text
stringlengths 70
9.35k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.
| 0neg
|
This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.<br /><br />I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).<br /><br />Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?<br /><br />Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?<br /><br />Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
David Webb Peoples meets Paul Anderson...if it already sounds weird to you, then you are right, because it is.<br /><br />Peoples is known for his scripts with moral implications of what is right and wrong, the value of life, etc... He covered these issues in Bladerunner, Unforgiven, and pretty much in all of his screenplays there is something along those lines.<br /><br />Paul Anderson's first successful movie was a violent thriller. Not surprisingly so have all of his other movies! And here is a violent thriller with moral implications!<br /><br />Peoples' script is quite apparent in the first half of the movie. Soldiers trained from birth, taught to kill, and never had a normal life. They are replaced by better, genetically engineered soldiers and Todd, one of the original soldiers, is left on a planet and left for dead. There he must cope with a group of refugees, some want him to stay others hate him and there is an interesting drama here. BUT THEN...<br /><br />...The bullets start to fly as the new soldiers move onto the planet for a military exercise and try to kill all the people. Big, violent, loud action ensues and Peoples' script turns into an Anderson action-fest. It is hard to believe that the script was originally written that way, but the end product is better then I expected. Entertaining, somewhat, though admittedly not very, thought-provoking, and exciting once the action starts. 7/10<br /><br />Rated R: a lot of violence
| 1pos
|
Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.
| 1pos
|
Titanic is a classic. I was really surprised that this movie didn't have a solid ten, overall in the IMDb user rankings. Maybe, it's just cool to not give Titanic credit nowadays, but when it was first made it was really something. When the movie came out people flocked to the theaters. When it came out on video my sister and i would watch it twice a day for a month. It was safe to say we were obsessed and for good reason. Some of the disaster scenes were hard to forgot, like the frozen baby, or the guy who committed suicide after killing someone in the unruly crowd. Many people died on that ship, and to convey that on film with the immediacy and emotion it needed is a hard challenge that James Cameron stepped up to. And let's not forget the amazing romance between Jack and Rose. Whether or not their relationship was a figment of someone's imagination it was lovely. They barely knew each other, but they would die for each other. They trusted each other. They sure as hell are giving Romeo and Juliet a run for their money. "I'll never let go, Jack." Titanic is a great film down to it's very core. It is a powerful story told through brilliant acting, excellent cinematography, beautiful music, and a crew full of hard and dedicated workers. It really blows my mind when someone says they hate this movie.
| 1pos
|
In an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.<br /><br />The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort.
| 0neg
|
I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like "Switch". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto" ("Man & Woman Up to a Point")
| 0neg
|
if you are like me then you will love this great coming of age teen movie.i think it is up there with mischief/book of love/high school USA/shout/calender girl/crybaby/ all great movies set in the lat 50s & early 60s and it has a wonderful soundtrack.not as many songs as in some of these type of movies but still great.it is all so very funny at times and has a great love interest.all the young cast are great.i wish there were more type of these wonderful movies.my favourite movie of all time is back to the future when Marty mcfly gos back to 1955 well in these wonderful movies it stays in the fab 50s(early 60s) there are some movies of this type better than this but not many.
| 1pos
|
It was a doubly interesting experience. For some reason the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century had never been the central figure in a movie*. The closest I can think of as films with Einstein in them are CHAMPAIGN FOR CAESAR, where (like a "deus ex ma-china") the great man is heard clarifying a point on a radio quiz show, so that Ronald Colman is proved to have given the correct answer after all, and in BULLSHOT where the great Albert is one of a dozen leading physicists and scientists who are drugged with cannabis by the villain, intent on stealing some machines of theirs. It is notable that in those two cases, and in IQ, we are dealing with comedies. So far nobody has tried to do a serious film about the life of Einstein, like John Huston's attempt to do one on FREUD with Montgomery Cliff. I guess it is just too hard to get the world of mathematical equations or the secrets of electro-magnetic field theory into exciting dialog. But then, only three years ago Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer did A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Maybe nobody really has tried.<br /><br />(*Subsequently, after writing this, I remembered the successful comedy YOUNG EINSTEIN with Yahoo Serious about ten years ago. But that is an exception and it was a spoof.)<br /><br />The other surprise was the actor playing the great Albert. It was Walter Matthau, here taking time away from the series of films he did with Jack Lemmon in that last decade of their careers. Matthau was a highly capable and gifted character actor, in both comedy and drama, but normally his comic personas were variants of his "Whiplash Willie" Gingrich from THE FORTUNE COOKIE. They were connivers and gonifs. Later they would shed their criminal propensities because we had grown to like them, but they remained grumpy types. But his Albert Einstein happens to be genuinely sweet. More like his Kotch than like Willie Clarke.<br /><br />He plays Albert as good old uncle Albert. It seems that Matthau's Einstein is living in Princeton with his niece Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan), and she is seeing a stuffy professor named James Morland (Stephen Fry). But Fry's car needs repairs, and they take it to the auto shop where Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) works. Robbins falls for Ryan, who is attracted to him - but finds that he lacks the mental equipment that she admires. Good old uncle Albert, aided by his three friends (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, and Gene Saks) decide to give their assistance to Robbins and make him an apparently unrecognized physics genius. This will open the doors of romance between him and Ryan, provided Ryan is impressed and Fry does not spoil things (as he hopes to do).<br /><br />The atmosphere is sweet, as when Matthau and his chums rig up a super physics quiz that they help Robbins cheat on (by switching the positions of their bodies). The plot eventually leads to the outright lie that the brilliant Robbins has constructed an atomic powered rocket ship - which brings in the interests of the nation in the figure of President Eisenhower (Keene Curtis).<br /><br />It was a charming comedy, and an interesting stretch for Matthau in that he was not as hyper as normal, but far more subdued.
| 1pos
|
This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.
| 0neg
|
Johnny Weissmuller's final film as 'King of the Jungle', after 16 years in the role, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS, is bound to disappoint all but the most ardent of his fans. At 44, the ex-Olympian, one of Hollywood's most active 'party animals', was long past the slim athleticism of his youth, and looked tired (although he was in marginally better condition than in his previous entry, TARZAN AND THE HUNTRESS).<br /><br />Not only had Weissmuller gotten too old for his role; Johnny Sheffield, the quintessential 'Boy', had grown to manhood (he was a strapping 17-year old), so he was written out of the script, under the pretext of being 'away at school'. Brenda Joyce, at 35, was appearing in her fourth of five films as 'Jane' (she would provide the transition when Lex Barker became the new Tarzan, in 1949's TARZAN'S MAGIC FOUNTAIN) and was still as wholesomely sexy as ever.<br /><br />Produced by Sol Lesser, at RKO, on a minuscule budget, the cast and crew took advantage of cheaper labor by filming in Mexico. While the location gave a decidedly Hispanic air to what was supposedly darkest Africa, veteran director Robert Florey utilized the country extensively, incorporating cliff diving and an Aztec temple into the story.<br /><br />When a young island girl (Tyrone Power's future bride, Linda Christian) is rescued in a jungle river by Tarzan, he learns that a local high priest (George Zucco, one of filmdom's most enduring villains) had virtually enslaved the local population, threatening retribution from a living 'God' if they don't do his bidding. The girl had been chosen to become the 'God's' bride, so she fled. Faster than you can say 'Is this a dumb plot or WHAT?', the girl is kidnapped by the priest's henchmen and returned to the island, and Tarzan, followed by Jane, colorful Spanish character 'Benjy' (charmingly played by John Laurenz, who sings several tunes), and a government commissioner are off to take on the Deity and his priest (poor Cheeta is left behind). After a series of discoveries (the 'God' is simply a con man in an Aztec mask, working with the priest in milking the island's rich pearl beds), a bit of brawling action, and comic relief and songs by Benjy, everything reaches the expected happy conclusion.<br /><br />Remarkably, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS features a musical score by the brilliant film composer, Dimitri Tiomkin, and is far better than what you'd expect from this 'B' movie! <br /><br />While the film would provide a less-than-auspicious end to Weissmuller's time in Tarzan's loincloth (he would immediately go on to play Jungle Jim, a more eloquent variation of the Ape Man, in khakis), the talent involved lifted the overall product at least a little above the total mess it could have been.<br /><br />Tarzan was about to get a make over, and become much sexier...
| 0neg
|
A strange role for Eddie Murphy to take at the height of his career. While there is a lot of the "Eddie Murphy character," he plays a truly decent person. The rest of the cast is good, particularly the lovely Charlotte Lewis. Her character's beauty and serenity held the tone of the film from getting to be too much Murphy.
| 1pos
|
Carla works for a property developer's where she excels in being unattractive, unappreciated and desperate. She is also deaf.<br /><br />Her boss offers to hire in somebody to alleviate her heavy workload so she uses the opportunity to secure herself some male company. Help arrives in the form of Paul, a tattooed hoodlum fresh out of prison and clearly unsuited to the mannered routine of an office environment.<br /><br />An implicit sexual tension develops between the two of them and Carla is determined to keep him on despite his reluctance to embrace the working week. When Carla is edged out of an important contract she was negotiating by a slimy colleague she exploits Paul's criminality by having him steal the contract back. The colleague quickly realises that she's behind the robbery, but when he confronts her, Paul's readiness to punch people in the face comes in handy too - but this thuggery comes at a price. <br /><br />Paul is given a 'going over' by some mob acquaintances as a reminder about an unpaid debt. He formulates a plan which utilises Carla's unique lip reading abilities to rip-off a gang of violent bank robbers. It's now Carla's turn to enter a frightening new world.<br /><br />The fourth feature from director Jacques Audiard, 'READ MY LIPS' begins as a thoroughly engaging romantic drama between two marginalised losers only to shift gears halfway through into an edgy thriller where their symbiotic shortcomings turn them into winners. The leads are excellent; effortlessly convincing us that this odd couple could really connect. Carla's first meeting with Paul is an enjoyable farce in which she attempts to circumnavigate his surly reticence and jailbird manners only to discover that he was, until very recently, a jailbird. Emmanuelle Devos, who plays Carla, has that almost exclusive ability to go from dowdy to gorgeous and back again within a frame. Vincent Cassel plays Paul as a cornered dog who only really seems at home when he's receiving a beating or concocting the rip-off that is likely to get him killed.<br /><br />Like many French films, 'READ MY LIPS' appears, at first, to be about nothing in particular until you scratch beneath the surface and find that it's probably about everything. The only bum note is a subplot concerning the missing wife of Paul's parole officer; a device that seems contrived only to help steer the main thrust of the story into a neat little feelgood cul-de-sac.<br /><br />It was the French 'New Wave' of the 60's that first introduced the concept of 'genre' to film making and I've always felt that any medium is somewhat compromised when you have to use a system of labels to help define it; so it's always a pleasure to discover a film that seems to transcend genre, or better still, defy it.
| 1pos
|
"ASTONISHING" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...<br /><br />You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an "underground cult director". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.<br /><br />Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10
| 0neg
|
I think Via Satellite is one of the best New Zealand made movies around. I loved the way the movie delt with all the characters within the entire movie. It was brilliant, and a heartfelt movie.<br /><br />A well made movie, one which I will always remember, and watch again.
| 1pos
|
save your money. i have been a fan of fullmoon productions for a long time and i have never seen them make a movie as bad as this. the casting is terrible, the story is even worse and the special affects are worse than any movie iv'e seen sence the 80's. this movie is so bad i cant even suggest renting it.
| 0neg
|
This series would have been a lot better if they had just done one simple thing: Made Ian McShane Code Name: Diamond Head instead of Code Name: Tree. Diamond Head the character needs someone who could handle the role of the lovable rogue, which McShane proved he could do with the Lovejoy series. Roy Thinnes, the actual Diamond Head, is really only so-so in the role. McShane is not really that good as the bad guy Tree. France Nuyen's character, Tso-Tsing, can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she's the hapless victim or the tough-and-ready-to-fight woman. She really earned her pay at the end when she had to play the role of Diamond Head's lover. After viewing an episode or two, I ended up not caring what happened to anyone. Tree gives us a lot to hate him, but Diamond Head gives us nothing to like him. Unfortunately, the spy genre in the 1970s was not quite as it was in the 1960's.
| 0neg
|
Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?
| 0neg
|
Slim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused.
| 0neg
|
"An album of songs so old everyone thinks they're new." This film has the elusive combination of pace and mood that set some films apart from the opening moments. And why not? Towering talent from Dame Judith Dench as a widow who plays saxaphone with a street musician to help him get the songs right, to Olympia Dukakis as the merry widow living in a Scottish castle on the alimony of her many marriages, to Ian Holm as the drummer who loved all the members of a World War II all girl (more or less) swing band. But wait, there's more. Add in Leslie Caron on bass, and the incomparable Clio Laine on lead vocal, at last, and the Blonde Bombshells are the hottest band in England since the Beatles. Well, OK, not really, but this movie is a winner.<br /><br />Elizabeth (Dench) spends the whole film trying to reunite the Blonde Bombshells to play at her granddaughter's school dance. And before you roll your eyes, imagine how difficult and courageous it would be for a bunch of sexegenarian women to step onstage in front of the Britney Spears generation following an act called "Open Wound."<br /><br />In an age when actresses careers are over by the time they're 30, most bands' second album is a greatest hits compilation, and music more than a month old has almost no chance of airplay, it's great to see real talent, real music and a really good movie come from, where else, the BBC.<br /><br />I love this movie, and I know I'll watch it many more times, and enjoy it more each time.
| 1pos
|
I only watched this because it starred Josie Lawrence, who I knew<br /><br />from Whose Line is it Anyway?, the wacky British improvisational<br /><br />comedy show. I was very pleasantly surprised by this heartwarming and magical gem. It is uplifting, touching, and<br /><br />romantic without being sappy or sentimental. The characters are<br /><br />all real people, with real foibles, fears and needs. See it.!
| 1pos
|
Routine suspense yarn about a sociopath (Dillon) who gives his sperm to a clinic of human reproduction and starts to harrass the lives of the woman (Antony) and his husband (Mancuso). Extremely predictable, far-fetched and with undecided tone all the way. Don't lose your time with this one...make a baby instead!
| 0neg
|
Very smart, sometimes shocking, I just love it. It shoved one more side of David's brilliant talent. He impressed me greatly! David is the best. The movie captivates your attention for every second.
| 1pos
|
Honestly, I was expecting to HATE this one, and really only checked it out because Jenna Jameson is in it...but I have to say I got a kick out of EVIL BREED. A group of college kids and their teacher go on a "field trip" to Ireland. Their lodgings are located near the woods where it is rumored that strange things happen and tourists often disappear without a trace. The group of post-teens is warned by the property's caretaker not to venture into the woods - but being the stupid B-movie characters that they are - of course they pay no attention and pay for their mistake one-by-one... First off, there is plenty wrong with EVIL BREED. The acting/dialog is pretty weak, and my major gripe is that a film that has Jenna Jameson, Chasey Lain, Ginger Lynn, and Taylor Hayes should have FAR more gratuitous nudity than was on display here - and Jenna's role in this production is grossly over-hyped, as she has a combined total of about 2 minutes of screen time. Even less with Chasey, and Ginger Lynn shows no skin and has the worst Irish accent ever. Also the last scene of the film makes absolutely no sense and feels like it's thrown in just to end the film. Those gripes aside - there is some good stuff as well. Richard Greico and Chasey Lain are both dispatched early on, with Greico's nude torso ending up on a roasting spit and Chasey's guts hanging out from being torn in half (though how she ends up this way isn't shown on-screen)...not bad for the first 5 minutes. The other kill scenes are pretty inventive, including Jenna's forced breast implant removal, a guy getting his colon pulled out through his ass, a knife through the face, and a few other notables. The implant and colon scenes also have uncut versions that are on the special features and it's a shame the producers made them chop 'em, so to speak. Also the film moves along at a pretty good clip once it gets moving so you don't really have too much time to be bored. The "creature" FX are also done competently which definitely helps. Overall, EVIL BREED was not NEARLY as bad as I expected. This one, along with SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER have ALMOST renewed my interest in American low-budget straight-to-video films. I usually steer clear of them as a whole, but these two have been decent enough to give me some faith. EVIL BREED is no masterpiece, but it is a decent way to blow 90 minutes - might not hurt to suck on a bottle of cheap bourbon while you're at it - I know I was, and I'm sure it didn't hurt the experience. 7.5/10
| 1pos
|
Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.<br /><br />James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.<br /><br />According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.<br /><br />SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.<br /><br />It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.
| 1pos
|
It's hard to say anything about a movie like this because there isn't enough words to give this magnificent, stylish and unique film the veneration it unquestionably deserves. They should make this the official and only true real Hamlet -movie because all the previous films out of the same immortal spectacle are being overshadowed by Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet".<br /><br />It's a perfect, complete version of the play, potent, massive, earthshaking first-class masterpiece Shakespeare would have been proud of. They've packed over a dozen of world-famous top actors in the same film and everyone of them is having one of the greatest performances of their career. Every moving and charming sequence leaves behind a comprehensive sense of satisfaction.<br /><br />The cameras embrace gracefully the enchanting coulisses. Branagh is phenomenal in the leading role. His sharp, irresistible performance is the only one of it's kind and will be permanently part of the glorious movie history. Every second in this presentation is feast for the movie lover from beginning to the very end. Branagh's version of "Hamlet" is among the ten best motion pictures ever.
| 1pos
|
This was a "cute" movie at first, then then got too sappy and featured mediocre songs, at best.<br /><br />There is too much King James English spoken with is not only annoying in today's world but not always easy to interpret. Can you imagine young people of today trying to listen to this film? Forget it.<br /><br />Bing Crosby has some good lines in here and is likable as "Hank Martin." Rhonda Fleming ("Alisande La Carteloise") was, too, in addition to her good looks and beautiful, long red hair. <br /><br />It's a nice movie with a feel-good ending, and I can't knock that. Maybe this is worthy of a rental, for historical sake or if you're a big Crosby fan but, overall, it's not that much.
| 0neg
|
The first two-thirds of this biopic of fetish model Betty Page are very interesting. Betty, as portrayed with enormous sincerity by Gretchen Mol, comes across as a pleasant, girl-next-door type, who saw nothing wrong with what she did (and there certainly wasn't anything "wrong" with it). Director Mary Harron, who also made "I Shot Andy Warhol" and "American Psycho", recreates Betty's America by mixing old black and white stock footage with new, degraded, black and white footage. Once Betty lands in Florida and starts working with Bunny Yeager, color is introduced. Betty's notoriety was mostly the result of her work with Paula and Irving Klaw (Lili Taylor, in a great performance, and Chris Bauer), as well as John Willie (Jared Harris). The scenes where Harron recreates Betty's bondage photography sessions are fascinating and adroitly executed. The early purveyors of fetish material are not portrayed too condescendingly and we get a sense that these folks were part of a tight "community". Betty never had too much of a problem with her notoriety, although we get the impression that her reputation prevented her from gaining legitimacy in the straight acting world. Because the film's third act is virtually non-existent, we are left with the impression that we have been watching a feature length documentary on Betty Page rather than a structured drama. Flaws aside, it's a film well worth catching and represents yet another fine feather in the cap of producer Christine Vachon.
| 1pos
|
Dev Anand (or Prashant) and Zeenat Aman ( Jasbir/Janice) are siblings brought up in single parent families. Jasbir (the sister) grows up in an affluent environment but this is not enough to lead her to reject her life and ultimately join a hippie movement that eventually leads her to drugs. Prashant (the brother) on the other hand grows up in a less affluent environment but grows up to be a matured gentleman. The story marks Prashant making efforts to save his little sister (who is perpetually in a trance) from a hostile hippie environment. This movie stands the test of time, commenting that cults and hippie groups are a place for those who give up on their lives when they should instead stand up and be counted in the face of adversity. Great music compositions in this movie that mean different things in different situations and to different people, and the director brings forth an eerie feeling to it.
| 1pos
|
Not even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the "two" of a "one-two punch" he had hoped would define his career after "Ordinary People") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: "if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911." If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid at all costs. <br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Thank God I watched this at a friend's place and did not pay for it. The plot is horribly transparent and the whole movie felt like an episode of a TV show. If you have any knowledge of computers or electronics, watch out. You will feel feel like the movie is an insult to your intelligence. <br /><br />Also, actress turned Much Music VJ Amanda Walsh displays the worst acting I have ever seen, excluding porn. She's lucky that Matt Lanter is actually decent. He's the one that carries the movie. <br /><br />I hate that I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this movie! It's a shame that they got to call it a sequel, because I was a fan of the original, which was actually pretty good.
| 0neg
|
I have seen some pretty bad movies, and this is right up there. No plot to speak of, it's like one of those bad coma episodes on a soap-opera. I just wanted to smack that little girl because, well lets just say, she's real suspicious all the way through the movie. The monsters running around wearing some bling was funny. I also saw a bit of "Silent Hill" in there. And I read that this was done by, and or stared a Finnish metal band, Lordi. So it's no wonder that it didn't make much sense. It seem to be a vehicle for promoting there band and nothing more. The FX are very good, the look of the movie, the monsters, and even the acting also good. But the story and the telling of it, just aren't there.
| 0neg
|
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10
| 0neg
|
This film is a huge steaming pile. <br /><br />I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.<br /><br />For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. <br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot!
| 0neg
|
After mistaking a Halloween re-broadcast of Orson Welles' classic radio adaptation of WAR OF THE WORLDS for a real Martian invasion, a group of moronic Martians shows up on Earth looking to conquer only their plans go awry as they find themselves truly out of their element and in reality all alone.<br /><br />This really is often quite good and funny, with some decent lines (just check the memorable quotes) to boot. It will most likely appeal to Sci-Fi fans. This has passed the test of time for me as seeing it again recently it proved much better than I expected it to be. Despite a cast made up of no-name stars, this may just be the funniest Martian invasion ever put to film. Interestingly enough, the Martians themselves seem to represent almost every classic Action Hero/Sci-Fi Hero stereotype there is (cool 50s teen, fighter pilot, fearless astronaut, brave soldier and kooky scientist). Fun for the whole family. <br /><br />"Prepare to DIE! Earth Scum!"
| 1pos
|
I haven't seen "Henry Fool", but after watching "Fay Grim" I'm not sure I want to. Maybe Hartley aims to be the "anti-thriller" director---he sure succeeded with this yawner. Based on the official description---woman discovers that her dead husband's manuscript contains material that could pose a threat to national security---I expected a taut geopolitical drama. Instead I got flimsy structure, goofy dialog, flabby characterizations, a convoluted plot, and a "tone" that shifts so often it suggests that Hartley changed the script according to his mood at any given time. I can hang for a long time with a frustrating, hard-to-follow plot (e.g. "Duplicity") because I figure that the loose ends eventually will come together. Even when they don't, or they do but they leave lingering questions (e.g. "Duplicity"), sharp writing and acting can hold one's interest. But half-way through "Fay Grim" I reached a deadly realization---I didn't know what was going on, and I didn't care. Too bad, because I really like Parker Posey, reduced here to working with an absurd part that asked her to morph from indifferent, estranged wife and indifferent, clueless mother to tough, shrewd international "player" capable of psychological mano a mano with terrorists. There's also bad casting. Jeff Goldblum can be very good, but he's not capable of overcoming miscasting as a CIA operative. He looks almost as uncomfortable in the role as I was watching him in it. His CIA sidekick is worse; he looks like a refugee from the quarterfinals of "American Idol" (are there really young CIA agents with big licks of hair rakishly draped over their foreheads?). Then there's the sticky question of the characters' ages. Goldblum was 54 when he made "Fay Grim"; Thomas Jay Ryan, who plays "Henry Fool", was 44. Neither was made to look or seem older than their actual ages. Yet, a key point in the story is that they served as CIA agents in Nicaragua "back in the '70s." Goldblum's character would've been in his 20s then; Henry Fool would've been a teenager. Was Hartley being "quirky" or lazy? The problems are too numerous to list...
| 0neg
|
Well it was a nice surprise after all. its trailer did not predict a good film at all, it was even a bit misleading. Especially the part of Jeff Bridges was a positive surprise, well written, sardonic and funny. Less real though, I do not think a guy who got where he got would show signs of such irreverence towards everything that his current company stands for. One does not become a top suit just to doubt it all suddenly again. The ending of the film, during the showing of Dolce Vita, was too corny, cliché and quite disappointing. And of course a guy like Pegg's character would not last past his first week in a blitz New York magazine like this. I hope one day I will see a decent role written for Megan Fox, here she looked a poor actress playing a bimbo. And by the way, I do not see why she is the "sex symbol" of the year, I see hotter girls on nearly every cover of every magazine.
| 1pos
|
This movie was on British TV last night, and is wonderful! Strong women, great music (most of the time) and just makes you think. We do have stereotypes of what older people "ought" to do, and there are fantastic cameos of the "sensible but worried children". Getting near to my best movie ever !
| 1pos
|
I just blew four dollars renting this movie! Why Alliance Atlantis would promote such a poor excuse for a film is beyond me. But even more surprising was the reasonably good reviews that a couple of Canadian newspaper critics gave this film. I'm tired of our media justifying a film simply because it's Canadian and low budget. It's like they expect Canadian films to be lousy, so they give it a good review regardless.<br /><br />Now about the movie: The acting was below average (with the exception of the lead male character, who was actually pretty good). The film quality was poor, which I guess could be expected from the extremely low budget. The script was absolutely horrendous. An example is the story, which revolves around one of the lead characters, a female drug dealer who flirts with one of her clients so that she can recruit him to fix and steal bicycles for her gang, whose only purpose is to randomly destroy SUV's. Supposedly many of her gang members' bicycles are destroyed in these activities (I don't know how she can't afford to just buy new ones, since she is supposed to be this big drug dealing connection from Vancouver to Toronto).<br /><br />Anyway, the point of the story (which isn't revealed until well over halfway through the movie) is that the drug dealer plans to firebomb buildings in the Toronto area to attempt to make houses more affordable - as no one will want to live in the area.<br /><br />- Need I say more.<br /><br />Shame on the Toronto Film Festival for accepting such a film, Telefilm for supporting it, and the Globe and Mail and Georgia Straight newspapers for giving such biased reviews.<br /><br />A film shouldn't get special treatment just because it's Canadian!!!!
| 0neg
|
Caught the tail end of this movie channel surfing through the cable movie channels, and was so intrigued I sought out the next showing.<br /><br />I really didn't know what to expect after reading the program summary, but I came away from this movie feeling quite disturbed and distressed. It also gave me as adult who attended high school in the 80's, a little better insight into what our kids have to contend with these days.<br /><br />The fact that you don't see the shooting only adds to the chillness of the plot. To see both child and adult alike struggle to comprehend and come to terms with the senseless shootings was at times overwhelming. And will admit that I shed quite a few tears throughout.<br /><br />On the whole, not a movie that I would seek out to what, however I am sure glad I did see it.
| 1pos
|
No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series "Monarch Cove." Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.<br /><br />Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her "Thorn Birds" days.<br /><br />The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of "steamy" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.<br /><br />If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.<br /><br />CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!
| 0neg
|
A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).<br /><br />He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.<br /><br />Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.<br /><br />Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.<br /><br />About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.<br /><br />I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.
| 0neg
|
while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the "spoilers" explanation, "'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film." well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...
| 0neg
|
My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.<br /><br />WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.<br /><br />I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to<br /><br />If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE<br /><br />MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10<br /><br />RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!
| 0neg
|
Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended.
| 1pos
|
What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other.
| 0neg
|
Airport '77 starts as a brand new luxury 747 plane is loaded up with valuable paintings & such belonging to rich businessman Philip Stevens (James Stewart) who is flying them & a bunch of VIP's to his estate in preparation of it being opened to the public as a museum, also on board is Stevens daughter Julie (Kathleen Quinlan) & her son. The luxury jetliner takes off as planned but mid-air the plane is hi-jacked by the co-pilot Chambers (Robert Foxworth) & his two accomplice's Banker (Monte Markham) & Wilson (Michael Pataki) who knock the passengers & crew out with sleeping gas, they plan to steal the valuable cargo & land on a disused plane strip on an isolated island but while making his descent Chambers almost hits an oil rig in the Ocean & loses control of the plane sending it crashing into the sea where it sinks to the bottom right bang in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. With air in short supply, water leaking in & having flown over 200 miles off course the problems mount for the survivor's as they await help with time fast running out...<br /><br />Also known under the slightly different tile Airport 1977 this second sequel to the smash-hit disaster thriller Airport (1970) was directed by Jerry Jameson & while once again like it's predecessors I can't say Airport '77 is any sort of forgotten classic it is entertaining although not necessarily for the right reasons. Out of the three Airport films I have seen so far I actually liked this one the best, just. It has my favourite plot of the three with a nice mid-air hi-jacking & then the crashing (didn't he see the oil rig?) & sinking of the 747 (maybe the makers were trying to cross the original Airport with another popular disaster flick of the period The Poseidon Adventure (1972)) & submerged is where it stays until the end with a stark dilemma facing those trapped inside, either suffocate when the air runs out or drown as the 747 floods or if any of the doors are opened & it's a decent idea that could have made for a great little disaster flick but bad unsympathetic character's, dull dialogue, lethargic set-pieces & a real lack of danger or suspense or tension means this is a missed opportunity. While the rather sluggish plot keeps one entertained for 108 odd minutes not that much happens after the plane sinks & there's not as much urgency as I thought there should have been. Even when the Navy become involved things don't pick up that much with a few shots of huge ships & helicopters flying about but there's just something lacking here. George Kennedy as the jinxed airline worker Joe Patroni is back but only gets a couple of scenes & barely even says anything preferring to just look worried in the background.<br /><br />The home video & theatrical version of Airport '77 run 108 minutes while the US TV versions add an extra hour of footage including a new opening credits sequence, many more scenes with George Kennedy as Patroni, flashbacks to flesh out character's, longer rescue scenes & the discovery or another couple of dead bodies including the navigator. While I would like to see this extra footage I am not sure I could sit through a near three hour cut of Airport '77. As expected the film has dated badly with horrible fashions & interior design choices, I will say no more other than the toy plane model effects aren't great either. Along with the other two Airport sequels this takes pride of place in the Razzie Award's Hall of Shame although I can think of lots of worse films than this so I reckon that's a little harsh. The action scenes are a little dull unfortunately, the pace is slow & not much excitement or tension is generated which is a shame as I reckon this could have been a pretty good film if made properly.<br /><br />The production values are alright if nothing spectacular. The acting isn't great, two time Oscar winner Jack Lemmon has said since it was a mistake to star in this, one time Oscar winner James Stewart looks old & frail, also one time Oscar winner Lee Grant looks drunk while Sir Christopher Lee is given little to do & there are plenty of other familiar faces to look out for too.<br /><br />Airport '77 is the most disaster orientated of the three Airport films so far & I liked the ideas behind it even if they were a bit silly, the production & bland direction doesn't help though & a film about a sunken plane just shouldn't be this boring or lethargic. Followed by The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979).
| 0neg
|
Not much to say beyond the summary, save that this is an example of J. Edgar's Hoover's constant attention to maintaining a good "PR" profile. They don't make movies this bad very often, especially with the likes of Jimmy Stewart and Vera Miles in the blend. Too bad. <br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Ok, after reading a couple of reviews on Atlantis: The Lost Empire, I just want to clear up some misunderstanding as to it being a direct rip off from Nadia: Secret of the Blue Water. The only part that was a ripoff from Nadia is that the pendant from Nadia and the pendant from Atlantis bear so much resemblence in terms of how it's used, origins and how it's created from the source of life that there's no doubt about it being copied. If you want to consider how Kida and Nadia is dressed alike then you could put that against Disney too(It was kind of wierd for Nadia and Kida to wear that bikini style clothing in an adventure sci-fi, not to mention they both move in a similar style too). As an anime fan I have to agree there's some degree of copying but it's only on the minor details and even though not many of the ideas are original (like the encryption design on the wall in Laputa, the ancient mask from Princess Mononoke, the resemblence of the vehicles to the Garfish submarine in Nadia, etc)...The plot itself I believe it's highly original and it's quite amazing that Disney can pull it off without the use of Captain Nemo(the main character in Jules Verne's 20k Leagues Under the Sea which is also the main character in Nadia). As for Mylo and Jean wearing similar style glasses...As shown in the novel "Lord of the Flies", glasses is a symbol of wisdom and intelligence. I think Mylo, Jean, the main character from Stargate and a dozen of other "INTELLIGENT" characters would look kind of unfit for the role if they went in without glasses. As for the submarines, and how the submarines fight(with those wide blast torpedos which really resembles what Nautilius does), I want to state that it's a required element for either one if Atlantis is involved in the plot(after all it's a sunken city beneath the waters). As for the crew having some charactistical resemblence with the crew from Nautilius in Nadia, it might be the artwork but I don't sense any copyright infringement there as the character's personalities were perfectly original to me. As an anime fan that rated Nadia as the #1 best anime I ever watched even now today. I do have my doubts about Atlantis when I first saw the preview. But now that I watched the movie, I once again regained my confidence with Disney and have high hopes for their future movies after Atlantis. Overall, the best Disney movie yet without me shivering at the sound of their songs at the middle of the movie and it's a plus that they revised their cheesy scripts to make it even better. Also, it's amazing that they actually portray the bad guys look normal with out making them overly evil in the beginning (I was wondering who the bad guys are and only the blonde girl kind of resemble the looks of a bad character in terms of how Disney draws it aka make the bad guys look really menacing)
| 1pos
|
Carlos Mencia continually, violently, hatefully screaming "B**ch!" at women is like screaming "N**ger!" at black people, except it's worse. Remember, the B word, unlike the N word, is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. "B**ch!" is the last thing women hear before they are raped, beaten, or murdered. This guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. Sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman-bashing, so that he will sound like a hetero. And how about all the Nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side, clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman-hating. Tee hee hee. Bet Mencia doesn't believe or support free speech for THEM! Come on, Carlos do you want women to have the free speech to b**ch-slap you as loudly and violently and big-mouthed as you do, or do you think "free speech" is only for men to crap on women???
| 0neg
|
Dominick (Nicky) Luciano wears a 'Hulk' T-shirt and trudges off everyday to perform his duties as a garbage man. He uses his physical power in picking up other's trash and hauling it to the town dump. He reads comic-book hero stories and loves wrestlers and wrestling, Going to WrestleMania with his twin brother Eugene on their birthday is a yearly tradition. He talks kindly with the many people he comes in contact with during his day. He reads comic books, which he finds in the trash, with a young boy who he often passes by while on the garbage route. Unfortunately, Dominick has a diminished ability to use his mind. He has a disability.<br /><br />Dominick's disability came as a result of an injury to the head in which he suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI). This injury left him slower, though it did not change his core characteristic as a strong individual who helps to protect others. Dominick is actually more able to live independently than he may seem at the beginning of the film. He lives with Eugene who is studying to become a doctor. Dominick provides the main source of income, while Eugene is off studying. Eugene must face the fact that he is to continue his education in a different city, and that he must move away from Dominick. Eugene also develops a romance which begins to separate him from his twin brother.<br /><br />The film deals specifically with domestic abuse and how this can impact individuals, families, and then society as a whole. The strain that escalates between Eugene and Dominick as Eugene realizes that he must eventually leave Nicky, exploded on their birthday night. Eugene yells at Dominick and throws him against the wall. In this moment, Eugene must confront his own fears of being like his abusive father, the father which Dominick protected him against while he himself became the victim of the abuse. This event cemented the love between the two brothers, who from then on became the best of friends. Though they needed each other, they also both needed independence and the ability to grow and develop relationship with others. The fact that they must part ways became a very real emotional strain. However, by the end of the film, Dominick is able to say good bye to his brother and wish him luck. Eugene is able to leave his brother with the confidence that he has started to make a social network of people who care about him and will help him with his independence.<br /><br />When Dominick witnesses the abuse of his friend he is forced to come face to face with the cause of his own trauma. In this state of extreme stress, Dominick almost completely shuts down. He then runs after the ambulance to the hospital to see what happened to his friend. After learning that the boy has died, he is confronted by the abusive father who, fearing his testimonial, tells him he didn't see nothing, doesn't know anything, and not to say anything, and that if he does he will kill him. Now that his own life has been threatened, he goes and find the hand gun that Larry used to kill the rats. He goes to the wake of the deceased boy and at gunpoint, kidnaps the baby of the grieving family. He runs away from the scene and hides in a building. When the police surround him, Eugene goes in the building to talk to his brother. Eugene then reveals the cause of Dominick's disability and they bring the baby back. The abusive father then wields a gun of his own threatening to kill Dominick, but Eugene stops him and Dominick tells the crowd that he saw the father throw his son down the stairs.<br /><br />Through the climactic ending, the issue of dysfunctional behavior comes into view. Though Dominick's instinct to save the baby can be understood, we also see how damaging this response is. Dominick put the baby's life and his own life in grave danger. The larger societal consequences of these events is not directly implicated, but rather shown through the films ending. Despite the more optimistic ending portrayal, another sequence of events might just have likely occurred, in which Dominick is charged with kidnapping and possession of a firearm. It is somewhat difficult to believe that this went completely unaccounted. Furthermore, even if Dominick is not charged, there may still be a stigma against him within the community, not that there wasn't one before these events. Instead, the film shows that we must be able to recognize problematic behavior and act to curb it.<br /><br />Dominick and Eugene was released in 1988, the same year as another film, Rainman, which won 5 Academy Awards. While Rainman was an achievement and helped increase the visibility with person with disabilities, it could be argued that Dominick and Eugene holds more valuable lessons for society. Whereas, Rainman demonstrated that mainstream American society might be able to learn from and care for a 'savant', if the 'savant' is the inheritor of a large estate. Dominick and Eugene show that a person with a disability might be able to care for and help save members of American society. The message of an independent person with disabilities may have been too strong for 1988. Hopefully someday society will see the strengths of individuals with disabilities, not as a threat, but as imperative for the strength of society.
| 1pos
|
A very young Ginger Rogers trades quick quips and one liners with rival newspaper reporter Lyle Talbot in this 1933 murder mystery from Poverty Row film maker Allied Productions. The movie opens with a wealthy businessman taking a header from the roof garden of a high rise apartment house, or was it from a lover's apartment? Rogers actually has two identities at the film's outset, that of Miss Terry, the dead victim's secretary, along with her newspaper byline of Pat Morgan. Mistakenly phoning her story directly to Ted Rand (Talbot) instead of her paper's rewrite desk, she gets fired for her efforts when her boss learns he's been out scooped.<br /><br />Here's a puzzle - it's revealed during Police Inspector Russell's (Purnell Pratt) investigation of Harker's death that Terry/Morgan had been employed as his secretary for three weeks. Why exactly was that? After the fact it would make sense that she was there for a newspaper story, but before? Clues are dropped regarding Harker's association with a known mobster conveniently living in the same apartment building, but again, that association isn't relevant until it's all linked up to janitor Peterson (Harvey Clark). And who's making up all the calling cards with the serpent effecting a HSSS, with the words "You will hear it" cut and pasted beneath? Apparently, the hissing sound of a snake was the sound made by the apartment house's radiator system, which Peterson used to transmit a poisonous gas into the rooms of potential victims, such as Mrs. Coby in the apartment below Harker. But in answer to a question posed to Inspector Russell about Mrs. Coby's death, he replied "apparently" to the cause of strangulation.<br /><br />It's these rather conflicting plot points that made the movie somewhat unsatisfying for me. The revelation of janitor Peterson as the bad guy of this piece comes under somewhat gruesome circumstances as we see him stuff the unconscious body of Miss Morgan in the building's incinerator furnace! However, and score another point against continuity, we see Miss Morgan in a huge basement room as Peterson ignites the furnace; she made her getaway, but how? And still pretty as a picture. And who gets to make the collar off screen if none other than milquetoast police assistant Wilfred (Arthur Hoyt), who in an opening scene fell over his own feet entering a room.<br /><br />Sorry, but for all those reviewers who found "A Shriek in the Night" to be a satisfying whodunit, I feel that any Charlie Chan film of the same era is a veritable "The Usual Suspects" by comparison. If you need a reason to see the film, it would be Ginger Rogers, but be advised, she doesn't dance.
| 0neg
|
Ice Age is not only Animation of the Year (in my eyes) it's also the best animated feature I've ever seen!<br /><br />The teaser excited me last year and I've spent many happy hours on the website. Scrat is cool! And so are the rest of the Sub Zero Heroes.<br /><br />The animation is superb. Your heart really goes out to the characters in this film. They have good lines of dialogue and are well developed. It's hard to say which one really steals the picture.<br /><br />I experienced their journey with laughter, tears and amazement. Nothing was forced or over done. The emotion was genuine, especially in the dramatic second half. The last film to affect me this deeply was Anastasia in 1997, also a Fox Production. And before that it was The Land Before Time 1988. All possess real charm and seek to entertain all the audience, not just the cynics. 10/10 <br /><br />
| 1pos
|
<br /><br />Entrails of a Virgin is so bizarre and incomprehensible that it allows the viewer to interpret it subjectively, applying whatever meaning he wishes to its inexplicable excesses of sex and violence. If this was an intentional characteristic of the film, it would be a work of postmodern brilliance-but of course it isn't. <br /><br />Without getting too much into plot summary, let's take a quick walking tour of the events. At a secluded cabin, an orgy is in progress, which includes topless wrestling and diaper p***ing. A vanload of latecomers joins the orgy in progress, but they have unwittingly been followed by a monster I like to call "the muddy ninja." This monster precedes to slay orgy participants one by one, except the proverbial virgin (if you don't count oral sex) who receives his seed and consequently becomes so passionate with desire that she masturbates with someone's severed hand. <br /><br />Finally she has her guts pulled out, and then there's a scene which seems to imply that she's pregnant with a baby muddy ninja. Got all that? If you're going to rent this movie, it's best if you don't speak Japanese and don't have any subtitles. In a season populated by boring Hollywood flicks, putting this in your VCR might be the cinematic equivalent of shock therapy. It will certainly be something different.
| 0neg
|
My name is John Mourby and this is my story about Paperhouse: In May 2003 I saw Alfred Hitchcock's psycho, I was very scared and deeply disturbed. I began a frantic search for a film that was frightening in the same way. But none where satisfactory. Amongst those tried and failed were The Birds, Night of the Living Dead, The Silence of the Lambs, The Blair Witch Project, Ring, The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, 28 Days Later, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Near Dark, Alien, Peeping Tom, The Cell, Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now, Witchfinder General, Friday the 13th and The Omen. That should confirm I was desperate! Long after I had stopped searching I found out about Paperhouse
.<br /><br />Paperhouse is based on a favourite book that I own, called Marianne Dreams. Paperhouse had also come up in some of the books I had found on horror films, but they didn't tell me about the link between book and film. I discovered the truth while on the Internet, I bought the film later that day.<br /><br />I thought Paperhouse would not be faithful to the book and dull. Unfaithal it certainly was but dull certainly not. It was the answer to my prayers Marianne is renamed Anna in the film but most of the original story is the same. One day in school Anna draws a house in her scrap book (nothing remarkable about that) then she becomes ill and every time she faints or falls asleep she finds herself outside a creepy old house (and I mean genuinely unnerving). More she also finds that every time she puts something new in the drawing it appears in the dreamworld, EG an apple tree. Anna draws into the dreamworld a rather sad boy named mark who apparently is a person in the real world. Mark is a cripple but wants to leave the house, obligingly Anna draws in a lighthouse (a place to go to) but still the problem remains mark can't walk. So Anna decides to draw her father in. she gets her pencil out and gets too work, but the outcome is deformed and unsettling Anna particularly dislikes his eyes. Quote "he looks like madman". So Anna tries to rub him out and start again, but the pencil proves indelible (that means nothing can be rubbed out). Then Anna loses her temper and crosses out her father's eyes! I leave you too find out for you self the terrible consequences of the rash action.<br /><br />Paperhouse truly is the British answer to A Nightmare on elm Street! The viewing of this film left me shocked and upset. But I have found what I was looking for after 2 years. The question is how dose the compare with Psycho? Answer, 1 the old dark house, 2 psychological parental fears, 3 a genuine shock, 4 and very scary music.
| 1pos
|
I am and was very entertained by the movie. It was my all time favorite movie of 1976. Being raised in the 70's , I was so in love with Kris Kristoffersons look and demeanor,of course I am no movie critic,but for the time era,I think it was very good. I very much like the combo of Streisand and Kristofferson. I thought they worked very well together. I have seen the movie many times and still love the two of them as Esther and John Norman. I am a very huge fan of Kris and see him in concert when I can. What a talented singer song writer,not to mention,actor. I have seen him in many movies,but still think back to A star is Born.
| 1pos
|
i would never have thought that it would be possible to make such an impressive movie without any music. but it is. just the pictures. watch out for that picture: anne talking with that little boy benny 'bout the soul. really strong. might make you feel different.
| 1pos
|
***Comments contain spoilers*** I was barely holding on to this show as appointment TV when they started the annoying music under EVERY SCENE, when Don Epps was averaging almost a shooting per case, when the very nasally Diane Farr was obviously pregnant (but we weren't to notice) and when Colby was a f*****g TRIPLE agent. But now, in tonight's episode,David is trapped with a paranoid, nut job who is an OBVIOUS amateur with a gun, in an elevator and....HE CAN'T DISARM HIM. A trained, experienced field agent who has been 1st through the door many times and is experienced in hand-to-hand fighting, CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUT JOB. Not when said nut job blinks, looks away, drops his head, closes his eyes; not even when he looks up at the fiber optic wire wriggling around the ceiling like a stripper on a pole for 20 seconds.<br /><br />Then the scene came that let me know that as much as I enjoy learning from the chubby, frumpish but very charming Charles Epps and his sexy sidekick/love interest Amita, my Friday nights will be better spent otherwise engaged. Don gives David the "distress word" that is the code for "The s**t is about to go down"; David is ready, they kill the lights, drop the elevator, startle the nut job and......<br /><br />David CANNOT DISARM/KILL/BEAT INTO SUBMISSION THE NUT JOB. The bad guy ends up with BOTH GUNS, David ends up SHOT.<br /><br />I'm done. Hope the NUMB3RS are fun.
| 0neg
|
"Hey Babu Riba" is a film about a young woman, Mariana (nicknamed "Esther" after a famous American movie star), and four young men, Glenn, Sacha, Kicha, and Pop, all perhaps 15-17 years old in 1953 Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The five are committed friends and crazy about jazz, blue jeans, or anything American it seems.<br /><br />The very close relationship of the teenagers is poignant, and ultimately a sacrifice is willingly made to try to help one of the group who has fallen on unexpected difficulties. In the wake of changing communist politics, they go their separate ways and reunite in 1985 (the year before the film was made).<br /><br />I enjoyed the film with some reservations. The subtitles for one thing were difficult. Especially in the beginning, there were a number of dialogues which had no subtitles at all. Perhaps the conversational pace required it, but I couldn't always both read the text and absorb the scene, which caused me to not always understand which character was involved. I watched the movie (a video from our public library) with a friend, and neither of us really understood part of the story about acquiring streptomycin for a sick relative.<br /><br />This Yugoslavian coming of age film effectively conveyed the teenagers' sense of invulnerability, idealism, and strong and loyal bonds to each other. There is a main flashforward, and it was intriguing, keeping me guessing until the end as to who these characters were vis-a-vis the 1953 cast, and what had actually happened.<br /><br />I would rate it 7 out of 10, and would like to see other films by the director, Jovan Acin (1941-1991).
| 1pos
|
I rented this film just to see Amber Benson, though after reading the box I thought it sounded like a good story.....however the first problem was that there really wasn't a story...or actually there was a story but it made absolutely no sense. The second problem was there was no set up for these characters...yes I got that they all went to school together, but within the first 3 minutes of the film you realized they had nothing else in common and didn't like each other...so why did they keep getting together. Flaw number 3...the director though long pauses and tight camera shots equaled suspense (especially with the typical suspense music dubbed in)...he was sadly mistaken. It was painful to watch a terrific actress like Amber Benson waste time trying to bring this back to life....my only hope is the money she made here was put toward producing her own film.
| 0neg
|
Yes, commitment. Let's say "Fever Pitch" might trick you into believing it's a baseball movie.<br /><br />But no, you don't have to be a baseball fan to actually enjoy this picture from the Farrelly Brothers. But of course, if you are one, you will enjoy it even more; with all the references (pretty accurate ones, I'd say) to the Boston Red Sox and its bittersweet history; from the Curse of the Bambino and everything attributed to it, including those two words you CANNOT pronounce in front of a Boston fan: Bill Buckner.<br /><br />Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon portray two people who, usually might have second thoughts of going into a relationship: the successful workaholic who is also affluent meeting a school teacher? Thing is, Fallon's character wins Barrymore's heart by being funny, caring, sweet and downright perfect. But her friends ask her a logical question: if he's such a keeper, why is he still on the market? Enter the Boston Red Sox. He's been so committed to his team ever since his uncle passed his Sox season tickets to him; he has never missed a Red Sox home game at Fenway Park in a long while.<br /><br />And that delicate balance, how much is the workaholic willing to give up for his guy's obsession; and how much is that baseball-crazed teacher willing to compromise in order to keep the OTHER love of his life, is what this movie is all about.<br /><br />At first, you might think that the sports-obsession bits of the movie are exaggerated for comic relief. Well, I'm sad to admit, they are not. Myself, as a die-hard Houston Astros fan, can say they are all true. I would try at every way available to see every 'Stros game; listen to them on the radio or follow them on the Internet. I read the Chronicle's sports section every day. And yes, my room looks like The Shed, Minute Maid Park's gift shop; with a closet full of Astros gear, including 5 jerseys, 20 t-shirts and you know the rest. Fallon's character even has the Red Sox MBNA MasterCard.<br /><br />Fallon was credible enough as the fanatical Red Sox faithful, even though he could pull it off without becoming a cartoon (Thank God Adam Sandler wasn't in it); and the plot revolved around how this couple tried to manage with each other's passions.<br /><br />I'd say it'll be a classical romantic comedy. Not enough to be among the best movies in history; but certainly breaks a mold into the genre and is appealing enough for men and women alike.
| 1pos
|
One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful.
| 0neg
|
This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!<br /><br />First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.<br /><br />And that's it for the good things.<br /><br />The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.<br /><br />The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)<br /><br />Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.<br /><br />Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?
| 0neg
|
THis movie shows us once again, how genius the Japanese directors are and were. This movie could be seen as a sort of a "Silent - Movie Tetsuo". Well Eisenstein...:)
| 1pos
|
This is one of those films that explore the culture clash of Eastern born people in Westernized cultures. <br /><br />Loving on Tokyo Time is a sad film about the inability of opposites to attract due to major cultural differences. Ken, rock n'roll fanatic, marries Kyoto, a Japanese girl, so that she can stay in the United States when her visa expires. The marriage is only expected to be temporary, that is, until Kyoto gains legal status again. But, Ken, who seems to be lost in every relationship, takes a liking to Kyoto and tries very hard to make things work out. This, despite his friend's urging that dumping Kyoto and getting rid of all commitments to girls is bad for rock n' roll except to inspire some song writing about broken hearts and all of that.<br /><br />But Kyoto comes from a strict traditional Japanese upbringing, and doesn't expect to be married to Ken all that long. Not only that, she is homesick and wants to return to Japan. It's sad in that this is finally someone Ken thinks he can love and be with and all that, except the one time he thinks he's found someone to feel that way about, the girl isn't expecting to stay that long. It's not that she doesn't like Ken, it's just that she's used to a whole 'nother way of life. She says, "I can't tell him the way I feel in English, and Ken can't tell me the way he feels in Japanese." It's a rather sad love story with a killer 80s techno-nintendo soundtrack.<br /><br />I picked up Loving on Tokyo Time because it reminded me of one of my favorite 80s films, Tokyo Pop. And, for those of you who enjoyed Loving on Tokyo Time, check out Tokyo Pop (a New York singer goes to Japan and joins a Japanese American cover band), except it's a movie with a happy ending.<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
It's difficult to put into words the almost seething hatred I have of this film. But I'll try:<br /><br />Every other word was an expletive, the sex scenes were uncomfortable, drugs were rampant and stereotyping was beyond the norm, if not offensive to Italian-Americans.<br /><br />I'm not saying the acting was terrible, because Leguizamo, Sorvino, Brody, Espisito et. al, performed well. But...almost every character in the film I despised. Not since The Bonfire of the Vanities have I disliked every character on screen.
| 0neg
|
At the point in time that The Lady from Shanghai was being made, the marriage of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth was disintegrating. The film was as much an effort by Welles to rekindle the old flames as it was to make a classic noir. Not received well at the time, The Lady from Shanghai has gotten more and more critical acclaim as years pass. Gotten better with age so to speak.<br /><br />Welles is Irish seaman Michael O'Hara who on a fateful night rescues the beautiful Rita Hayworth from three muggers in Central Park. Sparks do fly, but then comes the rub, turns out the lady is married to crippled, but brilliant criminal attorney Everett Sloane. Nevertheless Sloane takes an apparent liking to Welles and hires him to skipper his yacht.<br /><br />So far this film is starting to sound a lot like Gilda. If Orson had seen Gilda and was not at this point thinking with his male member, he would have skedaddled back to the seaman's hiring hall in Lower Manhattan. Instead he gets himself involved in a lovely web or intrigue and finds himself pegged for two murders and Sloane as his eminent counsel.<br /><br />Welles for whatever reason decided that his wife would be a blond in this film. Supposedly Harry Cohn hit the roof as Rita was internationally known for her coppery red hair. This may have soured him on the picture as he joined the legion of studio bosses who saw Welles's vision of independent film making a threat to their power.<br /><br />Stage actor Glenn Anders plays Sloane's partner Grisby who is one slimy dude, he winds up a corpse. The other corpse to be here is Ted DeCorsia, a bottom feeding private detective who tries to go in business for himself.<br /><br />It's a good noir thriller, showing Rita at her glamorous best even if she was a blond here. The final shoot out in the hall of mirrors is beautifully staged, but I wouldn't recommend seeing it if one is on any controlled substance.
| 1pos
|
First saw this gem from Joe Sarno way back when, and I must say that after seeing it, I could never forget Jennifer Welles. At first I thought the film was moving a bit slower than i would expect for a Sarno film, but when Jennifer made her entrance, the first time I ever saw her anywhere, I was sat up and took notice. Her presence in this film is hard to avoid, and spices up every scene she's involved in. I've seen most of the rest of Sarno's films, and the other films starring or featuring Jennifer Welles, and I must say that this was both Sarno and Jennifer at their collective best. Sarno's direction in this film of domestic adult drama is superb, and Jennifer showed (figuratively and literally) an acting prowess that make this a must see. Co-stars Rebecca Brooke (aka Mary Mendum) and Chris Jordan, both frequent co-stars of Ms. Welles, and also frequent stars of Sarno's work, turn in believable performances as a pair of adventurous, yet normal housewives. This film is Sarno classic.
| 1pos
|
This was awful. Andie Macdowell is a terrible actress. So wooden she makes a rocking horse look like it could do a better job. But then remember that turn in Four Weddings, equally as excruciating. Another film that portrays England as full of Chocolate box cottages, and village greens. I mean that school, how many schools apart from maybe Hogwarts look like that? The twee police station looked like the set from Heartbeat ( a nauseating British series set in the 60s).This film just couldn't make its mind up what it wanted to be- a comedy or a serious examination of the undercurrents in women's friendships. If it had stuck to the former then the graveyard sex scenes and the highly stupid storming of the wedding might just have worked( i say just). But those scenes just didn't work with the tragedy in the second half. I also find it implausible that Kate would ever speak to Molly again after her terrible behaviour. A final note- what is a decent actress like Staunton doing in this pile of poo? Not to mention Anna Chancellor. Macdowell should stick to advertising wrinkle cream.
| 0neg
|
I saw this movie on Comedy Central a few times. This movie was pretty good. It's an interesting adventure with the life of Sunny Davis, who is arranged to marry the king of Ohtar, so that the U.S. can get an army base there to balance power in the Middle East. Some good jokes, including "Sunnygate." I also just loved the ending theme. It gave me great political spirit. Ten out of ten was my rating for this movie.
| 1pos
|
SPOILER ALERT!!!!<br /><br />I had just watched the extended version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Though I did like the extended version, I wish they would have left the original version on the DVD.<br /><br />The Portabello Road could have been cut down to the orginal length. It was too long and dragged the movie along. Though the dancing is great, would have been much better left on the DVD as a Deleted Scene.<br /><br />All in all this is a great movie. My 5 year old liked it. And it is wonderful that movies that I enjoyed as a child are being passed on to a new generation. This and Mary Poppins are added to my collection.<br /><br />Just as I had remembered!<br /><br />*** out of ****<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
Believe it or not, "The Woodchipper Massacre" gave me full-blown gonorrhea! That's right, I've got a rainbow of discharge spewing from me just because a group of kids went playing around with a camcorder and somehow made a deal with the Devil and got distribution. It's beyond my comprehension how anyone with moderate intelligence could tolerate this pant-load of a film. The only reason I managed to sit through the whole thing (not without several suicide attempts along the way) was because, well first off, I was delirious with boredom, and second - I guess I wanted to further explore this newly discovered type of hate I was experiencing... This movie is a 'shot-on-video' "horror/comedy" about three siblings who are left for the weekend in the care of their bitchy elderly aunt. The youngest kid ends up stabbing the old lady accidentally with his Rambo-replica hunting knife. They then get to dismembering auntie with various tools (apparently she didn't have a single drop of blood in her body!) and heave her into their dad's rented wood chipper... Her convict son then stops by looking for his mom and the kids end up grinding that jackass too... I don't recall ever seeing a cast of annoying actors that actually caused me nausea. Seriously, that one blond chick's voice had me wincing in pain constantly. ALL of the actors were downright atrocious - literally just screaming their phony sounding dialog and cracking jokes that must've been written by a chimp that just didn't care! Now, I can usually appreciate independent efforts, but only from those who can realize that people other than their relatives might be watching this! I don't need to see a 3 minute shot of a car pulling out of a drive-way and a torturous, painfully long lawn grooming montage with some ridiculous, fluttery music playing over it. Plus, why the hell does the box of this movie have a bloody piano on it?! There WAS a piano in ONE scene and no one is killed near it! I'm through with reminiscing about this movie. Unless you like insufferable crap, I would advise anyone with half a brain to avoid this trash.
| 0neg
|
I dont know why people think this is such a bad movie. Its got a pretty good plot, some good action, and the change of location for Harry does not hurt either. Sure some of its offensive and gratuitous but this is not the only movie like that. Eastwood is in good form as Dirty Harry, and I liked Pat Hingle in this movie as the small town cop. If you liked DIRTY HARRY, then you should see this one, its a lot better than THE DEAD POOL. 4/5
| 1pos
|
This production has absolutely no storyline. The acting is embarrassing. The promising Dutch television Sophie Hilbrand star should not add this movie to her CV. Her acting is far from flawless and personally I think she has crossed boundary of professional decency; relating to the way she exposes herself in this movie. This movie contains too much unnecessary nudity, vulgar sexual scenes and rude language. It also shows a wrong image of the Netherlands (as most movies do). Do not bother to watch this movie: a waste of time, a waste of money and an embarrassing record for Hilbrand, who has proved to be better with her close on on the screen.
| 0neg
|
Parasomnia has an interesting premises, but the story is poorly done without any tension or even a logical approach. The cast in unconvincing, even Patrick Kilpatrick, who played great roles in movies like Scanner Cop 2, Open Fire, Under Siege 2 and Eraser. The rest of the cast is unknown (and not very good) with the exception of Jeffrey Combs. (Herbert West from the great Re-Animator trilogy). But he can play roles like this in his sleep (which is a little what he does here). The main problem is that the actions of the characters make no sense at all. The story is rather dull and predictable with cheap computer effects mixed with some gory scenes, especially at the end.<br /><br />This could have been so much better, I do not get the good reviews on this one. It is below average really.
| 0neg
|
Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.<br /><br />*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.<br /><br />There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.<br /><br />In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.
| 0neg
|
This seems like two films: one a dreary, pretentious lengthy saga about an ac-tor who is taken over by the parts he plays; the other a brilliant social comment about a middle aged divorce who is picked up by a waitress. Shelley Winters is wonderful as a waitress with another business on the side. She drops heavy hints about the need for connections, her certificate in massage and her desire to get into the modelling game. I love the glimpse of her seedy flat with a kitchenette behind a curtain, and her terrible seducing outfit of navel-revealing, puff-sleeved crochet top.<br /><br />Do actors get Oscars for Shakespeare? We know they Oscars for impersonating disabled people, wearing a lot of prosthetics, or pretending to be mad. The Shakespearean scenes (which go ON and ON) are embarrassing and dated. And so are the 'going mad' scenes where Tony looks distracted while listening to his own voice-over.<br /><br />By the way, Anthony John is not aristocratic. He makes it quite clear in an early scene that he used to be a chorus boy. When he quotes his father's advice, he slips into a Cockney accent.
| 0neg
|
This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation!
| 1pos
|
David Lynch usually makes films that resemble puzzles put together the wrong way. They are interesting to look at and think about but they really don't gel in your mind. Perhaps art will always mean the most to its creator.<br /><br />The Straight Story is not a typical David Lynch film. Not that there's anything typical about them anyway. It's an odyssey through rural America. A real life journey Alvin Straight took on a lawn mower to get to his brothers house. He rode 300 miles from Laurens, Iowa to Mt. Zion, Wisconsin to make amends to his sick brother for past offenses.<br /><br />At the heart of this film is sweet voiced Richard Farnsworth. He brings Alvin Straight right to us in a simple and honest way. The fact that the film is slow paced matches Alvin's slow journey toward realization.<br /><br />Along the way Alvin meets a confused and frightened young girl. She is pregnant and has decided to run away from her situation. After listening to Alvin speak about family she reconsiders.<br /><br />Later Alvin witnesses a distraught woman kill a deer with her car. She complains that she has killed several and leaves. Alvin feels bad but is smart enough to cook up some dear meat that night.<br /><br />Later Alvin's lawn mower loses its brakes and nearly kills him. A nice man and his wife let him stay in their yard while he gets it fixed. They even let him call his sweet but slow daughter, nicely played by Sissy Spacek, whose haunted by a terrible tragedy in her own past. Alvin insists on paying for the call. The man even offers to drive Alvin to his brothers with pleasure. Alvin declines with thanks.<br /><br />While Alvin waits he also goes off to a bar with a kindly old man as they discuss the harshness of war and the price it took on their souls. Alvin even confesses a fatal mistake he made as a sniper that has forever haunted him.<br /><br />Alvin also encounters two bickering brothers who've repaired his lawn mower. He talks them down in price wisely calling them on their high labor and repair costs. He even helps them to appreciate one another learning from his own mistakes with his brother.<br /><br />The night before Alvin leaves the man's yard he takes his hat off to him. The man tells him it was an honor having him stay and asks Alvin to write to him. This scene is perfect in it's simplicity. It's heartfelt because it's so straight, so real.<br /><br />The journey continues and we can't help to get more and more involved with it. We want Alvin to get to his brothers. We want him to make amends. We want to know this world is full of forgiveness.<br /><br />This was Richard Farnsworth at his best. It was his last film and his performance was amazing. You can't help but to understand his pride, to listen to his wisdom, and to ultimately feel his pain. One becomes as taken with him as the man who offers him his back yard to stay in.<br /><br />If there's justice in the afterlife then Alvin Straight, his brother, and Richard Farnsworth are together sitting at a bar. I can picture them discussing their lives, regrets, hopes, and joys. As Alvin says in the film, "My brother and I used to look up at the stars." Well, I know they all are with the best view in the house.
| 1pos
|
Singleton has some serious issues he has to come to grips with. I get the feeling that he thinks he is pretty smart; however, this movie is almost comically transparent and self righteous. In addition, there are a bunch of "might-makes-right" messages like when our local Nazi jerks get beat up. I mean, who in their right mind is going to root for a bunch of Nazi jerks? However, he way Singleton portrays the "fight" is downright silly and seems to be designed to show us more the superior fighting qualities of the black protagonists than anything else. There is another "bad guy" (in reality a drunken frat boy) who rapes one of the movie's protagonists. In this instance, I think that Singleton actually does a nice job portraying what is probably an all too common situation when the woman involved asks the frat boy to use a condom and he either does not have one or does not want to use one. In any event, he does not accede to her demands that he stop and he proceeds to have intercourse despite her pleas. I think that this type of rape is all too common and in fact many uniformed people refuse to accept the fact that it is even a rape. Well, no means no, this is a rape, which probably occurs a lot in Universities across the country.<br /><br />Having established the rape, how does Singleton deal with it? When the frat boy tries to call the woman, her roommate refuses to put the victim on the phone, at which point the frat boy calls the roommate a "black bitch." The aggrieved roommate appears to appeal to a counsel of Ice Cube, et al, who then proceed to physically humiliate and abuse the frat boy into repeated and prolonged "apologies" to roommate for his racist remarks; however the (apparently in Singleton's mind) lesser crime of rape is not mentioned. Again, no one really should feel sorry for the frat boy; however, Singleton seems to be sending a dual message that a racist comment is a greater offense then rape and in any event violence is justified against jerks.<br /><br />What is so ultimately so disappointing is that this movie could have truly been about something important but Singleton, while no doubt a talented director, does not appear to have the maturity or depth to pull of something of this magnitude.
| 0neg
|
It is Queen Victoria's misfortune to be defined as an historical figure according to her relationships with men.Shortly after she succeeded to the throne she came under the influence of her Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to the extent that she became known as "Mrs Melbourne".After the death of her beloved husband,Albert,she was referred to as "The Widow at Windsor",and years later,a long friendship with her Scottish ghillie John Brown earned her the nickname "Mrs Brown".Such is the price women paid in a patriarchal society. The reality is somewhat different and "Young Victoria" goes some way towards putting the record straight,depicting the queen as an intelligent and independent young woman conscious of the inequities in her society and at her court. Courts have always been hotbeds of seething jealousy,plotting and counter-plotting,naked ambition and sometimes,outright murder. As an 18 year old innocent,Victoria ascended to her uncle's throne,thus initiating a positive orgy of intrigue and a power-struggle between Prime minister Lord Melbourne and his rival Sir Robert Peel. Lord Melbourne cuts a dash in the Old Public School Man kind of way with his finely-honed cynicism and his well-polished gems of advice. Hardly surprising then that the young queen finds herself in awe of him,and even perhaps a little in love,an awe that he ruthlessly exploits,drawing a fine line between attempted seduction and attempted sedition as he forces his policies through against Victoria's better judgement. Into the arena rides Prince Albert,on a mission from King Leopold of Belgium,keen on political rapprochement between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. At first a reluctant suitor,he soon falls in love with the English queen and palliates the influence of the politicians and courtiers. "The Young Victoria" is a beautifully photographed,brilliantly-scored and very sumptuous movie.I note that it has been criticised in some quarters for this sumptuousness as if a movie about 19th century English Royalty should somehow have shown the Empress of India and her family living in rags in a filthy workhouse........I don't think so. I must single out the remarkable Miss Emily Blunt whose beauty reminded me of the young Princess Margaret's.Hers is obviously the pivotal role, and she has absolutely no trouble in dominating the film despite strong performances from Mr Jim Broadbent,Miss Miranda Richardson and Miss Harriet Walter,all immeasurably more experienced. The music is suitably regal and forms a cohesive part of the whole movie without being in any way obtrusive. The fact that Britan flourished more under its two great queens,Elizabeth the First and Victoria,than at any other time is a matter Feminists might like to make more of,but,I suspect,like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher really powerful women make them feel uncomfortable.If you can work out why there might be a Ph.D . in it.
| 1pos
|
I watch this movie all the time. I've watched it with family ages 3 to 87, and everyone in between; They all loved it. It really shows the true scenes a dog has, and the love and loyalty you get from a pet. Just beautiful.<br /><br />It's great for thoes who love comedy movies, the tear-jerker movies, or even just pets.<br /><br />The music is wonderful, the animals spectacular, the scenes truly thought out, and the characters perfect. What I liked about the characters is the true and nicely mixed personalities: Shadow (The oldest, a Golden Retriever) He's the wise one, filled with the wisdom and mindset of any dog, Chance (the American Bulldog puppy) is basically a puppy with a witty side, the comical character; And Sassy (The Hymilayan cat) She's the real cat who shows what a real cat will do for their owner, the real girly one.
| 1pos
|
My sincere advice to all: don't watch the movie.<br /><br />Don't even go near to the theater where this movie is being played!! even a glimpse of it is bad for health. serious. no jokes. it's 3.30 am in the morning. and i returned from this crappiest movie on this universe. FOUR HOURS DAMN!!! I am proud that i survived after all of it! If this is called survival.<br /><br />i am highly frustrated. annoyed. disappointed. it was sheer waste of time! money went in drain! no plot. Hope i wake up tomorrow sane and with no memories of this night!! RUBBISH MOVIE.<br /><br />Happy Republic day to one and all :)
| 0neg
|
I'm stunt, I must admit I never saw a movie with such good story and none stop high special effect martial art fighting scene. If you like the fantastic genre, like me, you will certainly be more than satisfied! All character have very cool power and the special effect are near perfection, in one word, flawless! I will listen to this movie a lot in the next years.
| 1pos
|
It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.<br /><br />A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.
| 0neg
|
Despite the patronage of George Lucas, this captivating and totally original fantasy in "Lumage" (a combination of animation through live action cut-outs) is about as far removed from the usual kiddie fare as anything made by Ralph Bakshi in his heyday. Brilliantly conceived characters such as the shape-shifting dog Ralph (one of a duo of bumbling, rejected heroes), Synonamess Botch (the hilariously foul-mouthed villain) and Rod Rescueman (the pompous novice superhero) breathe life into a uniquely clever concept: Frivoli vs. Murkwood or, the eternal fight between dreams and nightmares. In this context, the MOR-infused songs on the soundtrack ought not to have worked but somehow they do. It's a real pity, therefore, that I have had to watch this via a truly crappy-looking boot (culled from a TV screening) of the uncensored version there is also a milder variant that toned down the language for its VHS release since the film is otherwise unavailable on DVD. Interestingly, both Henry Selick and David Fincher worked on this picture in subordinate capacities.
| 1pos
|
My life is about saving animals. I do volunteer work with a cat rescue organization. I am a vegetarian because I couldn't kill an animal even to sustain my life. I can't even kill a spider, I put it outdoors. The scene where the children throw rocks at the bird until it dies, with Sooner participating in an attempt to be accepted by the other children, made me sick and has haunted me ever since. It simply convinces me that human beings are pathetic in their need for acceptance. The ending - the foster parents adopt Sooner - does not redeem the depiction of animal cruelty. Why would anyone want their child to see this film?
| 0neg
|
Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.
| 0neg
|
14 years since this show was made and it is still is the best show ever made. The writing was 1st class and the production second to none. This show would never be made today and that this a shame. I hope if you are thinking about finding this show to watch that you do. <br /><br />AG came out the year I left high school at the time my fav TV show was the x files this gives you an idea of why I first got into this show. AG was a far better program with better writing but only got one reason? I know this is not the only program to only get one season another example that comes to mind would be the lone gunman (x files spin off) it had good writing and was funny but also only got one season. It does not seem right! <br /><br />We also have to remember that this show was around before shows like twilight made dark shows 'cool' so I think this may have also let to the show going down hill. <br /><br />Watch this program and enjoy it! 10 out of 10 for me.
| 1pos
|
I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi
| 0neg
|
This film was amazing. It had an original concept (that of a vampire movie meets Yakuza mob film). It is a humorous and yet highly dramatic and tragic movie about friendship, love, immortality, death, and happiness, and comments subtelly on society. On the part of Gackt Camui, the role of Sho was excellently delivered, and HYDE was surprisingly good for his first film as the tortured yet humorous vampire, Kei. I also laughed and cried at the happy-go-lucky character, Toshi, who grew up with Sho. I loved each and every second of this this film, especially moments such as the funny Cigarette scene, the fighting scenes, and most of all, the heartrenching ending.
| 1pos
|
Well then. I just watched an crap-load of movies--all with varying degrees of quality. I wasn't too sure about which one I wanted to review first. Then it hit me like a sack-a-rats: Rodentz. Warn people about Rodentz. This monstrosity stars nobody and is painfully dull to sit through. And it's about mutant rats killing people. Yeah... real freaking' original. "Food of the Gods," or "Willard" anyone? Those were better than this, and that doesn't say much...<br /><br />**POSSIBLE SPOILER**Okay here's the story: Inna laboratory the scientist and his plucky assistant are experimenting on rats and their laboratory is in a crappy neighborhood and crappy building and the plucky assistant's moronic friends show up drunk and everyone becomes food for the crazed rats and just about everybody dies and, oh yeah, there's one giant rat that looks crappy, but it gets killed, the end. There, all in once sentence! Spoiler, you say? Ppfff!! I beg to differ! The second we all realize that there's a giant rat, we all know it's gonna die eventually!!**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good: <br /><br />--Well, I watched it for free, but for everyone else... hmmm, no. There's nothing good here. <br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help: <br /><br />--Um... well. the gore was decent. --Very average cinematography. <br /><br />--CG rats not as bad as they could've been in some shots...<br /><br />The Bad: <br /><br />--...and in other shots, the CG rats were pathetically cheap-looking. Look, if your film has a low budget, maybe you shouldn't rely on CG. Lesson to take to heart. <br /><br />--The acting is extremely poor.<br /><br />--The characters are beyond uninteresting--we have a mish-mash of clichés and none of them are even done that well. <br /><br />--Booooooooooooring.<br /><br />--Been done before--plenty of times. <br /><br />--Stupid story, just stupid.<br /><br />--Giant rat looks like fat man in poorly conceived bear costume--that was kind of funny--but not funny enough to give this film any worth.<br /><br />--Retarded, unrealistic, and boring dialog. <br /><br />--All the college student rat chow people are drinking Tequila from huge plastic milk jugs--and yet they don't appear to be drunk for anything longer than a few seconds. Way to stick with continuity, guys.<br /><br />The Ugly: <br /><br />--This film is bad. Simply terrible. Worse than you might imagine. It's not even laughably bad like, for instance, "Scarecrow" (2002) or "House of the Dead." Now those movies are crap you can enjoy. Even if they do make you stupider.<br /><br />Memorable Scene: <br /><br />--The lame action-movie ending, complete with uninjured heroes and explosion. Because it didn't feel at all like the rest of this monstrosity--but still sucked.<br /><br />Acting: 2/10 Story: 1/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 0/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (I was tending to my son occasionally during the film, so I may have missed it, but was supposedly in there) Violence/Gore: 4/10 Dialogue: 2/10 Music: 1/10 (average for the time) Writing: 1/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 1/10<br /><br />Watch it only if you love rat and vermin-based horror films. Wait... Check that. Don't watch it. It's crap.<br /><br />(www.ResidentHazard.com)
| 0neg
|
I think that people are under estimating this incredible film. People are seeing it as a typical horror movie that is set out to scare us and prevent us from getting some sleep. Which if it was trying to do then it would deservedly get a 1/10 but i viewed this film with a few friends and we found it very entertaining and though it was a good movie after all it does have Stephanie beaton. This is the reason why i think that it deserves the 10/10 for the pure entertainment of the film.<br /><br />The general view on this movie is that it has bad acting, a simple script that a 10 year old could produce and that it cant be taken seriously and people are rating it low because of this. But i see this as a thoroughly entertaining masterpiece...that has a hilariously funny script which is made even more entertaining by the actors and although not very serious it is very entertaining.
| 1pos
|
Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.
| 1pos
|
I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding "secret agencies" and villains.<br /><br />The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being "remote detonated" the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.<br /><br />Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one.
| 0neg
|
Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.<br /><br />It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.<br /><br />It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.
| 0neg
|
Clocking in at an interminable three hours and twenty minutes, "Salaam-e-Ishq" is a pretty but superficial comic soap opera from India that regales us with six interwoven tales of romantic love (which is at least four tales too many in my estimation).<br /><br />Filmed like a cross between an MTV music video and a Super Bowl beer commercial, the movie is a sprawling mishmash of exotic settings, dazzling colors, sexy showgirls, high-stepping song-and-dance numbers, dream and fantasy sequences, winking character asides, corny dialogue and way-over-the-top comical performances - all pretty much standard-issue stuff when it comes to Bollywood happenings these days. It's an exhausting chore just trying to keep all the characters straight as they dance, prance and preen their way through the incomprehensible storyline.<br /><br />There's plenty for the viewer to feast his eyes on here - not least of all all the drop dead gorgeous women - but he'll need the patience of Job to get him all the way through it.
| 0neg
|
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)
| 0neg
|
I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.<br /><br />If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.<br /><br />It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.<br /><br />I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.<br /><br />I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything.
| 0neg
|
NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)<br /><br />Cinema Cut: R <br /><br />Director's Cut: NC-17<br /><br />It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers<br /><br />Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.<br /><br />The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.<br /><br />Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.<br /><br />The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).<br /><br />The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...<br /><br />Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.<br /><br />4/10
| 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.