Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I was extremely suspicious of the ideas presented in this movie, but being relatively ignorant of quantum physics aside from what I recalled from the excellent "Short History of Nearly Everything" and what I was able to choke down in "A Brief History of Time," it sounded interesting at times. However, the obvious nonsense of the story of the Indians being unable to see the ships of the explorers was ridiculous. I really started questioning what was being shoveler at that point, but then the clincher was the revelation that one of the speakers was actually "channelling" some loony named "Ramtha" completely upset the applecart for me.<br /><br />What a waste of two hours. | negative |
Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from **** | negative |
*****Spoilers herein*****<br /><br />What really scares you? Killer sharks, or maybe ghosts trying to bring back a message? Maybe a chainsaw wielding psychopath?<br /><br />Maybe. But those fears don't even compare to a horror which people dare not even speak of or consider--and that is the death of one's own child. "Pet Sematary" taps this base, primal adult fear, and then takes it to places that most could not bear to explore.<br /><br />I've read comments about this film that include poor acting, characters making stupid decisions, etc. I disagree. The acting is actually first rate for a film like this. Maybe it is impossible for many to imagine the desperation resulting from such a scenario. But the film's events are not only logical, they may be absolutely inevitable if such a scenario were possible. This is the true horror of "Pet Sematary": It isn't that pets and people come back from the dead as evil killers who hunt with knives and scalpels, it is that anyone who has lost a child could become so desperate as to commit the crimes that Louis Creed does. Despite warning, or even past history.<br /><br />The movie takes those willing to go with it to the depths of a desperate human heart. The heart of a protector trying to make up for not being able to protect. And the results are horrifying. In fact, when the film dives into slasher territory near the end, it's almost a letdown, although I believe it's perfectly logical how it got there.<br /><br />I am a true horror fan, and I contend that this is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you don't think so, see it again after you have children. | positive |
For those of you who have a few kind words for this film, I suspect you didn't see it when it was released as "Parts: The Clonus Horror." <br /><br />It was a dreadfully boring movie. It missed the mark in at least three ways. It wasn't good enough to be scary; it wasn't bad enough to be funny (although MST3K took care of that); and, even in 1979, the plot was unoriginal.<br /><br />Earlier contenders are "The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" (1971). It's the same idea (clones as spare parts). The movie is entertaining, and it had a fine cast. Another is "Sleeper" (1973). Yes, the Woody Allen movie. Remember the flattened nose? And "Clones" (1973). The last two plots aren't as similar to Clonus as the first one, but they predate Clonus.<br /><br />They are also several fiction books from decades earlier that deal with the idea, although often, the word "clone" isn't used. | negative |
I must say I didn't expect much about this movie, but it turned out not to be bad at all. Most striking of course, was Aidan Quinn's performance. I would never expect to see this fine actor as an action hero. The great thing about it is that he really builds up his character (Annibal). I mean, it was not like Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis would do it, he was sensitive and modest. For example, he's really upset when he kills someone. I also noticed that some clichés were avoided. When Annibal gets his training, you would easily expect him to be a rebel and act like any average American would do in such a situation, ask what the f*** is going on and refusing to cooperate. But Annibal is a professional marine officer, he doesn't give up and he tries not to lose his courage, in which he succeeds pretty well, except for a brief break-down on Christmas Eve, which I think was very realistic. I'm glad that Aidan Quinn got this opportunity to show another side of him (in fact two, because he plays the villain as well), even although the film wasn't that successful. | positive |
This is one of the few episodes (if not the only one) with an indisputable error in its storytelling. While handling the Ralphie situation Christopher states that he has heard about Pie-O-My's death in the fire accident. This is an important detail because in this context it is quite obvious that Christopher knows from the beginning that Tony is the one who must have killed Ralphie. There is however no way Chris could have heard about the accident. Who should have told him and when? By the time he is torn out of his delirium by Tony's call nobody else was informed. Tony knows that - which makes it even worse! Hearing Christopher talk about Pie- O-My's death could therefore only lead Tony to the conclusion that Chris himself has set the fire. Given the impressively elaborate writing process as told by the writers themselves on the DVD I really wonder none of them realized the problem there. The story just doesn't work that way. Unnecessary to add that I'm a huge fan of the Sopranos. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't care. | negative |
Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.<br /><br />The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.<br /><br />Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.<br /><br />The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.<br /><br />My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life. | negative |
The information contained in this movie is somewhat familiar to many who have been paying attention to the news lately. The Walter Reed scandals show a small part of the fact that we are not doing a good job taking care of our injured heroes when they return.<br /><br />What this movie further shows is a truth common to all wars. The psychological trauma that soldiers suffer while engaging in war and the difficulty they have when returning to civilian life. They are not just changed or affected, they are different people and most do not know how to deal with that as they do not know themselves.<br /><br />Finally, this film shows what the military does to our young men in women in getting them ready for war and the policies and practices that they have to follow in prosecuting war that leads to all the psychological trauma.<br /><br />We have over 3000 dead soldiers in the four years of this invasion; but we have many tens of thousands that will suffer lifelong physical and psychological trauma because of this war. It doesn't matter what side you are on, it behooves you to know the cost of war to decide if we should be in that business. This film illustrates the costs to the men and women perfectly. | positive |
Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are "cool dudes". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.<br /><br />One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.<br /><br />Avoid. Avoid. Avoid. | negative |
The plot intellect is about as light as feather down. But the advantage here is the boy and girl classic refusal we have become accustomed to in "The Gay Divorcee" and "Top Hat" is now absent. Instead of the typical accidental acquaintance, the dancing duo are the former lovers Bake Baker and Sherry Martin, who are still in love since their dancing days.<br /><br />Of course, being a 30s musical, there's the problems of misunderstood romance, classy courtship and the slight irritation of a sabotaged audition with bicarbonate soda has costing Ginger something rather special. And then in the grand tradition of dwindling finances, there's nothing better for Hollywood's best entertainers than put on a show.<br /><br />Delightful numbers from Irving Berlin are sprinkled throughout the show. Top hats and evening dresses are saved right until the end, which remains a refreshing change. Fred and Ginger are out again to charm the world...and charm the navy. Everyone and everything is once again just so enjoyable.<br /><br />Pure classic silliness at its best. But with Astaire and Rogers, we just know it's got to work.<br /><br />Rating: 8.25/10 | positive |
I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the "silly" or "stupid" choices. | negative |
I saw this last night on Turner Classic Movies (TCM). I had never heard of it before, and was quite surprised to find it so engrossing.<br /><br />Bogart does a star turn as a city-wise cynical editor who reluctantly goes along with his greedy radio-network boss in this incisive "B" programmer. About 12 years before he played similar city-wise cynics to perfection in movies like Deadline USA, Knock On Any Door, The Barefoot Contessa, and The Harder They Fall, Bogie already had the star qualities down pat.<br /><br />In order to boost ratings, and bring their somewhat high-brow programming to a more popular level, WUBC, "the Voice of America", pushes a tell-all radio mini-series about a woman who was acquitted 20 years ago by a plea of self-defense of killing her husband. Not willing to be discreet in order to save the woman's and her husband's reputations, the station uses underhanded methods to reveal all to all listeners, and as luridly as possible.<br /><br />As a time capsule, I also found it very illuminating of male-female mores in the workplace in the mid-1930's. Although beyond Henry O'Neill, I'm unfamiliar with the supporting cast, the players were uniformly excellent, and the direction was taut.<br /><br />If you like this kind of movie at all (e.g., A Face In The Crowd, An Inspector Calls, etc.), don't miss the opportunity to see this one.<br /><br /> | positive |
After reading the first 5 reviews on IMDb I was very enthusiastic about this movie. But it's really an awful movie, the total time you see the alien is about 5 minutes (the rest of the movie is cheap suspense), the acting is over the top en the story, oh boy, which story?<br /><br />The story doesn't seem to go in a direction, first they capture the alien (after 7 years! they finally succeed), then they don't know what to do with it (after 7 years?) and even want to release it (why the hell did they capture it?). Then the girlfriend, who's acting is the most over the top, wants to walk away from this madness, then suddenly she doesn't, then again, she does and then she doesn't. Then they come to the conclusion that killing the alien will kill the whole human race (and remember, in all those years no other human have seen these permanently settled aliens) and what do they do? They torture it and blow a bunch of aliens to peaces.<br /><br />This is my first review on IMDb, I'm a very lazy person who doesn't write very soon, so listen to my warning: this move is not worth your time, don't watch this movie. | negative |
I usually don't write reviews for shows unless I've seen them in full. However, there were so many positive views of this show on here I felt it was necessary to balance it out with a bit of realism.<br /><br />This show is hysterically bad. I don't think it was meant to be, but it is. I see that there's lots of praise being showered upon the show, and I honestly can't understand why--- this show is so poorly acted, the dialogue is so awful, and the plots are thin around their holes.<br /><br />I think that this show is interesting in that it is a definite litmus test of your standards. Some elements of the show work, and perhaps those elements are just more important to some people than those that don't work, which make the show nearly unwatchable to people like me.<br /><br />If you enjoy making fun of a show as you watch it, anticipating clichéd lines and such, this can be an enjoyable show to ridicule, if you have that sort of time on your hands.<br /><br />The pilot is a pretty fair example of the whole show. If the nonsense saccharin cliché ending doesn't leave you in a dumb shock, then this may be a show for you. | negative |
To me, the final scene, in which Harris responds to the press corp, is worthy of viewing this intelligent and timeless slice of politics(especially the campaign phase). If only the "real-life" pols would respond in the intelligent, articulate manner as did Mr Harris,then the arrogant, self-serving members of the press would perhaps think twice before surfacing irrelevant, confrontational "garbage" that has absolutely nothing to do with a candidates abilities to effectively handle the challenges of the office for which he/she is pursuing. | positive |
I didn't know what to expect from this. I always considered Bam Margera and the CKY crew a team of knuckle heads devoted to to doing stupid things for entertainment. I didn't know that they could act. But everyone who acted in this movie pulled off good performances. The hilarity of the 'aaaaagh!' scene mixes in with Ryan Dunn's depression and his revenge against his ex-girlfriend perfectly. At times the movie some scenes seem pointless but at the same time they're funny. I recommend this to anyone who likes a good laugh but this film may not appeal to those that prefer detailed story lines and a series of twists and turns. | positive |
It had potential...it really did. But there is so much about the movie that was ridiculous and laughable. I'm a horror movie weenie and I thought it was stupid; as did my 13-year old! I was expecting to be at least creeped-out. And, yes, the gross-factor of the vines squirming in the people was there; however, the lead-up to getting to the ruins is just dumb, dumb, dumb.<br /><br />I mean really who goes on a hike...in a jungle... with a total stranger... with a little water and a few snacks...IN FLIP FLOPS, NO LESS?! Puh-lease! Better still who goes to a foreign country and leaves the tourist area without an interpreter or being able to speak a bit of the language? Are these people complete morons?<br /><br />The German's brother isn't heard from and he doesn't call for assistance? Who doesn't do that? He just finds some Greeks and Americans to go on a little search and find? | negative |
After "A Dirty Shame", I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this "Pecker" sure is a lot better than "A Dirty Shame".<br /><br />In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...<br /><br />It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...<br /><br />Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". I give this movie a 6.5/10. | positive |
Shame represents a high point in the career of a master. Ingmar Bergman penetrating, existential study of a couple on the island of Gotland dealing with surviving a long war. Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow give painfully detailed performances in this spare, stark drama. The films intensity rests in Bergman's keeping our focus on the minute, intimate relations of his two characters - both accomplished musicians - trapped in a landscape they have ceased to understand. We see the way the external pressures of the war complicate and corrode their relationship. Both characters are forced by the material circumstances of the war to betray their own sense of ethics. In one of the most powerful episodes Bergman forces us to reflect on the manipulative power of the cinematic medium by showing us a filmed interview with Ullman's character that has been re-edited and distorted for political effect by one side of the conflict and is used by the other side as evidence of war crimes in a brutal interrogation scene.<br /><br /> | positive |
I am in a movie club at my school and I was forced to sit and watch this utterly dismal film. The film's story is not dismal, but the entire movie itself is exceedingly dismal. The acting was absolutely dreadful. The children were overly whiny. A metal pole could have done a better job. I wanted desperately to fall asleep, but because the television was so loud, I was kept from peace. The monkey's are neither cute, nor are they funny. The drama is laugh-worthy. I cannot remember when I saw a more dreadful film. The story is weak, thin, predictable, and completely fake. The adults try to be good actors, but they just can't seem to break through stereotypes. The girl even appears to want to leave the film via falling off a hill during the movie in order to leave it, I don't blame her. Micheal Anderson should publicly apologize for this film. Not just to me, but to everyone else who was forced to sit through this awful film. In fact, I apologize to you. Even if I had nothing to do with this project, I apologize for this film, because this means at least someone will. This film even surpasses the dismalness of films that of Rob Schneider and the Cheetah Girls. I would even go as far to say that it is even worse that Hilary Duff's collection of films, but that's pushing it. Just please don't see this film, or else you'll be pushed to write a review similar to this one on how awful this film is. I'm very sorry. | negative |
Others have harped here about James Stewart's age when playing Lindburg (he was 47 Linburg was twenty five.) But Stewart does not look his age and the film, for him was a dream come true. An actual pilot and a retired Air Force Reserve General at the end of his life, Stewart had the feel for the character and understanding of his passion, which other actors could not bring to the role. Added to the cast was co-star Murray Hamilton, who was also to be featured in "The F.B.I. story with Stewart) and such other well known character actors as Richard Deacon, of the later "Dick Van Dike Show" and Robert Cornthwaite of "The Thing from Another World" the 1951 Sci-Fi classic.<br /><br />Billy Wilder captures the flavor of the Lindburg Autobiography and the telling of what was to become a major event in the history of aviation. This story and film are a testament to the soul of determination and perseverance to realize a dream. A box office failure at the time of it's release, it has since become one of the great classics of American Film and another in a long line of outstanding performances by an actor that has been called America's Everyman. No student of film history should miss seeing this one. There have been over 500,000 films since the beginning of motion pictures, and this one belongs among the top 500. | positive |
My son Adam (5 years old) is a big Scooby Doo fan. He like this film a lot. He particularly liked when the Loch Ness monster tried to attack Shaggy and Scooby. The vote score is his choice and reflects his love of the characters.<br /><br />Having seen the "Vampire Rock" film first, this, not surprisingly, was very similar as they repeat a well worn basic plot in a different setting.<br /><br />Few adults will come across this without having their own memories of the TV cartoon series and even fewer will watch it without children. You either like this or love it. I loved Scooby Doo for half an hour as a kid, I am happy my son loves it, I can just about put up with it now. | positive |
From watching only the trailer to Theodore Rex, you would think this is a bad buddy cop comedy with Whoopi Goldberg and a guy in a dinosaur costume. That is true, but this is mostly a futuristic story, which looks a lot like Batman Forever with it's direction style and weird character designs. It was mismarketed, and should have been marketed as a futuristic tale, instead of just a lame cop comedy. Whether or not this movie is mismarketed, it's still a horrible movie.<br /><br />In the future, dinosaurs have been brought back to life through amazing technology, and they talk and walk around like humans. Teddy is a dinosaur detective who is never taken seriously, but after a dinosaur is murdered, he's given the case to work on, but he has to be partners with the toughest cop of them all, Katie Coltrane (Whoopi Goldberg). It's up to this mismatched duo to solve the murder, and it's up to the audience to stay awake long enough to make it through this piece of crud.<br /><br />Teddy starts the picture as a normal acting character, but by the end he is unbearable to listen to. For some reason along with being a detective, he's also a bad comedian and a bad impersonator. He does imitations of famous people and accents, and has some truly awful lines. Whoopi blames him for farting and he says, "It's not my butt trumpet!" Wow! What a puerile, immature line, even for a kid's movie of this caliber. Whoopi is also annoying and rude to everyone. I was hoping Teddy would bite her head off the entire length of the film.<br /><br />This movie never knew what it wanted to be. When the futuristic scenes and action occur, there is no comedy or humor. In any non-action scenes, the characters try to be as funny as they can, which just results in nonstop straight faced boredome. The action scenes don't work as they're too weird and not violent enough, and as stated earlier, the comedy is just a bunch of massacred jokes. Nothing ever works here.<br /><br />Having a dinosaur/human detective duo seems like a pretty original movie, if nothing else. Nope! This movie is a huge rip-off of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Just replace dinosaurs with cartoons, and set it in the future, and it's the exact same plot. A man is killed, a dinosaur is killed. A dinosaur and detective solve the murder, a toon and detective solve the murder. The bad guys in Roger Rabbit are Christopher Lloyd and weasels. The bad guys here are a guy who sounds like Christopher Lloyd and guys who act just like the weasels. The club scene in Roger Rabbit where Jessica Rabbit walks down the stage is imitated with dinosaurs. This is a huge rip-off of a much better movie!<br /><br />Overall, this is a bad movie, not even deserving of it's straight to VHS stature.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG for mild violence, language and crude humor. | negative |
Wow I really liked this movie, William H. Macy is great as the quiet hit-man Alex.<br /><br />All the performances here are really good, the plot is interesting and entertaining.<br /><br />Alex, a married hit-man (like his father)with a little son, is going through a middle age crisis and wants to quit the family business so he goes to the psychiatrist for help and in this place he meets the young free will spirit Sarah of whom he falls in love to. One day Alex doesn't know what to do when he gets a job to kill a person he knows. <br /><br />I recommend you to watch it if you like mature interesting movies.<br /><br />8 stars = very good | positive |
Let me be the first non Australian to comment on this :) I got the movie for Hugo Weaving and I watched it to the end. It's one of those "drama of life" films, as my mother used to call a movie that depicts a real life story with no extraordinary events and that is mostly descriptive.<br /><br />I liked the light and the girls. The rest was without too much fault, but without too much merit either. I yearned for something like The Interview, or at least some matrix villain element here and there, but nothing out of the ordinary. The story does teach one about facing one's own destiny and break free from the environment others build for you, but this happens when the life giving peach factory in the area is about to close, so not much of an effort to change things is required.<br /><br />The "smart" American Beauty sound-alike song in the background could have been part of a larger soundtrack, but just that one playing over and over again became annoying after 100 minutes of film.<br /><br />In the end, I guess it did his job of presenting a part of Australian life, but to me it didn't seem specifically Australian (it could have been placed anywhere) and it didn't seem attractive as a story.<br /><br />I guess one must be in a certain mood to like the movie. | positive |
I don't know what the last reviewer is talking about but this show is pure entertainment. Basically 2 dudes are put in competitions at a club to pick up girls in 3 different scenarios. They mix up the scenarios for each show so it is not the same every time. The panel of 4 judges is not afraid to call people out or admit it when they recognize game. They will break down what the guy did wrong, and what they guy did right. Some contestants are weak, some are strong but what happens is always entertaining. If you are a guy that goes out, you can relate. I've seen weak game, I've seen strong game, and this show is for real. No doubt. | positive |
New York I Love You just like its predecessor (Paris Je T'Aime) is a compound of various stories that reflects the different kinds and aspects of love but unlike it the rhythm is much faster and the stories much shorter. The movie offers a unique view of the city of New York with its various and different landscapes. New York, I Love You offers a first class cast, featuring such great actors like Shia LaBeouf, Natalie Portman, Ian McKellen, Hayden Christensen, Chistina Rcci and Orlando Bloom, Ethan Hawke, James Caan and Robin Wright Penn among others and some excellent writers and directors like Brett Ratner and Anthony Mingella. | positive |
This crime thriller is sort of like a film noir, though changes the context from post-war to Cold War and has something relatively decent to say about humanity. In "Pickup on South Street", policemen are good guys, criminals are genuine guys, and the only enemies are "The Commies", who are ultimately differentiated from the good-guys in that they are emotionally personable, driven by an actual care for their own worth, as shown in the constant tracked-in close-ups that speckle the movie.<br /><br />This movie revolves around characters. The personalities in this film are rather unique and detailed: Skip the pick-pocket who is able to stare down any danger, and sometimes while going through their personal possessions; Moe the informer who is just trying to save up for a spectacular funeral, but who manages to capture the hearts and respect of nearly all the other characters (and the audience); Candy, the ill-named innocent girl who only thinks she's doing government work and doesn't fully comprehend the conspiracy she's involved with; and Joey, the ex-boyfriend evil Commie baddie who is trying to hide everything from everybody and, ironically, is the worst person at doing it. Throw in a bunch of very colorful supporting characters (such as the guy with the chopsticks and the policemen) and "Pickup on South Street" treats you to a splendor of personalities as they hunt down the mysterious and accidentally stolen microfilm frames.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | positive |
King of Queens is comic genius. Kevin James, whom plays IPS deliveryman Doug Heffernan is extremely funny, Leah Remini who plays Doug's wife Carrie is incredibly hot ( # 19 on Stuff magazine's hottest 102 woman list ), and very funny. The true magic of the show However is the scenes with Jerry Stiller, they are the funniest in the show. Jerry, a comic genius, plays Carrie's father, Arthur Spooner, whom lives in Doug and Carrie's always cold basement. I must admit that I never watched this show until this year, 2006. Whenever I had flipped by it previously it never seemed funny, but with the cancellation of Friends, Still Standing, and Yes Dear, I needed some new comedy. Actually giving The King Of Queens a chance I discovered that it was absolutely fantastic. So funny in fact that I downloaded the first 7 seasons and watched each season in 8 hour blocks. I strongly urge anyone whom has not seen this treasure to check it out. You will not be disappointed. | positive |
This is one of the best comedy ever ! The writing of this parody of soap is brilliant and the cast, well just look at the names of the cast and you'll understand why it is so great. If you're a Kevin Kline fan, he does (as always) an fantastic performance, and Robert Downey Jr is perfect. If you don't laugh while seen this movie, you don't have any sense of humor. | positive |
Countenance! Antoine Monot, in a copycat impersonation of Kevin Smith's Silent Bob, keeps asking for it, but writer/director Christian Zübert never listens. Zübert just can't say no to a joke, no matter how cheap. The best thing about this movie is its soundtrack. Of course, Joey Burns of Calexico and the divine Jonathan Richman, understated old-school bard of "There's something about Mary" fame, would grace any small-town dropout story. In visual allure, Stefan (Lukas Gregorowicz) looks cool enough riding his tan six-series BMW two-door, wearing aviator shades, going nowhere. True, he *accidentally* sleeps with his wild-eyed bohemian kid sister (Marie Zielcke), but then, who wouldn't? Thumbs up also to how he goes black-and-white on a liberal dose of that mysterious substance they call zero-zero, but if you're looking for a slightly more serious rendering of what intoxication can do to you, I suggest you check out "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". | negative |
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The only advantage seeing this movie is that the next movie can't possibly be worse. It's childish as hell (but Children aren't allowed) | negative |
This movie is the only movie to feature a scene in which Michael Jackson wields a Tommy Gun. Plain and simple.<br /><br />This movie rocks because it is freaking' hilarious! It may be creepy to see Jacko w/ little kids, but this movie also stars.......................................... wait for it,.....................<br /><br />JOE PESCI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Think about it, Joe Pesci and Jacko with Tommy guns, throwing coins into jukeboxes from 20 feet away? Whats not to like? As stated before, THIS MOVIE ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | positive |
I want to say I liked this film, I really do, but when it boils down to it it was just far too boring. It starts off looking promising, and even once they get inside the mines the creepy atmosphere and mood is great. The problem is the monster, or lack of it. As people have said it's a stop-motion monster, but that's not the problem (stop-motion can look great if done properly). The problem is that we don't see enough of it and we don't get to see any deaths. This is meant to be a horror film so a lack of monster and a lack of deaths equals boredom. There were some scenes I liked, such as when one girl is using her camera in the dark and the monster is coming towards her. There are also a few other creepy scenes but they are far too few to hold your interest and definitely not worth watching the film for. It's a shame, because I can see that had it been handled correctly it would've been an effectively creepy horror flick. The saddest thing is that films like this will never be made again, because film makers over-polish their films these days and rely on crappy CGI effects. | negative |
Sometimes Full Moon makes entertaining movies. This isn't one of them. Full Moon is like a low-key Troma. Their movies aren't as violent or off the wall, but they're usually just as devoid of talent. The acting in this movie isn't terrible but the script is pretty bad, and overall it's pretty boring and it doesn't even contain any nudity (like many Full Moon movies) to somewhat redeem it. Skip this one, and go rent "Head of the Family". | negative |
Well, this film came on on a workday at 230am. The cute little actress who played Billy caught my attention initially and after the 1st 15 minutes I was held captive to my television till the very end. It has you on the edge of your seat, then throws in clever bits of comedy during the most tense sequences.<br /><br />The only draw back is that the story was not substantial enough to fill hour an a half film, causing certain sequences to drag just a little. Nonetheless, it was still very entertaining, and I recommended it to all my co-workers the next day. | positive |
This could have been a good TV-movie, but the flashbacks do not make it easier to understand the movie. As they give the viewer informations on the way (will the movie proceeds) i found myself wondering why she never said or mentioned that in the beginning. Then the whole trail would probably not have been necessary.<br /><br />When the movie ends you understand why she shot, and of course she is not guilty. Too bad that the producer/director used the flashbacks this way, but on the other had the movie would not have been worth while at all.<br /><br />Nice movie for a rainy day, big bag of chips to kill the evening. | negative |
I saw this on sale - NEW - at my local store for $6 and said "hey! an action film with that guy from Bloodsport and Enter the Dragon, directed by the guy who did Enter the Dragon - and it's cheap!" So I bought it. Oops! This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen some doozies.<br /><br />You know how movies which are intentionally campy, like Evil Dead II and Dead-Alive, are AWESOME? You know how movies that are supposed to be serious but turned out so awful that you have to laugh out loud, and watch them again, like Lionheart (an old Van Damme film) or John Carpenter's Vampires, are pretty cool? This film, Ironheart, manages to be NEITHER of those. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking, but it looks as if this movie was made with no time to shoot, no budget for anything, and no script to speak of. (While I'm on the script note, I should point out that Bolo Yeung has NO LINES in this movie - the only reason he gets first billing on the box is the fact that he's the only actor in the film that you'll ever recognize (unless you're a Jackie Chan fan, in which case you'll recognize the bad guy - and you'll want to call him Giancarlo!).)<br /><br />What's also sad is that this film is from '92. By that time, T2: Judgment day had come out, so you know that the era of 80s campiness was over... but not quite. After this, you'll think 80s Chuck Norris films, high-school comedies, and Jason/Freddy sequels were works of sheer genius. <br /><br />Things to know:<br /><br />1) Nobody in this film can act for beans. The closest you get is Richard Norton looking appropriately rich and cocky, and Bolo Yeung looking appropriately mean ... and cocky. Everything else is dreadful.<br /><br />2) The martial arts scenes are forgettable - just many instances of white guys with lots of muscles taking off their shirts, yelling, running at Britton Lee, getting kicked by Britton Lee, getting punched by Britton Lee, then falling down. Even the final showdown against Bolo is disappointingly short, and about as creative as the design of my running socks (and equally stinky).<br /><br />3) The rest of the action is pathetic, too: the guns look like they came from the toy department at K-Mart, and indeed they fire with the sound of a capgun. When someone gets shot, they bounce around a little bit, then lie still with splotches of brownish-red liquid on their clothes. Britton Lee apparently gets shot in the side, but you don't see it at all, then later that day you see the wound ... I've had paper cuts that were worse than that!<br /><br />4) Of course then the girl dresses the wound, then they kiss, then next thing you know they're lying in bed talking after sex. Huh? What? Believable development of the love interest, as well as any kind of character development at all, are overlooked completely in this film. Remember how Bruce Lee's characters didn't need to have sex with anybody to be cool?<br /><br />5) The car chase is by far the worst I've ever seen. It looks like the director was sitting on the curb with a hand-held camera as the two cars weaved down the road doing, oh I don't know, about 30 miles an hour? Don't try this at home, kids, these people are professionals! Hah!<br /><br />6) Really bad writing. Here's a scene for you: Lee is being followed, so the girl follows the followers to "warn" Lee, but her car is too slow. So by the time she catches up, Lee and the bad guys are out of their cars and there's a gunfight in progress. Lee has killed two bad guys, but the third is shooting at Lee when the girl almost runs Lee over, so the bad guy runs away. (Huh?) Then the girl's car stalls and she can't start it. She tells Lee she's involved now and she's coming with him. He points out to her that they can't leave her car there because the bad guys will trace it to her. She somehow convinces him that he should decide how to deal with this problem - so he shoots the gas tank and blows up her car. (And remember, later that same night they have sex.) Huh?!?<br /><br />7) If you look closely, in more than half of the nightclub shots, the dancers are very much out of sync with the music. The dancers are also all way too co-ordinated with each other (apparently in the '80s all people at dance clubs took dancing lessons). There is a girl in the DJ booth with a microphone, but she never does anything except dance. The bouncers tell people who are fighting to "take it outside" - without moving their lips. In one scene, the only bouncers Lee and Stevo pass by are just inside the entrance, but with their backs to it! Also, apparently, if you're a major character in the film, you can go straight to the head of the line.<br /><br />8) Lee notices the first time he is being followed, but he doesn't notice the second time - even though it's the same guy in the same car. The girl, however, notices. Bad guys get followed twice, but they never notice.<br /><br />9) Lee is worried the bad guys will trace the girl's car back to her, even though they have already seen him show up where she works twice. The girl proceeds to leave her child at work, in the care of a friend, while she is off having sex with Lee. DO NOT learn parenting from this film!<br /><br />Can't think of more gripes right now ... you get the idea ... Ironheart is so bad, it ain't even funny, it's SAD. | negative |
I LOVED this movie when I was younger, and I have actually been looking for it again!! I would love to watch it again!! The information is all correct, but the cover doesn't look like it would match - I can't say for sure though. From what I remember, the movie was about these kids (Alyssa Milano, Tina Yothers, etc.) in a driving class, and it also shows the mischief they get into outside the class. Edie McClurg was Alyssa Milano's mother in the movie. I remember I really liked it so if anyone knows where I can get a copy (preferably DVD) of the movie listed above (with those stars in it) I would love to know. Thank-you :) | positive |
It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and "googly eyed looks" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film "artsy and profound"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan! <br /><br />By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s. | negative |
People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his "Scary Cirus" was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years. | positive |
At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members. <br /><br />They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.<br /><br />I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.<br /><br />If "The Choke", was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.<br /><br />I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick. | negative |
Like the gentle giants that make up the latter half of this film's title, Michael Oblowitz's latest production has grace, but it's also slow and ponderous. The producer's last outing, "Mosquitoman-3D" had the same problem. It's hard to imagine a boring shark movie, but they somehow managed it. The only draw for Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy was it's passable animatronix, which is always fun when dealing with wondrous worlds beneath the ocean's surface. But even that was only passable. Poor focus in some scenes made the production seems amateurish. With Dolphins and Whales, the technology is all but wasted. Cloudy scenes and too many close-ups of the film's giant subjects do nothing to take advantage of IMAX's stunning 3D capabilities. There are far too few scenes of any depth or variety. Close-ups of these awesome creatures just look flat and there is often only one creature in the cameras field, so there is no contrast of depth. Michael Oblowitz is trying to follow in his father's footsteps, but when you've got Shark-Week on cable, his introspective and dull treatment of his subjects is a constant disappointment. | positive |
To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID | positive |
this was one of the most moving movies i have ever seen. i was about 12 years old when i watched it for the first time and whenever it is on TV i my eyes are glued to it. the acting and plot are amazing. it seems so true to reality and it touches on so many controversial topics. i recommend this movie to anyone interested in a good drama. | positive |
We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.<br /><br />This movie is very good. not just good but very good. The critics are a bunch of morons. Just because there is nudity and language they hated it. It was worth the price of ticket and that is all you can ask for. Is that not right? Every movie cannot be an academy award nominee. Sharon stone is gorgeous and does a great job in the movie and it mystifies me as to what in the hell the critics want | positive |
This film is amazing - it's just like a nightmare. The bizarre story, the dark decors, the swarming insects everywhere, the idea jumps and the surrealistic dreams... Really great! People who love cult movies or very dark thrillers will find this fantastic. It seems a little to the films of David Lynch: the strange story, the bizarre dreams, the red curtains. Nuit Noire contains almost no plot. It's rather a succession of surrealistic happenings, nightmares and meetings. That's a drawback. If the film had a really fascinating plot full of tension with a captivating denouement, I would give it a 10 out of 10. But that's missing, and that's why I gave the movie an 8. Nuit Noire is a film worth watching. Search that DVD and you'll be rewarded! | positive |
I went to this film having no idea what to expect. I actually took a date to it in the theaters when it first came out. We both thoroughly enjoyed it and it helped to have someone to discuss it with after seeing it.<br /><br />I only recommend seeing this film if you appreciate non-mainstream movies. It's not as disjointed as Liquid Sky or as fanciful as Forbidden Zone. The original plot is very easy to follow. There's A LOT of subtle humor.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot if you are completely lost: A big-brother type government keeps tabs on everyone in society. Suddenly a new person appears and there's no data on him (he appears insane). He may or may not be the second-coming of Christ. The over-cautious government goes into a frenzy to find him and discover his true motives. The ruler is also obsessed with immortality.<br /><br />Some scenes are frantic while others are completely low-key. We follow the lead character as he encounters all different kinds of people in society.<br /><br />I didn't need my consciousness altered to enjoy the film, but I know that some of my friends felt that helped.<br /><br />Split was also filmed around Santa Cruz and San Francisco. | positive |
For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents. | negative |
The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.<br /><br />A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.<br /><br />Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.<br /><br />If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back. | negative |
Good lord, whoever made this turkey needs to be buried alive. I'm sorry, but the other reviewer must not have seen this movie, he must be watching something else, or have never seen a movie before... 9 out of ten stars? He's saying what, this is as good as Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind? Unintentionally funny, massively unbelievable characters, absurd situations, looks like it was shot in Griffith Park (which works out pretty well--MASH was shot in Griffith Park), crappy script, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with a movie all rolled into one package. Should be required viewing for all prospective film makers as an example of how a movie could be horribly wrong. It reminds me of something a USC student may make for a film class. <br /><br />Give this one a pass unless you do drugs and are into high camp. | negative |
Rugged David Innes (solid Doug McClure) and doddery Dr. Abner Perry (a delightfully dotty Peter Cushing) drill their way into the earth's core in their spiffy mole machine. The duo discover an ancient prehistoric world populated by dangerous gigantic beasts and human beings who are used as both food and slaves by evil telepathic pterodactyl men. Director Kevin Conner, working from a blithely silly script by Milton Subotsky, maintains a constant brisk pace throughout and treats the exceptionally foolish premise with astonishing seriousness, thereby giving this picture a certain clunkily earnest quality that's amusing and endearing in equal measure. The lovably hokey (not so) special effects are quite (unintentionally) funny. The cheesy array of cut-price creatures in particular are positively sidesplitting: cruddy guys-in-obvious-shoddy-rubber-suits pterodactyl men, equally rinky-dink savage ape-man brutes, and a hilariously ludicrous fire-belching frog thing who blows up real good. One gut-busting highlight occurs when McClure mixes it up with a fat and clumsy giant reptile. Another priceless scene depicts a dinosaur clutching a doll in its slavering jaws. Moreover, we also get some rousing rough'n'ready fisticuffs and an exciting climactic slave revolt. It's a total treat to see Cushing gleefully ham it up in a rare broad comedic part and become an unlikely, but enthusiastic arrow-slinging action hero in the last third of the flick. The ever-luscious Caroline Munro looks positively yummy as the fetching Princess Dia, plus there are nice supporting turns by Cy Grant as gallant warrior Ra and Sean Lynch as treacherous coward Hoojah. Mike Vickers' neatly varied score alternates between jaunty orchestral music and wonky droning synthesizer stuff. Alan Hume's crisp cinematography adds a glossy sheen to the infectiously inane proceedings. A complete campy riot. | positive |
From the start I knew I would be in for the best movie watching experience of my life. The idea of two giant robots, manned by brilliant humans, fighting each other for control of the world was the most intense and well thought of plot I have ever experienced. I can't even begin to describe the brilliant acting and well written script. Let's just just say it compares to both Lord of Rings pictures , combined. The Academy had a grave oversight in not celebrating the joy that is.....ROBOT JOX. | positive |
Utterly tactical, strange (watch for the kinky moment of a drop-dead gorgeous blonde acting as pull-string doll for some rich folks), pointless but undoubtedly compelling late-night feature. This unhinged French production is a stew of perplexedly unfocused ideas and random plot illustrations centred on its very charismatic stars (if somewhat anti-heroes) Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. Really they don't get to do all that much, especially during the confined, lengthy mid-section where they hide themselves in a building during the Christmas break to crack a safe with 10,000 possible combinations. Oh fun! But this is when the odd, if intriguing relationship is formed between Delon and Bronson's characters. After a manipulative battle of wills (and childishly sly games against each other), the two come to an understanding that sees them honour each other's involvement and have a mutual respect. This would go on to play a further part in the twisty second half of the story with that undetectable curve-ball. Still their encounters early on suggest there's more, but what we get is vague and this is magnified by that 'What just happen there?' ending that might just make you jump. YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Glad to get that out of the system. <br /><br />The pacing is terribly slow, but placidly measured for it and this seems purposely done to exhaust with its edgy, nervous underlining tension. Watch as the same process is repeated over and over again, and you know something is not quite right and the scheming eventually comes into play. Now everything that does happen feels too spontaneous, but the climax payoff is haunting. The taut, complex script is probably a little too crafty for its own good, but there are some neat novelties (Coins, glass and liquids
try not spilling) and visual symbolisms. Jean Herman's direction is efficiently sophisticated and low-key, but get a tad artificial and infuse an unwelcoming icy atmosphere. The sound FX features more as a potent note, than that of Francois DeRoubaix's funky score that's mainly kept under wrapped after its sizzling opening. Top drawers Delon (who's quite steely) and Bronson (a jovial turn) are solid, and work off each tremendously. Bernard Fresson chalks up the attitude as the Inspector who knows there's more going on than what is being led on. An attractive female cast features able support by Brigitte Fossey and Olga Georges-Picot. <br /><br />A cryptically directionless, but polished crime drama maintained by its two leads and some bizarre inclusions. | positive |
This film is one of the best memories I have from childhood. Having always loved Tigers my Mum took me to see it. <br /><br />It is absolutely amazing. Its is one of those films that leaves a lasting impression on you. The image of Tigers running through the snow with it all spraying around is still in my head some 25 yrs on, not many films have managed that, As other comments have said photography is stunning. A must see. I have also been looking for the film for some time with no luck at all. :-(. Checking Amazon every now and then reveals nothing, not even listed. If anyone does know of a source, please contact me or post here. Tim | positive |
Compared to director Kevin Connor's later ARABIAN ADVENTURE, this is a masterpiece. However, that's not saying much. In fact, AT THE EARTH'S CORE is a silly fantasy adventure in which Peter Cushing - who appears to be on something strong - and some other actor (whom I don't know) use a giant digging machine called the "Iron Mole" dig their way down to the Earth's core - only to find that the inside of the Earth is pink and populated by ape-like creatures who have enslaved the humans. There's also a giant bird that controls the apes by means of telepathy, and we get to see it blink its eyes in closeup throughout the film. Most importantly, Cushing and what's-his-name also encounter the lovely Caroline Munro in the subterranean caves. And here's what I've really got against this little flick: why oh why is it that whenever Munro's in a movie, she only gets approx. 5 minutes of screen time? In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MANIAC, DRACULA AD 1972, GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD - always she's in the background! How can Kevin Connor possibly think that we'd rather listen to Peter Cushing's fake accent and look at some ridiculous ape-man whose voice sounds like a scratched cd than gaze at the beautiful Munro? I don't get it. Please, somebody direct a movie where this English brunette is on-screen all the time! | negative |
THE SECRET OF KELLS is an astonishing first animated feature which will dazzle your eye and move your heart. The shortcomings of the film's limited budget and sometimes limited animation are more than compensated for by the visual poetry of the story of young Brendan's heroic quest to become a master illuminator during the dark ages. Historically this was in the late 8th century, when the centers of Irish learning were over-run by the Vikings. The Vikings appear here as brute antagonists, the equivalent on the North Seas of the plundering Huns and Mongols further East. The film's narrative--- which functions more as a parable--- centers around the conflict between Brendan, who seeks to create beauty in his illuminations during a time of encroaching darkness, and his stern Uncle the Abbot-- who seeks to protect the town of Kells and his nephew with a looming wall as barrier against the Norsemen. The Abbot disregards the value of Brendan's art in his quest for security. This is the movie's outer conflict. Brendan's inner conflict is to find the hidden eye of creative illumination which will allow him to complete the most difficult painting in the Book of Kells. This eye is guarded by a Dragon Ouroboros, who destroys from within those not suited to this quest as surely as the Vikings will kill from without (That's as much of the story as I'll divulge!)<br /><br />What I really like about this film is its creators' imaginative understanding of some of the greatest art work to survive in the West from 1200 years ago. The characters are stylized in flat abstract shapes defined by line just as in the original Book of Kells. (Particularly noteworthy is monk Aidan's pet cat, defined in few lines, yet purely--- and even magically metamorphically feline.) The range of emotion which Brendan and the other animated characters convey given their economy of abstract design is a tribute to the excellent artistry of the director and his animators. The decorative borders on the edge of the picture change to complement the dramatic impact of a given scene, and this characteristic of illuminations from the dark ages is brought to wondrous animated life in THE SECRET OF KELLS. Of course, historical dramas usually tell us more about our own times than the times which these dramas endeavor to depict. However, by introducing archetypal elements into this story, the writers and director of THE SECRET OF KELLS convey a numinous sense of lived-life from that far-off time in Ireland which feels psychologically true, however much the script might stray from pedantic historical fact. (The United Nations' band of illuminators who appear as a rogues' club of artists in The SECRET OF KELLS aren't historically probable, but they're all well-designed, individuated characters who do much to convey the universal appeal of this quintessentially Irish story.) Animation has always seemed the best vehicle to me to better help us understand the visual art of different times and cultures. The magnificent art direction of this movie clearly derives from its historical visual source, but has also been cleverly adapted to the demands of animated storytelling; if animation had existed in the Dark Ages, the SECRET OF KELLS is what it would look like! Finally, Brendan's hero's quest in this film is the artist's perennial quest to convey the spirit of beauty, life and inspiration. (Without being preachy or even particularly Christian, this movie affirms Jesus' dictum that "Man does not live by bread alone." ) In my estimation the most inspired movie about the creative process of visual artists is Andrei Tarkovsky's ANDREI RUBLEV, a film about the great Russian icon painter of the 15th century. The SECRET OF KELLS expresses much the same sense of mystery and exhilaration about the artist's visual quest and creative process. It's certainly not as profound as ANDREI RUBLEV, but--- heck--- its a cartoon! (And one which will appeal to young and old alike.) I think this movie will hold up well to repeated viewing: in its own modest life-affirming way, this stylized SECRET OF KELLS is a classic. | positive |
As I have matured, my fascination with the Academy Awards has evolved from intense interest to casual amusement. As in a few other comments that I have written, the bizarre results of Academy Award voting are often difficult to explain. The omission of "In Cold Blood" in 1967 as one of the five Best Picture nominees is one of those inexplicable instances, especially when one of the nominations that year went to the wretched and unwatchable "Dr. Dolittle." While only an insomniac or masochist would tune in to that Rex Harrison disaster, Richard Brook's powerful adaptation of Truman Capotes non-fiction novel retains its ability to capture the viewer's attention and leave him or her completely drained by the final fade out. While there is nothing particularly graphic or gruesome on screen, the film is definitely adult material. Based on a Nebraska multiple murder in the 1950's and filmed in the actual locations where the murders took place, "In Cold Blood" was filmed by master cinematographer Conrad Hall in stark black and white, and his screen compositions demand to be seen in their correct widescreen aspect ratio. Together with Quincy Jones's unsettling score, Hall's work should have been credited above the title with Brook's screenplay as the three pillars on which this intense classic is built. The performances are fine as well. Scott Wilson is all cold charm and Robert Blake intense introversion as the two killers. (There is an inside joke at one point when Blake speaks of Bogart and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" while the duo are driving to Mexico. As a child star, Blake sold the lottery ticket to Bogart in that John Huston film.) The film, like the book, is definitely slanted towards the killers and has an anti-capital punishment tilt, although the remorselessness of the murderers somewhat negates that sentiment despite the difficult-to-watch final scenes. Some have criticized the film because it does focus on the criminals, their backgrounds, and lives, while the Clutter family, which was literally murdered in cold blood in the middle of the night, come across as one-dimensional characters of little import. This lack of balance comes from the book as Capote spent much time with the two killers while they were on death row. The Clutter family was apparently not researched to the same depth. However, whatever feelings one may have for or against capital punishment, "In Cold Blood" will leave you mired deep in conflicting thoughts. Run a double bill with "Dead Man Walking," and you may not speak for days. | positive |
It's partly bad luck for "Illuminata" that it comes out after "Shakespeare in Love" as it deals with virtually the same themes of life as art, art as life and the Magic of the Theatre and the same archetypal Foibles of Theater Folk, but a whole lot more ponderously.<br /><br />There are scenes that come alive, as a play develops and gets reinterpreted by a writer's life, but there's a whole lot of Orson Welles-ish ego in this produced by/directed by/lead acted by John Torturro as a vehicle for his wife Katharine Borowitz (with an adorable cameo by their son).<br /><br />Each actor gets his/her moment literally in the spotlight, but there's so many "masques" or set pieces that seem like 19th century parlor games. Bill Irwin Talks. Susan Sarandon gets to be a diva. Christopher Walken gets to be a different kind of villain - a gay critic. The women have to disrobe unnecessarily because this is an Art Film.<br /><br />The art and set direction are marvelous, though quite dark. This should get an award as the Best Use of a Jersey City Theater as A Set Ever In a Movie. (originally written 8/21/99) | negative |
I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10. | positive |
I just finished "Dark Chamber" aka "Under Surveillance" and I'm stunned. Stunned, not by the film, but by some of the rave reviews I perused which influenced my watching it. The story was so ravaged by plot-holes and the majority of the acting so flat, categorizing it as a comedy seems appropriate. Seriously, I found myself shaking my head and laughing in bewilderment as I endured this movie.<br /><br />Justin leaves the confines of living at home with a pain killer-addicted mom to go live with his cop father despite Mom's warnings that Dad is no good. When a young woman is found murdered, Justin becomes suspicious of the tenants who reside in the adjacent apartments. With the help of a couple pals, he installs covert cameras to keep tabs on these folks. As the truth begins to unravel, Justin uncovers an unexpected secret.<br /><br />One positive point is that Felissa Rose is HOT! I would have generously slapped an extra star or two on here had she peeled down a bit, but no such luck. It would have been the film's potential saving grace. Eric Conley played Justin very adeptly, I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see more of him in the future. <br /><br />The general premise of the film, although plagued by clichés, might possibly have worked had it not been for the ridiculously hollow "performances" of key cast members, most notably Alexandra Eitel (Kayla) and David H. Rigg (Justin's father). The horror! (pardon the pun).<br /><br />I have nothing against low-budget films. Indeed, I believe independent film is our only hope for decent film making in the days to come. I'll cut low-budget films quite a bit of slack when it comes to special effects, lighting, even musical score and the overall picture quality. I don't give allowances, however, for stick figure acting and a swiss cheese lover's script. There are a vast number of competently-made low budget films out there. Sadly, this isn't one of them. I can't help but suspect that at least a few of the reviewers who have praised "Dark Chamber" here are in some way affiliated with its production. | negative |
Am I the only one who thought the point of this film was the graphic violence? I knew nothing about Leigh Scott when I rented it, and would not have done so if I had known that most of his previous films were horror films. I am not into that at all, I was just expecting an informative docudrama of the 9/11 report.<br /><br />Instead, I got an almost incomprehensible, violent movie. The only good thing about it for me, was that it made me want to read the report, to figure out what the heck this movie was about.<br /><br />I wrote this because I am shocked that we have become so immune to violence in films and on TV, that it was not even worth commenting on by the bloggers whose reviews that I read. | negative |
Slasher movies started may be 30 to 35 years before this movie but believe me this one among those pearl that will stay longer after you turned of TV set. Especially if you are a person easily scared this is the movie for you for which you wouldn't have stomach to take it full. Even after so many years the movie hasn't lost its charm and thrill.<br /><br />No blood no gore but the thrill will for sure chill your spine out. the movie starts with the bang and it stay with the same pace till its end. BGM is nerve cracking and i remember this was the one copied in many Indian movies those days. Kings favorite? No wonder why... thats the only reason i wanted to see this and it didn't let me down. "Don't turn off the lights"... coz you wont find Enrique but may be a smiling doll sitting right behind you! beware. not for the lite hearted...<br /><br />Two thumps up and i am going with 8 out of 10 which is pretty low but still i preserve my ratings for Dramas... | positive |
First off, I'm a huge Bronson fan, have been since the late '70s. I watched every film he made on the big screen since "Love and Bullets", which ironically was the beginning of his end as a big name, Hollywood-blockbuster star.<br /><br />I kept hoping that things would turn around for him, that he would make a really good film in the '80s, but that never happened. And I don't know what he was thinking when he signed with cheapjack studio Cannon and hack director J. Lee Thompson for most of his latter films.<br /><br />"Assasination" gave me some hopes when I saw that Peter Hunt was directing instead of Thompson but those hopes were quickly dashed. First off, the film looks incredibly cheap, like it was made for about 3 mil, minus Bronson's inflated salary (I heard he insisted on 5 mil per picture which is probably more than the rest of the budget for all his Cannon films). The White House scenes were filmed on the VA grounds in West LA - I was taking the bus when they were shooting. Nice job on recreating the white house but did no one think about getting the Palm trees out of the shots? Guess not.<br /><br />Secondly, the supporting cast is really bad. Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent. I would be real curious to learn how she got this role. I can't imagine a worse actress for the part, plus she's a good 40 years younger than Bronson! The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire" and Costner's "Bodyguard" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad. I'm wondering if they could not afford to do more than one or two takes per shot. None of it is believable in the slightest. If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months... | negative |
i saw this movie on cable, it was really funny, from the stereotype police chief to the stereotype big bad guys, jay leno and mr mayagi from karate kid star in this good comedy about a prototype car part. I compare this movie to "RUSH HOUR" in which a local cop has to partner up with an asian police officer to solve a case. The chase through farmers market in downtown detroit brings back memories. Enjoyable soundtrack, good script, i give it 10/10. | positive |
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches. | negative |
'Be With Me' is almost the ultimate wallpaper movie. Just leave it running in the background. chat amongst yourselves and return to it whenever you like and at some point it'll end. <br /><br />Alas, as I watched it alone, and so I felt like I almost watched the world's worst, longest and most drippingly sentimental beer commercial by the time I just about managed to keep my eyes open as the end credits rolled; and I then managed (just a) a few more moments of wakefulness to witness a 'Thank you' to the movie's sponsors - which included Asia Pacific Breweries. Aha! Methought: How surprising is *that* - given all the shots of Tiger beer interspersed throughout this most forgettable washout of a movie? <br /><br />Meanwhile, dialogue spurts between individuals with occasional stabs at depth, but all too usually nothing of any particular advancement to the movie's overall story is said or witnessed. It's as if one could switch off at any moment and return at any later point and you'd really have missed nothing which would have been an unmissable contingency, or part of its plot, as far as the movie's overall progression was concerned. Thus the ultimate "wallpaper movie"!<br /><br />Well I wonder... What movie were those who positively reviewed this one watching? I wonder and continue to wonder... It certainly couldn't have been this arty to the point of artless Singaporean excuse for a camera's rolling. Allegedly, 'Be With Me' is supposed to be woven around the themes of "love, tragedy and redemption". But all I witnessed was boredom, a half baked screenplay with a smattering of gormless text messages, and the only redemption was that which occurred when this utterly useless movie ended. What a wistful waste of time, it ended up being! It was also said that the characters in this movie were fictitious except for Theresa Chan who is a "remarkable woman who has triumphed over adversities..." Well, no disrespect to Ms Chan, but given that she was such a marvellous & amazing character, why at all did the screenplay have to involve the stories of other characters without the most tenuous attempt to connect their lives together? Yet it still proved to be an almost insufferably boring movie whose highlights included the credits rolling. Rather than tying in the fates of all characters, I really felt that the movie ended up attempting the near impossible and evidently fell between stools as far as any viewer engagement could be concerned.<br /><br />I am generally an art-house movie fan and don't usually object to slow pacing (of which here there is no shortage, believe you me!!). I hate such movies as 300, Transformers, Fight Club, but consider, e.g., Eric Rohmer as a great film maker. So I hope that puts my criticism into some perspective. Nonetheless, there was no redeemable feature whatsoever in the entire movie's conception and delivery which could prevent one's eyelids slowly drooping downwards as each minute of 'Be With Me' dripped by. Watch this movie if you need to feel like wasting time. Otherwise your life would be none the richer for having missed it. 3/10 | negative |
Being a slasher film aficionado, I typically will settle in to watch every slash movie that passes over my retinas, which sometimes does more harm than good to my brain, I will say. While channel surfing the other night, Sleepaway Camp II happened to cross paths with me. Of course, I wanted to check it out, as I had heard of the Sleepaway Camp franchise, but have never actually seen any of them (for shame, I know). I will note that since I have not seen the original, my criticism should probably not be taken too seriously, because perhaps what I think is wrong with it is totally intentional by the franchise's own design.<br /><br />Now I'm assuming that the franchise of Sleepaway Camp is, in itself, a joke on itself. Hell, even the name comes off as an intentional joke. Sleep away camp? It's good fun. I can appreciate the film for wanting to just put together something for pure camp horror value, but that's about as far as I can go. The acting in this movie made the cast of the original Friday the 13th look like thespians doing a rendition of Macbeth. Campy requires bad acting, but come on. Pamela Springsteen as the evil out-of-touch-with-reality killer did a better job of killing off my interest than she did killing off the entire cast. As far as comedy goes, there were a few times where I chuckled, but it was few and far between.<br /><br />Ultimately, SAC II is pretty boring, and I really did want to sleep away the camp. The deaths are so obviously staged and fake that you can barely appreciate them. If you're looking for a slasher film comedy with good camp, I recommend Club Dread. If your channel surfing takes you across this one, check and see what else is on. | negative |
Paul Thomas Anderson's stylish and compelling take on the 70s porn industry follows Eddie Adams, aka Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), through six years of sex, drugs and disco. His chance meeting with pornography director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) starts his career as one of the greatest adult actors of the time. Dirk's character is based on real-life porn actor John Holmes, who, like Dirk, was renowned for being extremely "well-endowed". This is where Dirk finds initial success.<br /><br />The main themes in Boogie Nights are the obvious ones relating to a film of this genre; pornography, drugs, sex, betrayal, violence and music. Boogie Nights deals with the pornography theme with some control. It is not overplayed and the sex scenes are surprisingly minimal, but mentally explicit when they take place on screen.<br /><br />Throughout the film cocaine is abused enormously, and the film's setting, Los Angeles 1977-1983, reflects the popularity of the drug at that time, which the film captures perfectly. However, Boogie Nights does not promote cocaine, as there are some scenes involving addiction and overdoses. For example at Jack's party, they find a girl who has recently, and graphically, overdosed; blood pours from her nose and she begins an unconscious fit. The film, before this scenes, has been fairly upbeat and comic, but from this point it foreshadows the darkness that it will occur.<br /><br />The music scenes are executed brilliantly, from superbly-staged disco scenes to a down-and-out Dirk singing terribly in his new music career. The soundtrack too is excellent, featuring tunes from The Emotions, ELO, The Beach Boys and the unforgettable Sound Experience. The standout scene in the whole film comes down to the music; Dirk, Redd Rothchild (John C. Reilly) and Todd Parker (Thomas Jane) visit drug dealer Rahad Jackson's (Alfred Molina) house in order to make some quick cash from selling phoney drugs, but Night Ranger's Sister Christian, which is playing in the background, increases the intensity of the scene incredibly, proving that music can bring so much more depth to a scene. Boogie Nights is filled with those kind of scenes, which makes the film even more fantastic.<br /><br />The standout performance in Boogie Nights is Burt Reynolds as the enigmatic, yet moody, film director. In the scene where he attacks a young guy for slating his movies, it is a complete shock for the audience, because before this point he has been pretty mellow and content. Other notable performances are Julianne Moore, Heather Graham as the beautiful Rollergirl, John C. Reilly, and Mark Wahlberg, who delivers the performance of his career.<br /><br />Boogie Nights is also a surprisingly original film, using common themes but filmed in its own sharp and realistic way. Anderson's approach has been fully captures these characters in a time when nothing seemed to be going wrong, or at least until the 80s arrive. From then on, things turn very dark indeed, and all signs of the recognisable characters and situations from the first part of the film have gone. This does not, however, reduce the high level of engaging entertainment that this film offers.<br /><br />Boogie Nights was not a box-office success, earning only £2 million at cinemas in the UK. But this is not the film's, or the director's concern. Anderson recognises quality, not popularity, which is evident in his three other films, Hard Eight, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a simple parable filled with excellent and variable situations, because at the end of this film you will realize that Boogie Nights is a simple morality tale, but one which will stay in the mind days after you watch it. Boogie Nights is at once shocking, hilarious, devastating and both visually and audibly outstanding. | positive |
The boys are working outside a recording studio when they hear "the voice of an angel." That would be Miss Van Doren, auditioning and going under the name of Miss Andrews because her father doesn't approve of her being a "radio singer". However, she hopes a certain big-wig, Mrs. Bixby, a friend of her dad's will hire her, and then he will have to give his approval.<br /><br />She leaves but within minutes the boys are running amok in the studio causing havoc and having other musicians out to kill them after they ruin the recording session. Finally things calm down. "Whew, we eluded them," says Moe. "Yeah, we got away, too," answers Curly.<br /><br />The boys then fool around in the studio, put on Miss Van Doren's record and Curly gets dressed in women's clothes and pretends he's singing. Mrs. Bixby walks in, is impressed and hires "Seniorita Cucacha" on the spot! For an extra $500, she's asked to come and sing at their high-society party that night. The rest, as they say,is history as Curly pretends to be an opera singer with some funny results. Oh, by the way, he accompanied by "Senior Mucho" and "Senior Gusto."<br /><br />What happens at the party is simply that the truth wins out, but not before a few slapstick antics take place. In all, a pretty good episode. I enjoyed it but wouldn't rate it as anything special. | positive |
Rosalind Russell executes a power-house performance as Rosie Lord, a very wealthy woman with greedy heirs. With an Auntie Mame-type character, this actress can never go wrong. Her very-real terror at being in an insane assylum is a wonderful piece of acting. Everyone should watch this. | positive |
I am a current A.S.L. Student & was forced to watch this movie in class, and what I got out of it was the blatant bias involved in the film. The film is obviously leaning towards to P.O.V. of the "common deaf perception" their is no middle ground. Also, the film didn't make mention or take into account other situations that are also under debate in this topic. I.E. Deaf People who were born hearing and later went deaf. Is it right or wrong in that instance? The film is biased and virtually all in the opinion of the Deaf w/ a capital "D". Not that this is bad, but for it to be a true documentary film is should attempt to be slightly unbiased. | negative |
The year 2004 was the year of the biopic with no less than four pictures tackling real events, real people, with varying degrees of critical praise. Of the four pictures to make it to the race to the Oscars in early 2005 (KINSEY, THE AVIATOR, HOTEL RWANDA, and, RAY), RAY became the big winner of the night as the acting award went to Jamie Foxx for his portrayal of R & B genius Ray Charles.<br /><br />And it was well-deserved despite that Leonardo diCaprio came close and Liam Neeson wasn't even nominated. What made Foxx the winner was that the other two were playing relatively obscure eccentrics, Ray Charles was still making music right up until his death in 2004 and by then there wasn't a soul who didn't know at least one song that Charles' had penned. It did help that Jamie Foxx rose well above the movie -- itself as a whole somewhat weak and often looking like it wouldn't be out of place as a TV biopic -- and his portrayal is detailed as it's ferocious. He has the delicate assignment which is to embody a person down to nuances, and once the crisis of Ray's addiction to heroin hits a head, Foxx pulls out all the stops and it isn't hard to imagine the real Ray actually going through such a painful ordeal.<br /><br />The low point of the film is how it spends a little too much time in detailing Ray's relationship with women. Like THE AVIATOR, Taylor Hackford wishes to establish that Ray had this turbulent life, a product of his own demons and his entry into success at a time when being black and successful brought a huge amount of baggage. Of the women, the only one to succeed bringing real life is Sharen Warren as Ray's mother. Hers is a difficult role since she is alone on screen with the child actor playing young Ray but her facial and body language is gut-wrenching, especially at the moment she must relinquish her maternity to have Ray find his way around the house. Such intensity of emotion, to stand there and watch your blind son crawl across a room and having to force him to have this rude awakening into independence. A beautiful performance, and one which should have been acknowledged.<br /><br />A fantastic counterpoint to RAY is the featured music. Anyone who knows R & B will enjoy the early recordings of Ray's radio hits as much as his later ones which would bring him to the forefront of popular music, and Jamie Foxx virtually steals the show as he performs the songs as Ray. That alone will live on even when the movie in itself is little more than a stiff biopic. I would have, though, loved it if they would have used his last Adult Contemporary hit from 1993, "Sing my Song for You" in the closing credits. After all, it is Ray Charles, a performer who had a fierce dedication to his art. | positive |
A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.<br /><br />I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.<br /><br />With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.<br /><br />I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.<br /><br />I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.<br /><br />If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick. | negative |
Plot is never the strong point of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie, but "Follow the Fleet"'s screenplay is exceptionally mediocre. Fred and Ginger still come off all right--they play "Bake" Baker and Sherry Martin, dancers whose personal and professional partnership ended when Bake joined the Navy. When they meet again, their love-hate relationship generates some entertaining comic moments. But for much of the movie, they take a backseat to a tedious subplot about Sherry's sister Connie (Harriet Hilliard), her love for sailor Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott), Bilge's dalliance with another woman, and an old schooner that Connie inherited from her father. Though Hilliard is rather charming, this plot is uninteresting.<br /><br />But at the same time, "Follow the Fleet" is blessed with an exceptional Irving Berlin score that gives the stars plenty of chances to show off their talents. Astaire gets two good solos with "We Saw the Sea" and "I'd Rather Lead a Band." He sings expressively and, of course, dances electrifyingly--and the sailor suit makes him look a little more boyish and athletic than usual. Rogers sings the catchy "Let Yourself Go" and later does a solo tap-dance to the same tune. <br /><br />The three duets really save the film, even though they're all shoehorned into the plot with silly excuses. Fred and Ginger win a dance contest by doing an energetic routine to another reprise of "Let Yourself Go". Later, they sing and dance "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" as if it were an early rehearsal of the number, flubbing the choreography to comic effect. At the end, the movie finally figures out how to get Fred and Ginger in evening clothes for a romantic duet--it makes it part of a show-within-the-show. The situation is contrived, but the song, "Let's Face the Music and Dance", is one of the most sinuously beautiful things Berlin ever wrote (it's reminiscent of Cole Porter), and the dancing matches it in elegance. Quintessential Astaire and Rogers.<br /><br />It would be a chore to sit through most of the dialogue sections of "Follow the Fleet" again, and, in fact, it's not necessary, because the plot rarely propels the musical numbers. But I could watch the songs over and over. | positive |
The Women (2008) by Diane English is sadly such a waste of talent. With Annette Benning, Candice Bergen, Bette Midler, Cloris Leachman whom I like and enjoy in everything I've seen them, and Meg Ryan, Jada Pinkett Smith, Debra Messing, and Eva Mendes who may not be my favorite actors but are nice to look at, how could the movie be boring, predictable, embarrassing, sloppy, and simply bad? It was made by Diane English who is known as the writer of the very successful TV show Murphy Brown, and it is her first movie for which she wrote a script. The movie has been a labor of love for English who had tried for many years to make it happen and I respect that. I even found the scenes with the supporting players, Bergen, Leechaman, Carry Fisher and Bette Middler in short but memorable cameos, funny, smart, and enjoyable but in general the movie is a second hand "Sex and the City" which was released few months ago. I did not find Sex and the City very good when I saw it but next to The Women, it was simply brilliant. At least, Sex and the City spared us the long and tasteless scene in the hospital's delivery room where one of the characters' was having a baby and her friends were there supporting her. Poor Debra Messing, what did she do to deserve that nightmare she was put through and we, the viewers together with her? The movies like "The Women" give the whole genre, chick flicks, a bad name. It is nothing wrong with the genre, but why is it so difficult to make a really good comedy about female friendships and hardships, about dealing with marriage, motherhood, and proving yourself professionally? These are all very compelling and important subjects any modern woman can relate to. Why making movies with the lines, dialogs, and situations so clichéd, predictable, not funny and insulting that they will be forgotten as soon as the movie is over?<br /><br />After I saw the new movie, I checked out from my local library the original The Women and I truly enjoyed it. The story was told much better 70 years ago, and kept my interest all the way. The old movie had a real star power. | negative |
The movie is an extra-long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure's spirit. The quite horribly American Patrick Swayze is cast as the British hero Allan Quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality.<br /><br />The movie continues throughout to "Hollywood-ise" the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. The movie manages to be predictable throughout, even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences.<br /><br />All in all, a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of King Soloman's Mines and Allan Quatermain. | negative |
The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to "Pull it together" or "Just calm down!" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.<br /><br />I notice other mentioned "Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.<br /><br />Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, "Are you kidding me?!" (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called "twist". At this point of the movie you could have seen the "monster" picking his nose and it would be considered a "twist". Truly horrible. You have been warned. | negative |
This is a movie, that has all the basic elements of its genre. It makes you wanna cry, it makes you laugh, it disgust you, it makes you angry etc. <br /><br />The topic of the story is fortunately not about some disease or drugs, what is the common trend in gay themed movies in these days, but it focuses on the social interactions between characters what could be considered not to be in the high school elite. The play and the direction could be a little bit more sophisticated, but on the other hand it's somehow better so, because it really shows the distress of the characters, that they are experiencing. If this was intended, then this is a remarkable job and assuredly an achievement, specially for such an young director. <br /><br />It's actually a good story that gives you a little inside into, how it is to be a fat girl and to acknowledge it to yourself. | positive |
I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.<br /><br />In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy. | negative |
If you want to enjoy the money you would spend to rent this money, go buy a bag of ice and watch it melt. That's more entertaining than this movie. <br /><br />Bill Cowell, shame on you. <br /><br />Or if you wanna see this movie plot, go in a corn field, bring two of the most annoying little girls you can find, run around for a couple hours having the girls scream as loud as possible. Then send me the couple bucks you woulda spent.<br /><br />I enjoyed the first Dark Harvest, after watching the sequel, I'm going to cry myself to sleep. | negative |
Any of Law & Order's, CSI (take your choice of city), and Homicide: Life on the Street's weakest episodes is superior to the strongest episode of Bones.<br /><br />David Boreanaz is stuck in crappy Angel mode, and Emily Deschanel portrays "Bones" too... unrealistically. The actors as a whole have terrible scenes together, be it with forced acting, or just awful lines.<br /><br />The murders become predictable after a while, as the foreshadowing and clues are just too obvious.<br /><br />Music is okay, though really unnecessary at times.<br /><br />All in all, Bones is hardly the show I'd recommend watching during the weekdays as it is a carbon-copy of better shows with unreal characters and ever-dulling stories.<br /><br />Skip this if you can. | negative |
I have watched this film twice now and think its quite good for the limited equipment used to create this film. (filmed in 1947) Dr. Heyerdahl explains his theory about the migration of south American Pre-Colubian Indians to the Polynesia's islands by way raft fell of large balsa trees. This documentary follows Dr. Heyerdahl and crew as they select balsa trees in Equidor and float with them down river to the pacific for assembly in Peru. They launch off on a 101 day sea adventure testing the strength of their primitive raft surviving only by means available to natives of that era. See for yourself, a real adventure! | positive |
I just saw "A Tale of Two Sisters" last night and really enjoyed it. I've been a big fan of Asian horror films recently and think that this is a strong entry from South Korea. There aren't many jump out at you scares as in the usual American horror film, but the director does maintain the off-kilter and foreboding mood very well, especially in the awkward character interactions with each other. Most of the scares are more conceptual and plays on everyone's "there's something under the bed" fears from when they were a child, but in this case, it's the closet and the sink. I also liked how the director was able to capture just how dysfunctional this household is through scenes such as the first dinner that the characters have together. He's also good at revealing people's inner life and fragility through simple scenes such as the stepmother wiping off her make-up in the mirror or her sitting in front of the flickering TV. I think this film is mainly an exploration of guilt and the consequences of living with that guilt hanging over you.<br /><br />MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD (DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE TWISTS OF THE MOVIE REVEALED) I was following the story pretty well, but did start getting confused during the bag dragging part. However, I think the flashback at the end definitely tied everything together. The film is very much like "The Machinist" in the way two of the character's joint guilt eventually leads to mental breakdowns and delusions.<br /><br />Here's my interpretation of the film. The Su-Yeon that we see after the girls supposed return to the house is either the delusion of Su-Mi or the actual ghost of Su-Yeon that only Su-Mi can see and interact with. The initial stepmother that we see is, in my opinion a delusion of Su-Mi. There is a real stepmother, however, and she first appears in the film when she's wearing the gray pantsuit. I believe it's the real stepmother that the father is talking to on the phone throughout the first part of the movie and she doesn't appear until he pick her up and brings her to the house. The stepmother before that point is imagined by Su-Mi (perhaps part of her split personality?) That explains the bizarre dinner party sequence when the stepmother's brother looks at her like she's crazy and doesn't remember anything that she recounts. I think it was Su-Mi acting out her stepmother part of her split personality. The film shows this later in the bag dragging scene and scenes such as the stepmother wiping her make-up in the mirror, which is revealed later to actually be Su-Mi wiping her make-up in the mirror.<br /><br />I think the ghosts in the house aren't entirely imagined by Su-Mi, and are either of Su-Yeon or the mother or both. In the final flashback, it is revealed the Su-Yeon was wearing the green dress and had the hairpin in her hair when she died. This is the green dress that they showed before on the ghost sitting at the dining room table while the stepmother was looking under the sink. Also, it's the hairpin that Su-Yeon was wearing in the flashback that appears on the floor when the stepmother is looking under the sink.<br /><br />The real stepmother, in the end, gets punished by the ghost of Su-Yeon who comes for in a scene a little bit like The Ring. After that, the flashback scene ties it all together in terms of how both the stepmother was mainly responsible for her death, while Su-Mi unintentionally played a supporting role.<br /><br />I wonder if the "mother" that Su-Yeon sees when she goes up to her room to cry, in the flashback, is a ghost already. Perhaps by that point the mother had already killed herself in the closet. That's left ambiguous.<br /><br />Other things that are suggested, but not clearly explained in the film is that it seems like the stepmother, at some point, was a nurse, perhaps taking care of the mother and somehow may have contributed to her death too. It's not clear when her relationship with the father began and whether it caused the mother to kill herself. It's also suggested that the mother had mental issues too, requiring a nurse. The stepmother alludes to this when she tells Su-Mi, you're beginning to take after your mother. I don't think she meant just physically.<br /><br />Also, if we accept that the initial stepmother that we see is actually Su-Mi, then there's the suggestion of incest too, since the father sleeps with her. Is that why Su-Mi freaks out and shouts, "Don't touch me" each time the father reaches for her in a later scenes? Is that the "filthy things that you've done" that she alludes to in a later conversation with the father? This film is interesting in it's capacity for different interpretations. A few of the scenes, however, were kind of derivative, such as the woman in the black crawling around scene, which reminded me of the herky-jerky movements of Kayako in the Ju-On/The Grudge films. Also, the final scene where the stepmother finally gets her just desserts is reminiscent of The Ring. Furthermore, just the idea that some characters may be ghosts is taken from "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others".<br /><br />Overall, I enjoyed it, however, and it will be interesting to see how the Hollywood remake (that's already in production) turns out. I have to be honest, I liked both "The Ring" and "The Grudge", so I'm not one of those snooty types who insist that remakes can't be good too. One remake that I'm really excited about is "Dark Water" coming out this summer. I haven't seen the original Japanese version yet, but both films are definitely on my to-see list. | positive |
I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of story and character development. Fulci was a master at creating horrific atmosphere using inventive camera work, vivid cinematography, and yes - wonderfully explicit gore.<br /><br />This film is no exception, however, compared to his later films (The Beyond, Zombie 2, City of the Living Dead, House by the Cemetery, etc.) the characters here are extremely well developed and the emphasis shies away from the supernatural and is more on the suspense created by a classic who-dunnit amongst the lush hills of Italy. The scenery is at moments reminiscent of cherished folklore and then immediately contrasted by mud and blood-soaked terror shrouded by crumbling ruins. The gore in this film is not quite as prevalent and seems restrained compared to Fulci's later films however, splatter and giallo fans will most likely be satiated by a few close-ups of oozing wounds and the last 5 minutes of the film.<br /><br />Overall a fantastic and mature film from one of our great Italian horror directors. | positive |
A comedy gem. Lots of laugh out loud moments, the shop and pub scenes had me belly- laughing uncontrollably. The characters are recognisable and the dialogue well-observed - I know people like this! The humour is surprisingly gentle and the film (this may sound strange) puts me in mind of an Ealing Comedy. It's a quirky little film with lots of detail. It certainly takes a number of viewings. I've watched it a few times (I've been showing all my friends!) and notice something new each time - a bit of dialogue,something visual that I hadn't picked up on before. I could get really picky and find a couple of shortcomings in the film but I'm not going to because overall this is a great fun, feel-good film which is really worth a watch and which anyone with a sense of humour must enjoy. It is a film which will find it's friends and I hope there are a lot of them out there. Oh.... and It has a great soundtrack. | positive |
This movie is TRASH from the word go. First, it gives an account of a season that took place 16 YEARS AGO! Who cares? This movie had about as much depth as a bottle cap. It makes a complex person like Bob Knight into a cartoon character.<br /><br />Swearing doesn't bother me, but I'm still amazed that ESPN showed a movie with more cursing than a Kevin Smith movie on a basic cable channel. The F-word was dropped at least 20 times before the first commercial break.<br /><br />This movie was terrible and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed. I rate this on the same level as Jaws IV - The Revenge and Everybody Wins...2 movies that are in the Crapfest Hall of Fame. | negative |
Sporting a title seemingly more suitable for a Looney Tunes featurette than a grisly giallo, "Don't Torture a Duckling" (1972) is nonetheless a Grade A thriller from horror maestro Lucio Fulci. In this one, someone has been strangling the preteen boys in a rural, southern Italian village and, typical for these gialli, there are many suspects. There's Barbara Bouchet (Patrizia), looking more scrumptiolicious than you've ever seen her, a rich girl hiding out after a drug scandal; Florinda Bolkan (Martiara), the local epileptic voodoo woman; her witchcraft-practicing beau; Giuseppe, the local idiot; the sweet-faced priest; his dour mother; and on and on. The film features some unusually violent set pieces, including a chain whipping of one of the main characters in a graveyard (one of the most realistically bloody sequences that I've ever seen) and a nifty dukeout when the killer is ultimately revealed. The film's bursts of violence compensate for the fact that there are no real scares or suspense to speak of. Still, this giallo fascinates, with its unusual rural backdrop, unsettling child murders, oddball characters, and freaky score by Riz Ortolani. The film has been beautifully photographed in what I presume to be Monte Sant'Angelo, near the Adriatic in southern Italy (at least, that town's police force is thanked in the closing credits). And while subtitling would've made this fine-looking DVD work even better (the American slang doesn't convince in this rural Italian setting), Anchor Bay is to be thanked for another job well done. Oh...that title DOES eventually make perfect sense, too! | positive |
Terror in the Jungle is a real find. If you saw it, you're one of the few lucky ones. It's hilarious!<br /><br />The story is about an airplane crashing in the middle of the south american jungle. The crash scene has to be seen to be believed. Everyone dies in the crash or they're subsequently eaten alive by crocodiles. Only a young blonde boy survives. A nearby tribes brings the kid to their village and they (all males) venerate him because of his golden hair! I kid you NOT! At the end, there's a lot of wrestling between the natives and the man on the search for any survivors of the downed airplane. All the while, the kid sits on a throne and his blond hair is surrounded by a golden halo and he cries nonstop!! It's a hoot!!!<br /><br />Very obscure and contains very questionable subtexts. A must if you're into obscure, it's-so-bad-it's-good movies. | negative |
I just cannot emphasize enough what a lovely movie this is. Just<br /><br />the memory of this movie right now enchants me. If you want to<br /><br />see a sweeping epic of a movie, with wonderful actors in vivid<br /><br />scenery, with great dialogue, reminding you of what early America<br /><br />could have been like [what the world could have been like back<br /><br />then]...well...I highly recommend this movie. Especially during a<br /><br />time of war and conflict in Iraq...when our American image is not at<br /><br />all what it used to be...this movie takes you back to a time when we<br /><br />were just starting out. When being an American meant really<br /><br />picking yourself up by your bootstraps and getting going. When<br /><br />the world was such an untamed and unknown place. Well, this<br /><br />movie has that...and more. Enjoy. | positive |
The film moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference. | negative |
This amusing, sometimes poignant look at the Hollywood detective genre of the 1940's and 1950's stars Robert Sacci as an unnamed former cop who retires, uses his life savings to pay for plastic surgery to transform his image into that of his idol, Humphrey Bogart, then sets up shop as a private eye under the name "Sam Marlowe". Robert Sacchi, incidentally, is one of the rare few Bogart impersonators who got the lisp exactly right; more to the point, the body and facial language are there. For awhile, "Sam"'s only client is his landlady, who wants him to find her undersized boyfriend, and his only conversational foil is his secretary, simply called "Dutchess" (Misty Rowe), who in his own words, "looked like Marilyn Monroe and made about as much sense as Gracie Allen", and has a passion for banana splits. Then he encounters Elsa (Olivia Hussey), the plain, sweet, virginal daughter of a retired props-master who has been murdered for no discernible reason. In the process of investigating the murder, Sam shortly runs across: the Gene Tierney lookalike daughter (Michelle Phillips) of Anastas, an avaricious, obscenely wealthy Greek shipping tycoon (Victor Buono, turning in a creditable Sidney Greenstreet), his hapless, long-suffering second wife (Yvonne deCarlo, who manages to play a variety of put-upon emotions without saying a word), his two smarmy henchmen (Herbert Lom, channelling Peter Lorre, and Jay Robinson, doing a reasonably accurate Lionel Atwill), and Anastas' vicious, amoral Middle-Eastern potentate (Franco Nero) who comes complete with a glamorus and bafflingly loyal mistress (Sybil Danning), all of whom would give anything to acquire the "Eyes of Alexander", two huge, perfectly matched star sapphires. When Elsa is murdered, Marlowe's interest in solving the case becomes personal, and he sets out through a labyrinth of Los Angeles landmarks, including the Hollywood Bowl, the scatological and esoteric attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Catalina Island in pursuit of the rocks, determined to get at them before either of the two wealthy competitors. Throw in cameos by Mike Mazurki and assorted others, the traditional dumb-but-sympathetic ally on the police force, and a plethora of nicely drawn character turns that provide dimension to practically all players, and despite an unfortunate title song, you have, to my mind, a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience. | positive |
This truly is an Australia cult classic. If you're one of the lucky ones to have seen it-- then you are very lucky. It has been released in most countries, but not in Australia for some reason. I have a copy on DVD from the UK. Not a great transfer, but I bought it, having seen it previously at a film festival. The directing is spot on and the performances rock! This is dark film scary film, but often times, very funny in parts. I urge you to see this film, there is a coolness about this you don't see in 99% of the typical Aussie fare. The screenplay is very well crafted and sends you on a journey where you know it will end badly, but until the last ten minutes, you just can't pick how badly. Great work from the four leads, especially Lachy Hulme. <br /><br />When its all said and done: Great work on display! | positive |
Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.<br /><br />Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.<br /><br />Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.<br /><br />Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content | positive |
I was skeptical when I first saw the Calvin Kline-esque commercials, but thought I'd give it a chance. So I've watched it, and all I can say is bleh. This movie was so bad. It's rare that I hate a movie this much. Watching this flick reminded me of those funny scenes in Altman's "The Player," when the writers pitch their bizarre ideas to producers. I'd like to know which MTV producer decided that an hour and a half long music video adaptation of Bronte (but this time Heathcliff's name is Heath and he's a rock star, and Hindley's name is Hendrix) would be a good idea.<br /><br />Even that might not have been so bad, had they not gotten every other aspect of the film so horrible wrong as well. The direction must have been "you're lonely, pout for me." I laughed out loud during all the "serious" scenes and was bored throughout the rest. The camera work was jagged and repeatedly reminded me that I was watching a bad movie trying to be edgy. My theory is that the sound guy got bored and went down to the beach for a few beers with his boom -- all I could hear in half the scenes were the waves. And in the other scenes, I wish that's all I could hear. And speaking of sound, what they did to the Sisters of Mercy song "More" is absolutely inexcusable, then again, it's inexcusable what they did to Bronte.<br /><br />On the bright side, there was one entertaining scene -- specifically the moment when Johnny Whitworth licked Katherine Heigl's face -- and if you can tell me what that scene had to do with all the rest of the story more power to you. | negative |
This movie baffled me. I could not get a grip on it. Thought I might be missing something. Glad to see that most of you agree with me. This isn't always the case (see my recent review of RE: Extinction).<br /><br />To expound upon the faults of this film any further would be a glorious waste of time...so I will...<br /><br />They're dressed like cowboys, but it's modern times, right? No? I don't get it??? When I picked up the box, I thought: ZOMBIE WESTERN! COOL! That's how it was presented. Haven't seen that yet. Hope they did a good job.<br /><br />They DIDN'T! They tried to create an iconic character that would spawn a series. They didn't.<br /><br />They tried to make an Aussie indie zombie flick on the caliber (and perhaps riding on the coat tails) of the very well done "UNDEAD". They didn't.<br /><br />Okay, maybe they just wanted to make a confusing, disjointed, mess of film salad that might ultimately be edited into something watchable. They DIDN'T! This is the new number 2 on my list of Worst Zombie Movies Ever. There are really just the two so far, "DAY OF THE DEAD: CONTAGIUM" being the first (not to be confused with "DAY OF THE DEAD", which is one of my favorite zombie movies of all time). If you're gonna make a zombie movie (and I'm not a zombie movie maker, I'm just a connoisseur) make a good one. Flight of the Living Dead is a good example of decent recent zombie filmaking. FYI.<br /><br />If you're really forgiving, you might think, well, didn't they at least throw in something to make us feel like we didn't want our money back? Guess what...THEY DIDN'T! | negative |
I finally rented this video after searching for it for many months. Initially I only wanted to see it because I'm an out and out Neil Pearson fan (Patrick, boyfriend of Isobel, the lead). However, the movie stands up very well without Neil (although he handles himself very well in this movie, he is overshadowed by the three main female characters). It's an eerie, intense movie, the sort the Brits do so well - definitely a "chick flick" the house and it's isolated setting giving the movie an almost "Wuthering Heights" aura. The movie is full of tension and the ending, shocking, yet somehow inevitable. I'm glad I watched it, it was worth the wait | negative |
I saW this film while at Birmingham Southern College in 1975, when it was shown in combination with the Red Balloon. Both films are similar in their dream-like quality. The bulk of the film entails a fish swimming happily in his bowl while his new owner, a little boy, is away at school. A cat enters the room where the fish and his bowl are, and begins to warily stalk his "prey." The boy begins his walk home from school, and the viewer wonders whether he will arrive in time to save his fish friend. The fish becomes agitated by the cat's presence, and finally jumps out of the bowl! The cat quickly walks over to the fish, gently picks him up with his paws, and returns him to his bowl. The boy returns happily to his fish, none the wiser.<br /><br />The ending is amazing in both its irony and its technical complexity. It is hard to imagine how the director could've pulled the technical feat back in 1959 -- it seems more a trick for 2003.<br /><br />If you can find it, watch it -- you won't be disappointed! And if you *do* find it, let me know so I can get a copy, too! | positive |
I just recently stumbled upon this show when ABC family had an all day marathon before season 2 premiered. I remember seeing previews for the show back in 2007, and thought it would be short lived, and not very well written, because it was on ABC Family.<br /><br />Never doubt an ABC family show! This show surprised me in the best way possible. Not only is the show well written, story lines are realistic, funny, and enjoyable. I was expecting a lot of talk about relationships, something like "this guy dated that girl who dumped me for that kid... etc." But this show is anything but! The characters are appealing and you really feel a connection between them all. There is a lot of chemistry between the actors, and they can really make you feel like the stuff is happening right before your eyes.<br /><br />Don't doubt this show, it is truly enjoyable to watch... and get hooked on ;) | positive |
Conrad Hall went out with a bang. The great film photographer finished his illustrious career with this movie before passing on. He did himself proud as this is one of the best-looking crime films you'll ever see.<br /><br />Of course, the acting ain't bad when you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman playing the leads! The amount of action in here is just right, too: not too much; not too little.<br /><br />None of the characters in here, frankly, are "good guys" as Hanks is a professional hit-man for town boss Newman. Hanks' only redeeming quality is not wanting his young son to wind up a killer like him, although he does teach him how to be the getaway man in robberies! Huh?<br /><br />As good as the acting is and as interesting as the story is, the real star of this film is cinematographer Hall, who paints scene after beautiful scene with his lens. His work is just awesome. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.