic is the ending, which is quite conventional, and may disappoint. It looks like the main character after quiting the big and famous band has found his own creative path. However, in an ironical twist the music he is playing in the club at the end is the worst in the whole movie! <br /><br />8/10 on my personal scale. Worth seeing - however, expect exposure to a high dose of metal. If you do not like this kind of music, you may chose to avoid this film. | positive |
A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting. <br /><br />It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.<br /><br />In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off. | negative |
Film certainly can be a narrative medium, but by no means is it the ideal medium. Literature best carries a plot, because the reader can supply the imagination necessary to complete the structure. Film is appreciated best when viewed for what it is: a series of images grouped together. What Soderbergh does in Ocean's Twelve is combine impeccable film-making technique with the free-flowing form of American movies from the 1970s. From looking at the comments posted recently, most people went in expecting a standard-issue heist movie, a la Entrapment; it seems people actually miss the tiresome clichés of romance disguised as tension between the leads and ridiculous plot twists designed to keep the audience awake. Soderbergh's directing prowess is reason alone to see this movie, but close-ups of Pitt and Zeta-Jones forty feet high on the screen don't hurt either. A true treat for those who love the flickering of lights on the silver screen, and a disappointment for those trying to make film something it's not. | positive |
A great storyline with a message. Joan Plowright is superb as "Phoebe", Mike Kopsa is hilarious as "coach" and Richard de Klerk plays the role of "Carmine" superbly. Mischa Barton as "Frankie" puts in a good performance and Ingrid as "Hazel" plays her first lead extremely well. This film is superbly directed by Jo-Beth Williams. The editing is first rate. | positive |
I absolutely loved this movie. Great, realistic looking combat footage for one thing and a touching, genuine story also. The calm, understated manner of the lead character, Franta, makes him very likable. The human relationships in the story seemed so very typical and possible of what you could expect in war time. The bond between Franta and Carel shows the loyalty wartime comrades can have for each other and that is often described in books and interviews with veterans. The subtitles do not detract from the story at all and actually serve to underline the problems the Czech pilots had in the RAF. The postwar storyline is a great reminder that for many the suffering of WW2 did not end in 1945, especially in Russian occupied countries. The cinematography was also very good. Wish I could have seen it on the big screen. | positive |
I do not think I am alone when I say that 2005 has not been particularly kind to the horror genre. While "Cursed", "Hide and Seek", "The Ring Two", and "The Amityville Horror" all showed glimpses of interest and potential, there have been more misses than hits. For proof, see: "White Noise", "Boogeyman", "The Jacket", "Mindhunters", and "Alone in the Dark". Imagine my surprise when "House of Wax", tightly written by siblings Chad and Carey Hayes, turned out to be... well, a surprise.<br /><br />Carly Jones (Elisha Cuthbert) is a young woman, traveling with her trouble-making brother, Nick (Chad Michael Murray), and boyfriend, Wade (Jared Padalecki). They are, along with Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri'chard), and Dalton (Jon Abrahams), hoping to score tickets to the final football game of the season. Along the way, they run into some car trouble, and are forced to enter a desolate town where nothing is what it appears to be.<br /><br />Upon hearing of this, a remake of the classic Vincent Price B-movie, I rolled my eyes. I did not even want to think about what disaster freshman director Jaume Serra had cooked up for his audience. In a time when most high-profile horror films are disappointments, latent with bad writing, static direction, and amateur acting, I consider myself lucky that Serra and the Hayes brothers took it upon themselves to make a good, old-fashioned, spook fest. Unlike the disappointments that I named before, this flick pulls no punches, and uses every cinematic trick in the book to give everyone exactly what they came for.<br /><br />I am happy that the Hayes' actually took the time and effort to create likable and believable characters, thus making the events that much more urgent. It also gives the young actors portraying them something grip on. As she did in "The Girl Next Door", Elisha Cuthbert proves to audiences what a skilled actress she really is. In the 2003 remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", Jessica Biel silenced naysayers by delivering a raw and emotional performance, one that put the viewer right there with her. Here, Cuthbert does the same. Chad Michael Murray ("A Cinderella Story"), in one of his first more mature roles, is no slacker as Nick. Murray exudes charisma and a hard edge, as well as some impressive athleticism on top of it. Murray and Cuthbert gel perfectly, and have tangible, familial chemistry.<br /><br />More so than anything else, the press and the American public have made a field day about Paris Hilton's major acting debut. As I expected, Hilton does not embarrass herself. In fact, she is just as good as anyone else in the movie (do with that what you will). Like Cuthbert and Murray, Hilton has screen presence. She is sexy and playful. I cannot think one of reason why she's gotten the worst of the film's harsh reception, other than they are simply picking on her. Jared Padalecki (TV's 'Gilmore Girls') memorably manages to overcome his underwritten role. Robert Ri'chard (TV's 'Cousin Skeeter') and Jon Abrahams ("Meet the Parents") do not have much to work with, but get the job done. With only one scene, Damon Herriman ("Soar") makes an unforgettable impression, and his presence hangs over the rest of the film. Finally, Brian Van Holt ("Basic") is superb and threatening in a dual role.<br /><br />Once more, kudos must go to the screenwriters for avoiding clichés whenever possible. Despite popular opinion, "House of Wax" is quite unpredictable for a majority of its running time. Take this for example: It seems as if the killer is down for the count and Carly bends down to retrieve something from his pockets. What do you expect to happen? See the movie, and you will understand what I mean. It is also refreshing to see a horror film in which the characters show even a modicum of good sense.<br /><br />Unlike most horror scores, John Ottman's exhilarating work never distracts. However, as with Dark Castle's other releases, the visual aspects of "Wax" are award-worthy, and lift the film above its genre trappings. The talents of cinematographer Stephen F. Windon, production designer Graham Walker, art director Nicholas McCallum, and editor Joel Negron highlight the ghoulish imagery. Speaking of imagery, I believe that the gore hounds will be thrilled with the many makeup effects and tricks in store here. Each death scene is more stomach churning than the last. Considering his past in music videos and commercials, it is obvious that Jaume Serra has a great eye for style. His "in-your-face" approach is a great asset to this film's success. Just when you think the camera will turn away, it does not. He is also particularly good a building thick layers of dread and atmosphere. One standout shot is our introduction to the killer, as he slowly emerges from a trap door.<br /><br />In a case like this, I would usually admit when I am in the minority (Shut up, okay? I liked "House of 1000 Corpses"!). In this case, I firmly that the detractors have gotten it wrong. I am not sure why people are so hard on this film, considering it's much better than recent genre entries. Maybe they're afraid to admit that a horror flick starring Paris Hilton could possibly be worth watching... Who knows? This is a horror film, and a commendably stylish and effective one at that. As a lifelong horror fan, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed "House of Wax", in all of its lurid and sadistic glory. I safely consider it a great accomplishment in modern horror, as well as (along with "Sin City") the first completely satisfying release of 2005. | positive |
Jingofighter I agree with some of your comments, but I have to disagree on a couple of things. First, this film is nothing like THE CARS THAT ATE Paris. Not IMHO. Nothing like it.<br /><br />I think the film had elements of surrealism, but I think the basic approach of the film maker is not "surrealist" per se. therefore its not really like CARS Paris, I think more like a weird Euro work, with some scenes bearing the hallmark of "wierd" not surreal.<br /><br />Secondly, I think the music by Heuzenroeder is brilliant. They used whistling, that old sound from Country and Western records, and its waaayyy better than most Aussie films which usually team the film maker up with a dumb sounding Indy band that the company wants to push.<br /><br />As for the name of the film - I don't know why it's called Modern Love, I was kinda hoping for David Bowie to appear dressed in drag and lipstick... opps I'm starting to show my age. | positive |
Well, "built" Doris Day (as Ethel S. "Dynamite" Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. "Sam" Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly
What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard "April in Paris", and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming "Secret Love". Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.<br /><br />**** April in Paris (12/24/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin | negative |
The major flaw in this Spanish slasher/shocker is within it's script. For the first half hour it's an okay effort, building some suspense and an atmosphere of fear and dread. We even get some nice killings too! Then it goes completely downhill and turns into a whole catalog of "your basic slasher clichés". I must admit that I was quite disappointed because the trailer promised so much more. The final thirty minutes consists of some killings and a lot of running around in an abandoned convent. It should have been so much better (although the final scenes in the flooded room is quite okay)!<br /><br />First of all, we have the dialog. It's awful most of the time (there was quite a few giggles in the audience here and there when I saw it) and merely adequate elsewhere. It is also barely audible during a lot of scenes, drowning under the pressure of sound effects and the soundtrack (however that might not be such a bad thing after all considering the stupid lines we have to listen to!). There is one line in the whole movie that makes a reference to the "I know what you did last summer"-movies, indicating that the film makers wrote it all as one big joke, but I doubt it.<br /><br />And the ending...well, some will hate it, others will dig it. For me, it was mostly a question of the former because the final twist comes from out of nowhere! If the audience had been given some clues to the girls mental status, I might have thought otherwise. It also throws all logic out of the window, because the murderer could never had been in place for some of the kills! But as an avid horror fan I have learned to live with these inconsistencies in Spanish and Italian movies.<br /><br />But all is not bad. The movie has a big budget appearance, mainly due to the excellent cinematography (the scenes from past times really shines here), tight editing and an atmospheric soundtrack. Even though most of the actors are pretty bad, Anita Briem is an exception, making the most of what she has to work with. Real screen presence!<br /><br />And, like I mentioned before, the killings are gory enough for the fans of such stuff and they are usually accompanied by very good special effects involving images of water (but the "water theme" tends to get tiresome in the end though).<br /><br />So, to end this review, it's a movie that is quite fun in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way and it's also pleasing to the eye. But don't expect too much because it doesn't deliver as you probably think it will, judging from trailer and plot descriptions. | negative |
WARNING: Reading this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional "old-fashion" American morals versus the 60's "do-what-feels-good" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for it's violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap. | positive |
The opening of Imamura's masterpiece avoids mere sensationalism in its depiction of the unfathomably horrifying events of August 6th, 1945, in which 90% of Hiroshima and tens of thousands of lives were annihilated in an instant. Instead, Imamura emphasizes the unprecedented strangeness of the catastrophe, focusing on such portentous images as the diabolic mushroom cloud louring silently in the distance and the black rain that spatters a beautiful young woman's face. The rest of the film traces the ramifications of the latter incident, bringing the atomic holocaust and its aftermath (over 100,000 people died of radiation poisoning) down to the intelligible level of the plight of Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka) and her small "community bound by the bomb."<br /><br />The survivors strive for normalcy and continuity, most notably by attempting to find a suitable marriage for Yasuko, but the imminent possibility of radiation sickness shadows every aspect of their lives. Yasuko's potential suitors, naturally enough, shy away from a young woman, no matter how attractive, who might suddenly grow sick and die. Genuine love, when it finally does appear, does so unexpectedly and ambiguously. We are left wondering if love across class lines is more a token of Yasuko's status as "damaged goods" or of a common humanity, thrown into bold relief by harsh circumstances, that transcends class divisions.<br /><br />The film's classically restrained style intensifies the impact, the spare, eloquent interior shots reminding us that Imamura began his career as an assistant to the great Ozu. Imamura's mastery is evident, for example, in the paired scenes of Yasuko bathing, the first emphasizing her lovely back and legs, the second how her hair is falling out. The shots stand almost as bookends to the narrative's trajectory, distilling its tragic essence. The film's documentary-style realism is violated for expressive purposes several times, perhaps most notably in a scene that lays bare the troubled interior life of a shell-shocked veteran. Both the score by the renowned avant-garde composer Toru Takemitsu and the stunning black and white photography contribute greatly to the film's brooding atmosphere. When, in the final shot, Yasuko's uncle (Kazuo Kitamura), the film's laconic narrator, looks to the vacant sky for a rainbow as a sign of hope and regeneration, the black and white imagery suddenly becomes so poignant that it is almost unbearable. Few films from Japan (or anywhere else, for that matter) could be compared to the great, humanist Japanese masterpieces of the 1950s. This film is one of them. When I finished viewing it for the first time, I sat stunned, unable to move for at least five minutes, overwhelmed as I was by the emotions great tragedy should inspire: terror and pity. | positive |
This movie is so bad, you almost feel contaminated by it. Actually, there is a strong sense of relief when it's over, relief that you can now put the cassette back in the rewinder and RUSH this back to the video rental store before it contaminates the rest of your video collection. I jokingly suggested when we rented it that it looked like the kind of film where William Hurt would "phone in" his performance. I meant that he would not be trying very hard. But lo and behold, in a huge number of scenes in this film, Bill Hurt is actually ON THE PHONE! Our realization of this irony was the only pleasure we derived from this confusing mess. The cinematography and editing are murky and befuddled, the story is chaotic, and the soundtrack is barely audible. There is a very slight resemblance to "Falling Down", but that film had a boldly disturbing story-line, great writing and acting, and an engaging soundtrack. "Contaminated Man" is just some kind of broken down old European tourist trap, and watching it is like driving along some unfamiliar back road in an unknown country where you don't speak the language in a steady rain just after nightfall as the windshield keeps fogging up. You get the picture? Don't get this one. | negative |
Similar story line, done many times before, and this was no improvement.<br /><br />15 minutes into this, and you should pretty much be able to turn it off - the ending was deja vu all over again.<br /><br />The only morals I could see out of this are: - stupidity + criminals do not equal success - if he screwed you before, he's gonna do it again | negative |
Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors. | negative |
Simply terrible! Why wouldn't you use actual actors? Look, this has to stop! Stop using non-actors! If you want any credibility or any message sent via these low-budget films...please for the love of god use real actors! Most will work for free...take advantage of that! Now back to my comment...anyway, the humour was lower than that of the bathroom variety and wasn't funny on any level. As for the quality...in one scene filmed on a public transportation bus you could see the reflection of the crew...guess what? It was one guy with what looked like a Sony Camcorder and probably not even his. Well, I assume the only audience for this film are people with a gore fetish...and it wasn't even good gore. | negative |
I have to say despite it's reviews Angels in the Outfield was a pretty good movie. I like the fact how it teaches kids to always have faith and never give up because yes miracles can happen. Unlike the other baseball movies this one particular movie stood out because of hits amazing special effects and well orchestrated soundtrack which was very interesting. Though I liked this movie it did have some flaws such as some irrelevancy (i.e. Towards the end when Ray Mitchell hits a homer he doesn't step on the plate and therefore that wouldn't be a score. But that's just nitpicking.) I have to say i was really impressed with this movie's presence and moral: Just have faith, Don't give up. | positive |
Having previously seen the abridged print presented by David Shepard, I finally got a hold of a complete--or nearer complete version, which was about 56 minutes compared to the 30-minute version more widely distributed. The Shepard print for Image Entertainment is certainly of superior quality, and the best parts are there, but it's nonetheless good to see the rest of the film and fill in some loose story ends.<br /><br />In the Shepard print, the film ends with Mary stating, "You see, I've changed my mind--I'm never going home." Yet, in the complete version, Mary and Kenneth Driscoll end their relationship soon after that scene Mary returns home to the country and Driscoll rekindles his relationship with Vivian. This additional footage develops the character Vivian, who had little relevance in the Shepard version. Moreover, in the complete version, the film begins in the New Jersey countryside with Mary, where she reads and fantasizes about her ideal lover. She's disappointed by the reality of the advances by farm "chore boy" Johnny Applebloom (a character completely absent from the Shepard version), but after her affair with Driscoll, she returns to the country to presumably and eventually become a farmer's wife.<br /><br />Regardless of the print, 'A Girl's Folly' is a good little film for 1917, made by one of the top directors of the 1910s Maurice Tourneur. In it, Tourneur takes plenty of jabs at his own business, including by playing a caricature of himself--the director of the film-within-the-film. The two leads also give quality performances by early screen-acting standards: Robert Warwick, an actor playing a skirt-chasing star, and Doris Kenyon, as an ingénue aspiring to play an ingénue on the screen.<br /><br />Self-referential films, which made film-making the focus of the films, were nothing new by now. Mack Sennett had already parodied this type of film three years prior with 'Mabel's Dramatic Career'. Several aspects of this one stand out, though. Frances Marion's intertitles are humorous, including illustrations of the actors on a chessboard with a hand directing them--remarkable for 1917. I especially liked the film's final title cards where two observers remark on the film's happy ending: "Gee but ain't that romantick!" And, the other replies, "Romance, nuthin! That's movin' pictures!" Fellow female screenwriter Anita Loos made a similar self-referential conclusion to another film from 1917 'Wild and Woolly'. Both writers helped change the role of their professions in the business and art.<br /><br />Some of the photography by Tourneur and John van den Broek is good, especially concerning the film-making business. The use of mirrors in several scenes is a nice reinforcement of the film's self-reflexivity. Furthermore, the editing is exceptional. The quick crosscutting during the studio scenes is especially salient; it serves to punctuate the hectic pace filmmakers work at, especially back then. | positive |
The topic of religion in Buñuel films is a point that one, as an eater of films, as an eater of art or as a person need to analyze hardly. One can see to a satirical Buñuel in "La Voie Lactée", "Un Chien Andalou" or in "L'Age d'Or". Is very hard and effective in its critic, but when you have seen this and then you see a movie like "Nazarin", after you see this work you begin to be questioned about its author. And much have questioned about what seems to be a contradiction for Buñuel thinks, but is better not called in this way, i think that there's not any contradiction in its work, only that Buñuel religion point of view is very diverse as unique in films.<br /><br />This beautiful film is based on the novel of Benito Perez Galdós, which told us the story of Father Nazario, who lived a humble, simple life dedicated to God and to help everyone. He lived in a simple and poor region. There lived too Beatriz, who is an abused and abandoned wife. She don't find any sense of her life without her violent, macho man. She have a kind of repulse to him. In the other side is Andara, one of the towns prostitutes. Father Nazario has been stolen again, he blames to Andara's cousin. Andara hear this and try to fight without success with the priest, who don't believe in violence. That night, Andara find that her cousin is actually a thief, she have stole her bellboys. Andara fights with her cousin with terrible consequences. With this, Andara search mercy from the priest. Nazario decides to help her, knowing well that this could be against his church, obviously this thing going to have some consequences. Since here, Nazario going to be a pilgrim. Without nothing, even without shoes, but with spirit and faith. But Andara and Beatriz want to be with he, and be like he, to serve God.<br /><br />If is the sweetest Buñuel film that i have seen so far, is too the most spiritual. Is clear here that the thing that most confuse people with the contradiction is that here, we don't see a Buñuel against the power of church, we see a Buñuel whose film is about church but not in the typical - and great - satirical way. Whethever like it is, i don't think that the right word is contradiction, actually i find it pleasant and well done and in spite of contain such religious issues (As his "Voie Lactée") i found it more a spiritual film but that don't try to touch in diversity the Catholic religion as maybe he touch, and laugh of it in another films. "Nazarin" is of father Nazario and its perspective front God and the same religion but all of this is at the end, analyzed in the spiritual life of this man.<br /><br />The other two women are, not a contrast, but as very well another two perspectives of faith. First we have Beatriz, the mistreated woman, that lose all the faith in life, first with her husband and then with a little girl who was in her family. This little girl was very sick. At side of her was too Andara, the prostitute who run of the justice. In the family of the child, just religious women, there a big pain, but faith becomes in father Nazario when he arrives with nothing to this town. He bless the child, a say later she is fine. The priest want go on walking, but Beatriz and Andara have recovered the faith in life and want to dedicate their lives to God with father Nazario. After some complains, father Nazario decide to be with them, discovering with some things until the end how he feels about faith, God, religion and the person in necessity, the people who must request to charity to survive. This last issue then must be noted as one possible explanation for the pineapple ending. This ending we listen the drums (Similar to that in "L'Age d'Or) and a father Nazario, walking over asking about this things, when he refuse the fruit at the first time and at the end decide to receive it as a symbol of necessity or maybe, as an answer for its spiritual road that begin being priest. Meanwhile, the two women must take away of the father, Andara for its crime (Beautiful scene where she thanks a man who helps father Nazario in jail and then she damn the man who hit the priest in jail) and Beatriz because she prefer be with her macho man, in spite that he treat her bad, just because she don't accept that she fall in loved with the priest. Father Nazario - and here is maybe the unique place in film to critic church- walk to contradict the church, the religion that he serves.<br /><br />Father Nazario is that then, is a (Soft for much, but not for me) critic for some thing in religion (Father Nazario helping a women who is guilty of a crime, of a sin) but most of all is one of Buñuel analysis of faith and life, and he really got it, with a beautiful, tender, sweet and unforgettable film, that is, without a doubt, one of his best.<br /><br />*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any. | positive |
Three of the things you can say about Spalding Gray are: he certainly marched to the beat of his own "drummer;" he was never at a loss for words; and he obviously felt that those watching and listening to him would be interested in every aspect of his life, experiences and thoughts - no matter how trivial at times.<br /><br />Most of us are not quite as far "off the wall" as he was. Most of us aren't as interested in sharing the most minute parts of ourselves with others - even one-on-one or in small groups, let alone on stage.<br /><br />But that doesn't make it any less-interesting to watch and listen to this erudite, unusual man. And after seeing one of his performances, on reflection, we can find many of his articulate musings were perhaps more relevant to our own lives and thoughts than we may have first thought.<br /><br />Granted, he was a "New York/avant-garde" type of personality, and undeniably a bit "strange." (There are those who would maintain describing someone as "New York" and strange" was being unnecessarily redundant.)<br /><br />I give him a "10" for the talent he presents in this genre which is his specialty. | positive |
I understand the draw and appeal to such a different type of movie and I am a huge admirer of movies with little dialog but all the same this one absolutely terrible. I've been to the Scottish highlands and found the lack of Scottish accents in the characters disappointing. This plot was strong enough in theory but the cheap sets and lack of a single realistic character kept this film from getting off the ground. I feel the use of silence to create atmosphere only works when you have actors who can exude some sort of presence without speaking and these actors certainly cant. If you want a silent movie that captures that presence try (Le Dernier Combat). There have been very few movies that I couldn't even manage to finish and this was one of them. Absolute dribble! | negative |
The fine cast cannot uplift this routine tale of a secretary murdered by her married paramour. In fact there are more questions than answers in this one-sided tale of romance and murder; and since we are only provided with the prosecution's side, none of these questions will be answered. This is the type of fare that appeals to the "He Woman, Man Hater" clubs of America. As presented, it is the tale of an innocent woman who just happens to be "caught up" in a romance with a married, high-profile attorney. Is it possible that IF, she had not been two timing her boy friend and having an affair with a married man, the whole nasty murderous, sordid incident could have been avoided? When you watch this, don't worry about going to the 'fridge, you won't miss anything. | negative |
This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old. | negative |
I have heard a lot about this film, with people writing me telling me I should see it, as I am a fan of extremely bloody, gory movies. I got my hands on it almost right away, but one thing or another always kept me from watching it- until now. I would have been better off not remembering I even had it.<br /><br />This movie was atrocious. The worst thing though is that it could have been so much better than it actually was. I know it was a story by Clive Barker and all, and no I have not read that story- but it appears to me that if you haven't then you will be, as I was, completely clueless and utterly disappointed.<br /><br />The film begins good enough- the actors are convincing, the story interesting. The first scene is bloody- a great way to catch your attention. I thought the blood looked a bit bad, but seeing as it was the very first scene I did hope for improvement later on. I was wrong. <br /><br />The blood and effects are so horrible, it was almost an insult to my intelligence to be expected to believe that, for instance, someone could knock a person's head right off their shoulders using only a meat hammer. WTF? CGI blood (did they even use ANY "real" blood at all? My home made stuff looks better than any used in this film!), unbelievable acts of dismemberment (eyeballs popping out just from getting hit in the back of the head; arms cut neatly off- does no one remember there are BONES all throughout our bodies?!), too-dark scenes (every scene is either an odd yellow color, or in hidden in shadows)...it just gets worse and worse. I found myself pointing out mistake after mistake. There's just too much. Add that to the fact that what could have and should have been a great serial-killer movie turns into some demonic/supernatural/monster movie at the end...no thank you! It should have been kept as a creepy guy butchering people in the subway- OK, with a conspiracy theory thrown in- and an overzealous photographer. Maybe they murder people and sell the meat via the meat plant? Plausible, doable...and a lot better I think than the "real" story. That could have and should have worked. Instead it became a "creatures living at the end of the old tunnel and everyone knows about it but you, and unless you read the book, well...you just won't ever understand it" fiasco. Tragic, what an awful thing to do to a movie with such potential. If you like mindless fake blood and gore, you'll love this. But if you have half a brain in your head then you will completely hate it. Stay away- far, far away. | negative |
There have been several books that have cited this as the earliest gay cinema. I don't really see this as all that gay in the homosexual sense but then seeing two men dancing in what has to be the worlds first movie musical does have its attraction. <br /><br />There have been several earlier comments about this film dismissing any homosexual overtones. As to those that are quick to dismiss this film as just being silly and an experiment done late at night after too many drinks... Well I've heard that story before. <br /><br />This film is of interest as an oddity and if folks want to consider it the first gay film so be it. Better this than the depressing 1919 Anders als die Andern. | positive |
The worst kind of film. Basically, the US Declaration of Independence was replaced with a plasma screen and this fooled the museum's security for several days. Eh?<br /><br />The plasma screen that would theoretically run for less than 2 seconds off that watch battery, assuming it had a low enough internal resistance to deliver the required current, which it wouldn't.<br /><br />It would be possible with a dozen large car batteries and an inverter, but that system wouldn't fit into the case. Sorry to be anal, but this isn't even close to being plausible. The rest of the film wasn't a great deal better and I'm left wondering why the budget couldn't have been donated to charity or me. | negative |
... for Paris is a moveable feast." Ernest Hemingway<br /><br />It is impossible to count how many great talents have immortalized Paris in paintings, novels, songs, poems, short but unforgettable quotes, and yes - movies. The celebrated film director Max Ophüls said about Paris, <br /><br />"It offered the shining wet boulevards under the street lights, breakfast in Montmartre with cognac in your glass, coffee and lukewarm brioche, gigolos and prostitutes at night. Everyone in the world has two fatherlands: his own and Paris." <br /><br />Paris is always associated with love and romance, and "Paris, Je T'Aime" which is subtitled "Petite romances," is a collection of short films, often sketches from 18 talented directors from all over the world. In each, we become familiar with one of the City of Light 20 arrondissements and with the Parisians of all ages, genders, colors, and backgrounds who all deal in love in its many variations and stages. In some of the "petite romances" we are the witnesses of the unexpected encounters of the strangers that lead to instant interest, closeness, and perhaps relationship: like for Podalydès and Florence Muller in the street of Montmartre in the opening film or for Cyril Descours and Leïla Bekhti as a white boy and a Muslim girl whose cross-cultural romance directed by Gurinder Chadha begins on Quais de Seine. I would include into this category the humorous short film by Gus Van Sant. In "Le Marais" one boy pours his heart out to another boy confessing of sudden unexpected closeness, asking permission to call - never realizing that the object of his interest does not understand French.<br /><br />Some of the vignettes are poignant and even dark. In Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas' Loin du 16ème, Catalina Sandino Mareno (amazing Oscar nominated debut for Maria full of Grace) is single, working-class mother who has to work as a nanny in a wealthy neighborhood to pay for daycare where she drops her baby every morning before she goes to work. One of most memorable and truly heartbreaking films is "Place des Fêtes" by Oliver Schmitz. Aïssa Maïga and Seydou Boro co-star as two young people for who love could have happened. There were the promises of it but it was cut short due to hatred and intolerance that are present everywhere, and the City of Love and Light is no exception. Another one that really got to me was "Bastille", written and directed by Isabel Coixet, starring Sergio Castellitto, Miranda Richardson, and Leonor Watling. Castellitto has fallen out of love with his wife, Richardson but when he is ready to leave with the beautiful mistress, the devastating news from his wife's doctor arrives...<br /><br />I can go on reflecting on all 18 small gems. I like some of them very much. The others felt weak and perhaps will be forgotten soon but overall, I am very glad that I bought the DVD and I know that I will return to my favorite films again and again. They are "Place des Fêtes" that I've mentioned already, "Père-Lachaise" directed by Wes Craven that involves the ghost of one of the wittiest and cleverest men ever, Oscar Wilde (Alexander Payne, the director of "Sideways") who would save one troubled relationship. Payne also directed "14th Arrondissement" in which a lonely middle-aged post-worker from Denver, CO explores the city on her own providing the voice over in French with the heavy accent. Payne's entry is one of the most moving and along with hilarious "Tuileries" by Joel and Ethan Coen with (who else? :)) Steve Buschemi is my absolute favorite. In both shorts, American tourists sit on the benches (Margo in the park, and Steve in Paris Metro after visiting Louvers) observing the life around them with the different results. While Margo may say, "My feeling's sad and light; my sorrow is bright..." Steve's character will find out that sometimes, even the most comprehensive and useful tourist guide would not help a tourist avoiding doing the wrong things in a foreign country. | positive |
This movie about a group of small town teens that decide to rob the local bank is excellent. Brian (Justin Walker) wants to get out of his small town, much like Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life." However, unlike George Bailey, Brian is going to rob a bank to finance his dream of attending art school, even if his father is not supportive. The offer to Brian is to act like a customer and distract the guard. It's a tempting offer that if offered to many, I question what they would do. Anyways, Brian does it. When the Sheriff (James Remar) and his force surround the bank, things go from bad to worse. It's a standoff with even the Feds moving in to kill the kids if they have a clean shot. The Sheriff must prevent this and try to end the standoff in a peaceful way. Unfortunately, tensions rise, and the teens inside turn on each other. Some are out of control. The paper cutter scene is gruesome and hard to watch. Very intense! | positive |
I recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.<br /><br />This film is invariably included in any list of the "nastiest" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.<br /><br />If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true ("I found this tape..."), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.<br /><br />And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm "hard"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.<br /><br />The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.<br /><br />Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.<br /><br />It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.<br /><br />I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the "it's just a film" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.<br /><br />I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb. | negative |
for people who have absolutely no idea of what a comedy is. That not only includes the people who liked this movie, but the people who made it. What could they possibly have been thinking? Madonna playing Judy Holliday? Please, she can't even play MADONNA (if there actually IS a Madonna). I hope Griffin Dunne was paid well. He deserved every penny he got, because if this didn't kill his career, nothing will. I'm sure that the few people who actually paid to see this movie left it feeling like their pockets had been picked. Madonna is apparently past the point of feeling embarrassed by her virtually complete lack of talent as an actress, but you can't help feeling embarrassed for her anyway. She has no connection with the rest of the cast; it appears like she showed up on the set and said, "OK, I'm here, I'm gonna embarrass myself by doing the absolute worst Judy Holliday impression anyone's ever seen, now stay the hell out of my way" and then proceeded to do exactly that. I know the phrase "rotten Madonna movie" is redundant, but it certainly fits this. It's painful to watch a totally inept and talentless "actress" make a complete fool of herself, but it apparently doesn't bother her, as she does it again and again.<br /><br />The only remotely funny thing about this "comedy" is that she actually managed to find people who gave her the money to make it. Now THAT'S funny. | negative |
"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze. <br /><br />It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?<br /><br />And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them. <br /><br />And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors? <br /><br />So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button. | negative |
One of the best of the Fred Astaire and Giner Rogers films. Great music by Irving Berlin. Solid support from Randolph Scott, Harriet Nelson, Lucille Ball, Betty Grable, Frank Jenks, and Astrid Allwyn.<br /><br />Terrific songs include "Let Yourself Go," "Let's Face the Music," and "Putting All My Eggs in One Basket." The last song is introduced by Astaire playing a jazzy piano and then a cute dance with Rogers. Rogers also sings "Let Yourself Go" with Grable among the backup singers.<br /><br />Harriet Nelson (then Hilliard) sings two nice songs and plays Rogers' mousy sister. "Get Thee Behind Me" is a song that sticks with you for days. She also sings "But Where Are You?" Snappy and fast paced, this entry in the Astaire-Rogers series is one of the better ones. The classic and amazing beautiful finale, "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is among the best-known of their numbers. Rogers wears one of the great dresses in movie history.... a shimmering sequined number that swirls around her legs as she dances (weighted hem) and is also slightly see through. Just gorgeous. This is the number that Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters re-created in Pennies from Heaven.<br /><br />Randolph Scott seems an odd choice as Astaire's pal but he also appeared in their Roberta with Irene Dunne. Luckily he does not attempt to sing or dance. It seems that Grable and Ball would have had bigger parts in 1936 but they have a few scenes and make little impact. Allwyn has the bigger role but is only OK.<br /><br />Rogers has one of her best solo numbers in the series with "Let Yourself Go".... Jazzy and thumping, it's a great song.<br /><br />Fun all the way, although I got tired of "We Joined the Navy" after the third time.... | positive |
PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.<br /><br />CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.<br /><br />- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.<br /><br />- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This "please feel sorry for the guy with the illness" crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.<br /><br />Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this. | negative |
This French film is supposedly about a creepy, dim-witted cop who investigates the rape and murder of a young girl in a small town. However, the film is really about nothing and it takes forever to say nothing. If it takes a character ten minutes to walk from Point A to Point B, the film spends ten minutes showing this walk, and these are the "action" scenes. There are also static shots that last for minutes, making the viewer wonder if he accidentally hit the pause button on the remote. The script has enough material for a 20-minute movie. The movie lasts seven hours or so. You do the math. The actors were apparently amateurs and it shows. Note to self: never see a Dumont movie again. | negative |
While not exactly offensive, the 1967 version of "The Perils of Pauline" is certainly moronic. The title might lead you to expect a tribute to Pearl White (the original Pauline in the 1914 silent 20 episode serial) but for that you would be better served by the 1947 version starring Betty Hutton. This 1967 version is like a mix of "Casino Royale" and the weakest of the Elvis movies. Worst of all it is not a blend of these but more like someone scotch-taped together segments from each so that the thing skips back and forth between the two styles. <br /><br />What unity there is in the production comes from the pairing of Pamela Austin (Pauline) and Pat Boone (George Steadman), a good match because both lack even the most basic of acting skills (imagine Mandy Moore playing opposite Dan Quayle). <br /><br />Austin would later play opposite John Aston in "Evil Roy Slade", with the talent disparity between them actually painful to watch. In the mid-60's she was the "Dodge Rebellion" girl, as such she was featured in a similar series of perilous situations-imagine Sandra Dee in a dark blue jumpsuit. When the automaker's ad agency replaced her with the "Dodge Fever" girl someone got the bright idea to showcase her in a feature film. <br /><br />What story there is here begins with Pauline growing up in the Baskerville Foundling Home run by the actress who played Mrs. Chatsworth Osborne Sr. on "Dobie Gillis". George falls in love with her (Pauline-not Mrs Osborne) and sabotages several opportunities she has to be adopted. George leaves to seek his fortune and 19 year old Pauline gets a job tutoring a young oil rich Middle Eastern prince. When he tries to add the attractive blonde to his harem she runs away and goes from peril to peril. These include African pygmies, a 99½ year-old millionaire who wants to freeze her until his one year-old grandson is old enough for marriage, the movie industry, and the Russian space program.<br /><br />All this is intended to be silly and charming but manages only the silly part. There is some effort to incorporate a silent film look to the action sequences by simulating the under- cranking of a camera (which speeds up the action). Unfortunately everything else (film stock, production design, editing) is depressingly 1960's. Nothing here even approaches the images of Pearl White strapped to a log moving toward a buzz-saw or tied to railway track waiting for the approaching train.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | negative |
This has got to be one of Australia's best productions. I completely disagree with the comments made by 'RamiNour101'.<br /><br />This series shows the depth of Australian mateship and the lengths they went to to help each other out. Episode Five 'Eddies Birthday' is a great example of this and it really captures the Australian spirit.<br /><br />The music used throughout the series only emphasised the situation that the men were faced with, their longing for home and their loved ones. The numerous amusing renditions of The Road to Gundagai captures the spirit of the men and the fact that they never forgot home, and that it was little elements such as the singing of a song that took them home for a short while.<br /><br />As for the comment about it being racist towards Japanese people, the only thing to be said is that you can't change what happened. The Japanese did treat the Australians very poorly in Changi and to represent it as otherwise would be very misleading indeed. The comment about the screenplay being in accurate is also false. These six stories that are told in the series are composed from real P.O.W experiences.<br /><br />The actors were superb; the best being in my opinion, Matthew Newton. His performance as David in the first episode was gut wrenching. From being a city boy, to being another nameless face to his captors. We see him change dramatically in the first episode because of his violent attack in the jungle, and in further episodes we can see how that one event has changed him, he is more aware of what is really going on and is always one of the first to help out the other members of The Secret Nine.<br /><br />Stephen Curry also deserves a mention. His performance in 'Eddie's Birthday' is amazing, going from the larrikin of the group, to being sick, weak and unable to take care of himself. The displays of mateship in this episode touch you on an emotional level and make you proud to be Australian.<br /><br />I study WWII at university level and have found this series, if not physically truthful, spiritually truthful, as it captures the true spirit of what it was to be an Australian Soldier.<br /><br />Well done to John Doyle for capturing the spirit of Changi. | positive |
The Perfect Son is a story about two 30-something brothers, one who is seemingly "perfect" and the other who is basically a screw-up, frequently landing himself in drug rehab centers. After the death of their father, the two are brought together after a long absence and the usual sibling rivalry resurfaces. It isn't until the "perfect" brother makes the startling revelation that he has AIDS that the irresponsible younger brother finally makes a move to get his life in order, and take some responsibility.<br /><br />The movie does a nice job of chronicling the younger brother's "comeback", though it may seem a bit far-fetched at times (beating drug addiction is never so easy). What makes the film more tender is the treatment of AIDS, a topic that has become somewhat passe in cinema over the last 5-10 years. And also the development of an almost sweet relationship between the two formerly feuding brothers is very believable and well-done. The two main actors were both very competent, if not terribly charismatic.<br /><br />A solid first feature effort from director and writer Leonard Farlinger whose own brother died of AIDS. The ending is nicely done as well.<br /><br /> | positive |
I wish I had read the comments on IMDb before I saw this movie. The first 1 hour was OK, though it did make me wonder why everything was centered at Chicago and why no one reported any weather anomaly from outside US. Isolated acts of nature (of this magnitude) are unthinkable. But beyond the first 60 minutes, the movie just drags on like a never-ending story. The screenplay is horrible. As for the actors, very poor choice. Only the people hired to run in panic stick to their roles. But I do have to agree that this movie has got some good 'special effects'. If you rented it on a DVD and would want to watch the movie, despite the reviews, then play it on maximum speed your player would allow! | negative |
The thirty years that have passed since the making of this movie have made the suspense wither somewhat, and will not keep the public as attentive as I am sure it did in 1979. It is still entertaining enough though - and regains some of it's power when one finds out its sad relevance today (check out the story of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear plant). With the top of the line actors and steady pace one can learn to overlook the dated '70s environment, and see it for the political critique that it is. I doubt however it will survive the test of time. It might not be entirely forgotten thanks to its cast, but otherwise the dialog, setting and score will make a remake of this movie unavoidable . As the oil situation now is comparable to the situation in the 70's, and alternative sources of energy are again becoming a hotter topic, we can only hope the current generation gets blockbuster warnings about the risks of (privatized) nuclear power like this. | positive |
I am a huge Michael Madsen fan, so needless to say, i bought this movie without even renting it or anything... This movie was so horrible, i didn't even take it back to the store, i wouldn't want anyone else to be subjected to this human poison, i just threw it in the trash, never mind the money, it was worth the price to be able to throw it away. The acting wasn't that bad, it wasn't good or anything. The story was horrible, and the ending was something i despise. He was a broken man, alcoholic. his life was a bunch of junk. i thought his horse, peanuts, was an awful device to show his childhood innocence, a dog would have been much much better. i also hate religion, so this ending without a doubt angered me. Jesus heals all... i hate that i know people just like this that are huge Christians and catholics, and time will show that god doesn't heal all, or anything. It was a horrible movie, if u have the option to see it, pass, or better yet buy it, or rent it, and throw it in the garbage, and leave the coffee grounds on it in the morning | negative |
I wasn't terribly impressed with Dante's 1st season offering in "Homecoming", it wasn't much of a horror story, but rather a smart political statement with the undead. Screwfly situation is the story of a virus unleashed on the world that causes men's sexual drive to replaced with murderous tendencies toward women. The episode starts out all right with a short film explaining the way the screw fly was killed of by scientists. Then there is short scene where a man is arrested when females bodies are discovered in his home. I assume this is supposed to show the beginning of the outbreak, but is unclear because this is never revisited. The episode go ons for a while introducing characters blah blah blah.It seems cool and mysterious but the episode stars to get worse and worse as it lurches forward until its sad and unsatisfying end. The worst episode. Well, except for chocolate. | negative |
Oh my god. the idea that this movie is a thriller is an absolute joke to me. besides the point that it seems to be written by a 5 year old. the plot, the acting and even the props and filming of this movie were all beyond disgrace.<br /><br />I am not usually this critical about any movie, cause every person has his/her style. But this movie, however, was probably the worst movie i have seen in 2008. I can honestly believe that this movie is unknown, and i think it should stay like this, for movies like these are making the thriller genre a joke.<br /><br />I advise anyone that is a fan of thriller movies, or even simply movies to stay far away from this one. | negative |
I saw this little Belgian gem two days after seeing 'American Teen'. Make no mistake about it, adolescence is a roller coaster ride, be it American or European. 'Naissance des Pieuvres' (or as it is being called in the U.S. 'Water Lillies')is a tale of a young 15 year old girl (played by Pauline Acquart,who at times resembles a young Scarlett Johansson)acts the cool, withdrawn girl who wants to be on the school swim team, just to be close to another attractive girl (Adele Haenel). It's more than obvious that Marie is more than attracted to Floriane. Figuring among all of this is Marie's rather plump, unattractive friend, Anne, who just wants a boyfriend like any other girl her age. Along the way,we are shown the usual array of teen pastimes (broken hearts,shop lifting,alcohol and/or drug use,casual sex,etc.). This is a quiet little film that takes time to work it's way into your system (Michael Bay fans,take note:the pacing here is s-l-o-w,so steer clear),but if you have no problem with this, Water Lillies is a charmer. No rating here,but would pull down a hard "R", due to language,nudity,adult situations. | positive |
Passing stones definitely one of the best comedy independent films ever. You must have a sense of humor to fully enjoy this one. This film for some reason hasn't received its credit due. First, lets start with the story line everyone loves a good treasure hunt. When a dead father leaves letters behind advising of a hidden treasure it not only brings two families together but starts a whirlwind adventure. Mix in a polish translator, a comatose mother, a crack-head with turrets syndrome, a twisted homosexual hypnotist, and one drag queen, money not only makes the world go round but can turn family into enemies. My favorite character in this film would have to be the sister/crack addict with turret's syndrome,her sudden out burst will have you crying and mimicking for weeks. | positive |
I have never seen a more unrealistic movie than this foul piece of dung. The acting was over the top. The direction was tacky and amateurish. The script was just a joke. The story looked penned by a person that has never been around a high school football game, much less a professional game. And why, why did Oliver Stone feel the need to place himself in this movie as an actor? He was terrible, playing the most unrealistic announcer ever. He could not even get hired to do professional wrestling contests. Then you have Jamie Foxx, who throws like a girl. But, he is a tad more athletic than the aged Dennis Quaid. Seriously, Stone wanted to direct this film at 16 year old males with ADD. That is why we hear the loud music, the quick cuts and numerous edits. It just became a bad MTV video. Shame on Al Pacino for doing this crap. Cameron Diaz? Heck, that no-talent takes any role that comes down the pike. When Lawrence Taylor is the best "actor" you got going, well, your movie sucks! And this one does. | negative |
The Oscar season has arrived so this means a slew of these deep, engaging, powerhouse ensemble films are all over the movie theaters in hopes of gaining an audience and having the opportunity to earn Best Picture in the big show. Among them is this film that is based off a very popular and well-acclaimed play. The original playwright was actually the writer and director of the film adaptation; which comes as a double-edged sword. On one hand, who better to translate the play than the original writer? On the other hand, who better to not see the mistakes and drawbacks of the play and fix upon them than the original writer himself? Doubt mixes excellent acting and plenty of tension and suspense; with a frustrating ending, unnecessary dialogue, questionable directing, and of course, the inability to provide substantial answers. It is a growing trend among these "high-caliber" films to not answer all questions it provides, and this has to stop.<br /><br />Doubt is like a joke without its punch line, like a book with the final 20 pages missing, like losing reception while watching the fourth quarter of a hotly contested football game, and like not having the 50 cents to continue playing the arcade game and see what happens next. Doubt, just like the previous Best Picture frustrationfest No Country For Old Men, doesn't really end; it doesn't provide us with considerable answers nor does it deliver enough for us to figure out the ending. Yes, that was the intent, but this isn't a test of humanity, it's a cop-out. I do not pay money to see an unfinished work, I pay money to see a beginning, middle, and end, and pray that I don't fall asleep during the three acts. We are forced to become the "writers" of the movie by filling in the blank ourselves as to what happened before and what will happen to the characters we saw screaming at each other.<br /><br />This little drama is about a nun (Meryl Streep) who seems very sure that the well-beloved priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is making sexual advances towards a child that goes to the church; the first African-American boy in the Catholic church. The church is secretly torn as to whether or not he really is committing heinous sins behind everyone's backs. The plot thickens as some of the kids begin behaving differently, which attracts the notice of a young teacher (Amy Adams). The story is set right after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which shook the nation for quite some time and questioned their faith in humanity and in each other.<br /><br />Doubt's strong points come in the acting ensemble and also the ever-engaging suspense that builds slowly and never boils over. Streep seems to be Oscar-worthy in every role she's in, and here she is no different as her sternness and cold-hearted behavior places a blanket of fear in all the students and with some of the staff in the church. Hoffman excels yet again as the priest, by successfully meshing suspicion with a charming personality and a friendly aura. The seemingly hypocritical personality is tough to pull off, especially when we are suppose to like him and also ponder about him at the same time; but Hoffman steps up to the plate against one of the best actresses of our generation and fantastically delivers. When these two argue, you can hear the fireworks fly without ever seeing one launched. But let's not forget Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Viola Davis (Law ad Order) for their superb job either. Doubt's casting ensemble is among the best in 2008.<br /><br />Yet, like previously stated it's the writing and directing that ruins this film, especially when dwindling down the third act. Questions pop up, but they aren't answered. Characters pop up, but provide no real enhancement towards the plot. Kids behave different, but we never truly find out why. There are awkward angles in the camera-work
and
there's no actual reason why. John Patrick Shanley, the writer of the play, had one previous film in his directing repertoire: Joe Versus the Volcano. Whether sheer arrogance or stupidity, we are stuck with seeing overdrawn sequences of random conversation, utter annoying chatter that bores to no end (There was a two minute discussion about coffee and how much sugar the priest wanted) thanks to Mr. Shanley.<br /><br />Bottom Line: The lack of an ending is a stupid trend that's just as irritating as the seizureific camera-work in action films. It doesn't matter that we have a great talented acting cast, or decent cinematography, or a good story being worked upon, or good usage of sound and music; because we have a barrage of unanswered questions that sprinkles all over a film that is over 100 minutes yet doesn't even finish! The translation from play to film is good and quite accurate, because we have the original madmen behind the projectbut he took the mistakes and stupid hiccups from the play to the film as well. This decade has seen its share of blockbuster and high-profile films that could have gotten a much higher score from me if they had just decided to add a few more minutes of footage and actually end: Sideways, Cast Away, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading are a few examples.<br /><br />Newsflash: end your stinkin' movie. Please or at least provide a good amount of clues for us to easily fill in the blank (like Wall-E's depressing backstories), instead of staring into space as the credits suddenly start rolling and you are left with a feeling of emptiness, confusion, and mental anguish. Have a beginning, middle, and the end please!! As a critic, I prefer my films to be whole, not incomplete. Doubt feels incomplete, which is why it gets an incompetent grade.<br /><br />Someone has to break this stupid trend. | negative |
the only thing that frequently pops into my head while i'm writing this review is,i'll never get that hour and a half back!!! to indicate that i'm not just blowing air, i'll compare the movie to the other movies of the cube trilogy(cube and hypercube)!cube wasn't great but it was original and that made up for some technical flaws!hypercube as a sequel lost the advantage of originality but it came out looking pretty sharp and i even liked it beter than cube(the story was better)! but cube zero in comparison to it's predecessors really isn't worth sh*t!a complete lack of good fx, a very f*ck*d up script and just plain old bad acting don't combine well! example:all of the time during the movie i was thinking it would be incredibly stupid if ... should happen and then it would happen, so it's not very original neither! my advice: don't lose that hour and a half i lost!!!!!!!! oh and i hope this movie crashes and burns!!!!!!! | negative |
planktonrules comments must've been written on Topsy-Turvy Day, because everything stated by that simple life form is the opposite of real truth!<br /><br />'Bluebeard's Eighth Wife' is hilarious in every scene, in every way -- the chemistry between Colbert and Cooper could not have been finer...supporting cast is superb.<br /><br />Writing and direction are magnificent!!!<br /><br />Like so many other comments on this board again I lament, "Why can't films be like this anymore?" <br /><br />This is classic Paramount 1930's screwball comedy at its best, folks! | positive |
Ahh, yes, the all-star blockbuster. Take a so-so concept, stuff it into a script and load it down with every single freakin' special effect that the Wizards of Hollyweird can conjure up, then round up the usual suspects: hot up-and-comers, has-beens, wanna-be's and never-wuzzes, and stick 'em all in ensemble roles of various sizes in front of the unforgiving eye of the cameras. And hope to gawd that some of them aren't too old to remember their lines.<br /><br />Leave it to the bishops of Box Office to apply the concept to horror films at last, as was the case with the post-EXORCIST thriller THE SENTINEL. Novelist Jeffrey Konvitz decided to try and one-up Ira Levin's ROSEMARY'S BABY scenario of creepy (and ultimately satanic) neighbors in a New York brownstone. The result was a controversial best-seller that some claimed bordered on the plagiaristic, and an equally controversial, top-heavy/star-laden vehicle co-written and directed by DEATH WISH's Michael Winner, but for many unsettlingly different reasons.<br /><br />Cristina Raines (NASHVILLE) plays successful model Alison Parker, who is pretty much over- stressed and over-worked, (I won't add "overpaid." I mean she IS a model, so that would be redundant), not just by her 24/7 schedule, by also by her insistent , 'wanna-get-married- right-NOW' boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon of DOG DAY AFTERNOON and the classic SOB.I.G. movie LIPSTICK). One of the ways she decides to try to get away from it all is to move into her own place; a big, beautiful brownstone in Manhattan which she's able to get dirt-cheap, (that should've been the BIG red flag - cheap real estate in New York!), from the mysteriously accommodating broker Miss Logan (Golden Age screen vet Ava Gardner, fresh from the storm drain in EARTHQUAKE.)<br /><br />Things seem fine at first, but ah, yes...then comes the noises and the loud pounding from the apartment upstairs at night. And what about the REALLY strange neighbors like Gerde (Sylvia Miles) and Sandra (a VERY early Beverly D'Angelo), the nice "single friends" (read: lesbians) living together, and kindly old Mr. Charles Chazen (a nicely creepy Burgess Meredith), who seems maybe a little too concerned with Alison's welfare? And that's not to mention other assorted squirrelly cohabitants (You'll never hear the phrase "Black and white cat, black and white cake" again without wanting to laugh milk through your nose and possibly vomit simultaneously.) Especially the old blind priest living in the penthouse...<br /><br />Things really start to go downhill when an apparition-laden nightmare of Alison's morphs into a grisly murder, (in one of the movie's most underwear-staining scares), and both Alison and Michael, with some assistance from Alison's BFF, Jennifer (Deborah Raffin), begin to piece together the puzzle that reveals the brownstone's dark origins, as well as the murderous agenda of its other-worldly inhabitants, not to mention Alison's connection to them, which as it turns out is anything but coincidental.<br /><br />Although there's nothing controversial about the overstuffed cast, which seems to feature every actor of diverse genres looking for work at the time, (Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Eli Wallach, John Carradine, and even early appearances by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Nana Visitor!) Winner and company went back to bombastic basics and pulled a "Tod Browning"...by enlisting real-life physically-challenged actors to appear in THE SENTINEL'S climactic everything-and-everybody-goes-to-Hell sequence, which I guess any ballsy director would do, finding himself unable to access Linda Blair and a case of green-pea soup. It does definitely leave you with arctic fingers playing your spinal cord like a zither, knowing this juicy little tidbit of info as you watch. And it does feature a technique to which filmmakers have only begun to return very recently: live on-set makeup and special effects that don't involve CGI, (which was pretty much non-existent back then.)<br /><br />THE SENTINEL has that kitschy, late-Seventies cheese factor, but does manage to distinguish itself from time to time with some gasp-inducing moments like the one mentioned above, not to mention that queasy feeling of dread that horror writers find it easy to play upon, of isolation and things that go bump-and-shriek in the night. After all, what living-single-in- the-big-city person hasn't lain in bed in the dark, and listened intently to the sounds of what they HOPE is "the building settling?"<br /><br />Konvitz followed up THE SENTINEL with an inevitable sequel, THE GUARDIAN (not to be confused with the William Friedkin supernatural thriller namesake), that was never adapted for the screen. =sigh of relief= | positive |
Shortly after seeing this film I questioned the mental competence of every actor and actress that accepted a role. Elizabeth Shue is a commendable actress, why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity? I must give credit where credit is due, though. Some moments in the movie were unpredictable and rather transfixing, but they hardly made up for the scathing perverse tendencies of Kevin Bacon's character, Sebastian Caine. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, man or woman, that has any form of self-respect to account for. | negative |
Oldboy is set in Korea & starts as a drunken Dae-su Oh (Min-Sik Choi) is bailed out of the police station by his friend only to be abducted, Dae-su wakes up & finds himself in a small room which he will be imprisoned in for the next fifteen years. Dae-su is fed & looked after by his unknown captors but is never allowed out of the room, Dae-su begins to train himself to avenge himself after he gets out which he intends to do by scrapping away the cement from the brickwork with a chopstick. However before Dae-su finishes he is gassed & rendered unconscious, when he wakes up Dae-su finds himself free on the roof of a tall building dressed & all moneyed up. Dae-su instantly sets about trying to find out who imprisoned him, after meeting the pretty Mido (Hye-jeong Kang) the two fall in love & together with her help Dae-su finally finds what he is looking for but the truth comes at a price...<br /><br />This South Korean production was co-written & directed by Chan-wook Park & has gotten any number of glowing reviews (the sort that distributors can pick quotes out & plaster them on the video box) & even won the Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes while it was also nominated for the Golden Palm so surely Oldboy is a true classic? Well not for me it isn't since as I can't understand why it's so liked & I would go as far as to say I pretty much hated it apart from one or two isolated moments. For a start I couldn't get into the story at all, I just didn't like it as I thought it was slow & boring & while many out there would have you believe Oldboy has the bestest most shocking twist ever I thought it was rather plain & not very well executed either. The ending in which Dae-su goes to the New Zealand Alps to be hypnotised feels tagged on as well almost as if the makers wanted some sort of happy ending. At almost two hours I almost fell asleep I was so bored, the violence is tame & it's the thought of what's happening that I would imagine most people have a problem with rather than what is actually shown. In fact Oldboy has a very low body count of about seven & one mild sex scene, it's really not that graphic or memorable. I didn't warm to any of the character's & while I accept Oldboy has an alright concept & premise it fails to deliver & it's one film that I will never understand why so many people seem to like.<br /><br />Based on a Japanese Manga of the same name Oldboy the film looks alright, there's one or two nice visual moments here although while everyone raves about the hallway fight that takes place in one continuous shot I was pretty unimpressed & thought the fight choreography was quite dull. The actual on-screen gore violence amounts to very little, Dae-su eats a live Octopus which is apparently quite normal in Korea anyway, there are some fight scenes, a severed hand, someones teeth are pulled out & there's a bit of blood at the end.<br /><br />The budget was supposedly around the $4,000,000 mark which is actually a fair bit, filmed in South Korea & New Zealand. The acting looks alright but it's hard to tell when actors are speaking a different language.<br /><br />Oldboy is a film that I found an absolute chore to sit through, I don't mind subtitled films or foreign films or paying attention to the plot as I followed the thing perfectly but I just didn't like any of it & it's as simple & straightforward as that. Apparently the second in director Choi-wook Park's revenge trilogy which also includes Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) & Lady Vengeance (2005). | negative |
You know the story..Pretty kids alone in the woods,when BAM!something starts cutting them up.<br /><br />Well this crap is no different.A bunch of kids return to a cabin where the male leads twin brother disappeared for years before.Suddenly an "UNKOWN CREATURE" stars cutting them up,and their only help is a doctor/biker.<br /><br />To say this film was bad is an understatement,it's smut! The acting was horrible.<br /><br />The creature looked very cheesy. And as all films do these days they try to get you with a twist ending,which they do not!<br /><br />There is one bright spot to this film- LOST star Maggie Grace as the female lead. | negative |
This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening. | positive |
This is the greatest show ever made next to south park. I love this show! it is so funny, and Peter's laugh is hilarious. You need to watch this show right away for the few people who have never seen this show before. One of my favorite shows of all time.<br /><br />If you can, try to see some of the later episodes such as I dream of Jesus, or Tales of a third grade nothing. But there's never been an episode I didn't like. All of the episodes are absolutely hilarious. It's got a great satire to it as well. You can find a lot of clips on you tube. If you're somewhere near a computer or a TV see it right away however you can. | positive |
Jet Li, is one of the best hand to hand combat fighters in the world. He has been for over 20 years and he puts others in the genre to shame. While he is big in Asia, he is almost unknown here in the US.<br /><br />Black Mask is supposed to be a breakout movie for him, but it fails horribly. First of all, it is dubbed. While it may have camp value (the dubbing isn't even close and it is flat in tone), it seems inappropriate for the ordinary movie viewer. Secondly, the director in this movie, Daniel Lee, does a horrible job. He cuts scenes so fast, at times, you don't know what's going on. Other times, the camera shakes and wobbles. Fans see Jet Li's movies for the fantastic martial arts. However, the director edits the scenes so fast that you don't even know who's who half the time! Other times, a scene is left hanging (ie Li is beginning to cut a hole in the floor of a jeep, while the badguys arm their guns, two seconds later, both Li and the love interest are already under the car!) Other scenes are so improbable, that they cross over the point of being completely ridiculous (killer CD roms? Just give him Throwing Stars!!!!). Li, needs a director who is less prone to machine gun cutting and more to creating a cinematic mise-a-scene. The added rap/techno music goes from being okay to intrusive. The plot has possibilities but are all squandered by cartoonish characters that take away from any credibility that this movie strives for. And are we really to believe that the love interest would not recognize Simon, because he has a half mask on? Wouldn't the hair, lower jaw, or voice give it away?<br /><br />If you want to see a Jet Li movie, try Iron Monkey or his classic Shaolin Temple. This disjointed mess is a complete waste of time.....2/10 | negative |
The acrobatics mixed with haunting music, make one spectacular show. The costumes are vibrant and the performances will just boggle your mind! Simply amazing! | positive |
This film is just another distortion, among many distortions, on the so-called 'sins of consumerism'. Please note that 'Reverend Billy', an actor (Bill Talen), is nothing more than a bureaucrat against the 'sins of consumerism'. We might want to ask are questions, like: What does 'Reverend Billy' do for a living? How does he make his money? Does he make his living off his 'tax-deductible' organization? How does the Internal Revenue justify this as a 'tax-deductible' church or organization? <br /><br />Everyone knows that Christmas is commercialized, but it affords one day out of a whole year in which people have an opportunity to be charitable, and allows a significant number of people to spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. Everyone is not charitable. Everyone does not spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. But, holidays and vacation time give people that chance and opportunity. Yes, America does have more than its share of problems--but, with perseverance, Americans have and always make it through great difficulties. And, even in times of strife, America has proved itself to be the greatest country in the world. That happens when Americans pull together and unite, rather than to separate and divide. Yes, there are problems with corporations and monopolies, but it will take Americans to bring back the small businesses, along with the ethics to responsibly care for people living in our individual communities. Yes, globalization has brought us its share of problems, but it will take Americans to bring production back to America. Americans and the U.S. government need to learn how to stay on a budget, no matter how large or small it may be, and we must stop our dependence on credit. Our over-reliance on credit will make, and keep us poor, from the cradle to the grave. It is important to buy--but, if we buy less, we will rely less on credit. And, if we are able to save, even a small amount of money, we will have money for a rainy day. Not to say that, as Americans, we will gain an equal share of wealth. Wealth is not guaranteed, and has never been guaranteed. But, stratification teaches us that only a small percentage of Americans hold most of America's wealth. There is a good proximity that you or I can reach the level of the upper, middle class. And, who knows what can happen from there?!? Be positive, work hard--and, at the very least, you and I will be able to reach at least some (if not all) of our dreams. In life, nothing is guaranteed, but we always have that something to reach for. And, if you or I don't have dreams, we might as well be dead. In America, there is always room for plenty of hopes and dreams. As individuals, we are a part of the pack, but we always can become the leader of the pack.<br /><br />It has always been my experience that churches and religion do offer nothing more than additional distortions, but I pay dignity and give respect to people with other beliefs, values, and perspectives. But, as far as the distortions expressed, within this film, I do not have any faith in such beliefs, values, and perspectives. I rank this film with a 1 out of 10--but, in all honesty and truth, this film deserves a zero. This film has no integrity, and I cannot recommend it. | negative |
Take a young liberal idealist Christopher Boyce (Timothy Hutton) put in a top secret classification in a government front company because of his father's position team him up with a no'count drug dealer Daulton Lee (Sean Penn) who is wanted by the police and needs a new source of income and you have a recipe for espionage. Sean Penn played the part of the punk drug dealer with a certain sang froid probably out of particular verisimilitude with such raunchy types. The gall Penn carries with him in every situation is unique; he even suggests the Soviets run drugs for him.<br /><br />I've seen the movie over and over again and each time I see something new. It seems to me that a major problem with US spy organizations is its inbreeding which leads to the hiring of an obviously unsuitable candidate by reason of temperament and inclination for a government front company.<br /><br />I do recall when the Falconeer escaped from prison and led the authorities on a wild goose chase. I see that despite the escape he is now released. A pity the Soviets are no longer around to accept the wretch! A Cheery Cherio! | positive |
My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood.<br /><br />Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy. | positive |
This film is an embarrassment. Nothing works on any level. The direction, screenplay, acting , and editing work together to repel your eyes from the screen. Everything is inappropriate and incoherent. At first you can sit there with and groan, wince, and laugh at it, but very shortly the whole effort of watching just becomes too ponderous. | negative |
I have never seen anything as awful as this movie for quite some time. The movie was boring, long long and awful plot. The special effects sucks like hell - It's like watching a movie back in 1999. It's a total waste of an hour and a half of my time. Matthew Settle's performance was quite bad. I saw him in Band of Brothers playing Lt.Speirs, he wasn't THAT bad. In fact not bad at all. But in this film, his acting wasn't convincing enough, it was quite bad and there wasn't any chemistry between the rest of the crew either. Plus, his eyes seems empty like he's not feeling it. It surprised me, really, because he was good in Band of Brothers.<br /><br />Anyway, don't even bother to watch this movie. It's a big big BIG waste of time. Even if you had to kill an hour or two, get something else to do besides watching this movie. Trust me, you'll regret it! | negative |
I would not deny that I have quite enjoyed watching any Japanese horror films, but everyone must get quite fed up with them after you have seen the same thing over and over.<br /><br />The film follows the story of the Grudge. Audrey, as requested by her mom, is going to get her sister back. But when she arrives, something strange happens to her sister and then her sister is killed. She wants to find out the truth behind the curse and later a photographer (Eason) joins her. On the other hand, there's also something happening to a family and three girls, but they seem to realise it too late...<br /><br />In fact, I can't see the points for the three girls from international school to appear in the movies as they're not (quite) related to the story. The reason why the woman holding the grudge keeps killing people is still not very clear (it seems to me they're just telling the same things I saw in the grudge). And the sudden appearance of Audrey in front of the boy is undoubtedly odd, which I suppose is an attempt to make the story about the family related. The killing scenes are absolutely the mixture of those in the Ring and Shibuya kaidan. The acting would be another bad point. As a Hong Konger I would really like to support Edison Chen's first effort in Hollywood, but as a film lover I really can't find any point to support bad acting. Other actors like the father , though he just appears in a few scenes, should also have done better. What is kept good is the atmosphere of the film, especially when I watched it in the middle of the night alone.<br /><br />If you have time, really enjoy any horror films and have seen all the possible horror films except this, like me, you can go for it to kill some time. But if you really like Japanese horror films of this kind, you should spend some time watching the Japanese version of the Ring. | negative |
The Evil that Men Do (1984) was one of the few non-Cannon films Charlie Bronson made during the 80's. Unlike most of the Cannon films Charlie starred in, this one wasn't fun or entertaining. Charlie basically tortures and brutalizes people for over an hour and a half. If you thought he was Mr. Emotion before, wait until you see this! <br /><br />In this one, Charlie goes to an unnamed Central American country and shows the populace that whoever messes with Chuck or his people have to pay the piper. This one is no fun. It's not cheesy or campy, just brutal, sadistic and not in a good way. <br /><br />I didn't like this one. I have no love for this film. No recommendations because it's not worth watching. Maybe if they didn't cut the hell out of it. Watch with precaution.<br /><br />Don't bother. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.