text
stringlengths 70
9.35k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
THE SECRET OF KELLS may be the most exquisite film I have seen since THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE. Although stylistically very different, KELLS shares with TRIPLETS and (the jaw-dropping opening 2D sequence of) KUNG FU PANDA, incredible art direction, production design, background/layout and a richness in color that is a feast for one's senses. KELLS is so lavish -- almost Gothic in its layout (somewhat reminiscent of Klimt), wonderfully flat in general overall perspective, ornate in its Celtic & illuminated design, yet the characters are so simplistic and appealing -- AND it all works together beautifully. You fall in love with the characters from the moment you meet them. You are so drawn to every detail of the story and to every stroke of the pencil & brush. What Tomm, Nora, Ross, Paul and all at Cartoon Saloon (& their extended crews) have achieved with this small budget/VERY small crewed film, is absolutely astounding. The groundswell of support amongst our animation community is phenomenal. This film is breathtaking and the buzz amongst our colleagues in recommending this film is spreading like wildfire. Congratulations to KELLS on its many accolades, its Annie nomination as well as its current Oscar qualifying run. They are all very well-deserved nods, indeed...
| 1pos
|
Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10
| 1pos
|
"Laughter is a state of mind" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of "Toys"? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst "big" movies ever made. NO STARS from ****
| 0neg
|
Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.<br /><br />It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'<br /><br />As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.
| 0neg
|
this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care.
| 0neg
|
This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?<br /><br />Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.
| 0neg
|
Truly amazing film, the concept as a possible prophetic vision of the future is frightening. A world vastly overpopulated, unbearable heat due to the damaged ozone layer, and all our natural resources spent. In this nightmarish degenerate society we have the great Charlton Heston as a likable film noirish style detective trying to fathom the truth behind a murder, opposite the film noir legend Edward G Robinson turning in a fine last performance.<br /><br />One of the images that will always stay with me from this film, is the masses of people that populate the stairwells and the way in which Thorne (Heston) has to hop through them every time he uses them.<br /><br />The movie's use of music is note worthy too, although it contains no score in the usual sense, The opening theme is good, and the subsequent snatches of music we here in Simonson's apartment, and especially the Beethoven pieces in the euthanasia clinic are outstandingly atmospheric.
| 1pos
|
Frank McCarthy who produced the Academy Award winning biographical film Patton follows it up with a strong tribute to another of America's fighting generals, Douglas MacArthur. Gregory Peck gives a strong characterization of the man, his genius as well as his egotism. With MacArthur you never knew quite where one began and the other left off and too many times they blended.<br /><br />The whole story of Douglas MacArthur would be a six hour film or a TV mini-series. It would cover him from his days on frontier posts with his family to his time at West Point where he still has the highest scholastic average ever achieved by a cadet. It would talk about his service in the Phillipines as a young officer, his legend building bravery on the battlefields of World War I in France. It would also have to tell about him firing on the Bonus Marchers of World War I veterans in 1932, probably putting the final kabosh on any chances President Herbert Hoover had of getting re-elected. During MacArthur's last years he and Hoover had penthouse suites at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City. That must have been a subject they avoided.<br /><br />This film concentrates on the years 1941 to 1952 and it is told in flashback. The film opens with MacArthur addressing the student body in 1962. As he speaks the words of the famous Duty Honor Country speech, MacArthur's mind goes back to World War II and his desperate struggle against the advancing Japanese on the island of Corregidor and the fields of Bataan on Luzon. The film takes him through his struggle to win back the Phillipines, the occupation of Japan and the first 18 months culminating in his relief of command by President Truman.<br /><br />MacArthur as a film would not work at all if it wasn't for the portrayals of Dan O'Herlihy and Ed Flanders as Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman respectively. It's the part of the film I enjoyed the best, seeing MacArthur and his relations with both these men.<br /><br />FDR by O'Herlihy captures the aristocratic squire and exceptionally devious man that was our 32nd President. Roosevelt was a man who got his points across with unusual subtlety and cleverness. Sometimes he liked scheming a little too much for its own sake, but he was the master politician of the last century. Note how he deals with MacArthur both as a battlefield commander and potential rival at the same time.<br /><br />Truman by Flanders is as people remember him, a blunt spoken man of the people who disliked MacArthur's haughtiness from the gitgo. Of course it's in the history books how Truman relieved MacArthur in 1951 for insubordination. MacArthur was insubordinate, no doubt about it.<br /><br />Yet I could write a whole thesis on the Truman-MacArthur relations. Along the way it need not have ever come to a crisis. I've always felt that FDR would have dealt with the whole matter in a far better way had he still been president then.<br /><br />MacArthur was also grandly eloquent and Gregory Peck captures some of that eloquence in some of the orations that made him as much a legend as victories on the battlefield. Listen to Peck at the Japanese surrender, at MacArthur's farewell to the nation before the joint session of Congress, and of course his speech to the cadets in 1962. Watch the newsreels and see if you don't agree.
| 1pos
|
The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd. <br /><br />Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.<br /><br />For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.<br /><br />This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.
| 0neg
|
It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.<br /><br />The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.<br /><br />I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.
| 0neg
|
This is simply the epitome of what a made for TV movie should be. It was a lazy Sunday afternoon when my wife and I were in grad school that we stumbled upon this. The cheesy acting. The poorly written script. The good ol' boys. The ridiculous, yet somehow obvious, cliché, and banal premise. The riding in pickup trucks with your propped-up wife-corpse. It has it all.<br /><br />You will meet familiar characters: gold-digging hussy, stupid rich boy who wants to make it on his own, friends-who-know-better, Daddy who knows better but drives son away. And the wife-corpse. Propped up. In a pick-up. <br /><br />Wow: and the title. Several things in our lives have been "Texas Tragedies" since watching this beauty. Everyone involved in its creation deserves a medal.
| 1pos
|
In the beginning and throughout the movie, it was great. It was suspenseful and thrilling. Yet in the end it gave no answer to what had happened. They mysteriously turned into zombies by a raven or crow? It did not answer the questions that we all had and therefore, was not as good a movie as I thought that it was going to be.
| 0neg
|
First To Die 2003<br /><br />I'll admit my mistake first: I didn't realize this was a made for TV movie. I was "thrown off" by the "R" certification. The plot is strong, but the movie is about 40 minutes too long. The direction and continuity were excellent. For the most part the cast was exceptional and did a good job with their characters. The down side of the movie is that it definitely falls into the "chick flick" genre. Although there are some violent scenes, none of the violence should call for an "R" rating. There is no nudity or gratuitous sex scenes. Actually, there are no sex scenes. Ona Grauer (who is absolutely beautiful), Kristina Copeland, Sonya Salomaa, and Glynis Davies were all guests on the SG-1 series, but this movie did nothing to advance their careers since they were all used as low level supporting actresses. Robert Patrick was fantastic, as he usually is and Mitch Pileggi made me think of a modern day Lee Marvin. The very talented Megan Gallagher who I came to respect as an actor during the Millennium series, was given nothing challenging to show her range of abilities. The greatest disappointment with regard to the cast was Tracy Pollan. Aside from being a below average actress and not particularly attractive, her voice is absolutely annoying. I found myself muting the TV during her dialogue. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys the Lifetime TV type of programs. I would not recommend paying any money to see this movie however. Considering I found nothing that would cause censorship, this is a movie that is worthy for only watching on TV, since nothing will be cut out. As a TV movie I would rate this as a 5 out 10. As a feature film with an "R" certification and such as strong cast, I rate it as a 2 out of ten.
| 0neg
|
Whatever happened to Keaton is what I want to know.<br /><br />Actually I don't, I crawled away, heaving, thinking she must owe half the bookies in Vegas, or maybe not, maybe she was just brainwashed, blackmailed and bored to death. Rich enough to adopt a third-world country, she somehow had to star in yet another cookie-cut, cliché-ridden drool'athon, based on the same character-franchise she's been rehashing since 'Father of the Bride'('91). You'd think she's going head to head with Mr.Bean.<br /><br />(Spoilers) <br /><br />So hubby (Dax) get's fired by obnoxious son of boss, his mom (Keaton)leaves his dad after classic row, and crashes over with her own dog-show in tow, oh those little rascals. Hubby's got cold-feet for diaper-duty, wifey's clock a-ticking and hey, let's toss in a space-cadet as second house-guest for good measure, all in one day because that's so funny and original. Wife gets fed up and walks away, mom leaves dad for space-cadet and the couple makes up in time for closing credits, 86 very long minutes later.<br /><br />Now if you have to have a space-cadet, he can't be devious as well, he can't scheme some excuse for his stayover, and if mom leaves dad, she can't hop into a cab dressed as a pumpkin just because some scriptwriter agonized over how to cheer thing up. <br /><br />Plus that gag whereby they invite her in only to then discover she's got her canine entourage in the cab has got to be outlawed by now. And you only get one obnoxious 2-dimensional boss to denigrate. Another movie-killer would be the movie-script the space cadet is toiling away at, supposedly more lame than the actual one, again, dejas-ad-nausea.<br /><br />Liv Tyler doesn't seem happy here, her voice was weird at times, it had me wondering if they later had her redub some of it, and she's a smart one, she's handled great roles and we'll forgive her for Jersey Girl, it was disaster-prone, could happen to anyone. Dax Shepard was watchable and that's being generous considering the material.<br /><br />Personally, it's the director, the screenwriters and especially the producers that I would love to see tar'n'feathered before shipped to Guantanamo as playthings for the prisoners, and that's me keeping this 'lite'.
| 0neg
|
Neat premise. Very unrealistic. What I learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. I loved how Bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his gal. Oh, and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck.<br /><br />Lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). Poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. I admit I was intrigued to see what the mysterious "thing" was behind the door, but when it appeared, I just laughed. HA HA HA!! The girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. Personally, I really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that!
| 0neg
|
God this film was just so boring apart from the music which i really loved, i mean what was the point in actually making this movie please anyone who reads this review do not watch this film, it is a waste of time.<br /><br />Emraan can act but was really pathetic In this film, i am actually ashamed to be one of his fans especially in this movie, it was just really bad.<br /><br />Celina is just another pretty face with no lack of talent what so ever, she can't act at all, and there was no point of her being in this film, as for the other girl Radha she was okay i guess but could have done better.<br /><br />what a waste of time. please buy the great music and don't watch this movie.
| 0neg
|
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".<br /><br />Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.<br /><br />If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.<br /><br />I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result.
| 0neg
|
Simply the best Estonian film that I have ever seen, although it is made by a Finnish director Ilkka Järvi-Laturi. Tallin Pimeduses is an entertaining thriller about a bunch of gangsters who are trying to steal a huge amount of gold, a national treasure that belongs to the republic of Estonia. But at the same time it is some kind of a summary of the conditions of many Eastern European countries at that time. In the early 90s Soviet Union fell into pieces and many countries, such as Estonia, became independent. Now the conditions may be better in most of those countries. But in the beginning of the 90s many of those new nations had to fight against corruption and organized crime that the Soviet era had left them as inheritance. (And many of them still do...at least on some level...) <br /><br />Tallinn Pimeduses is a very realistic film of that era with believable characters and with a well-written script. The actors are also very good, especially Jüri Järvet (perhaps the best known Estonian actor, plays Snaut in Tarkovski's Solaris), playing and old gangster who's slowly becoming tired of his way of life. But the most astonishing performance comes from Monika Mäger, a child-actor playing Terje, a boyish girl in her early teens, whose presence in the plot is quite essential. (and her name is not even mentioned in the IMDb-credit list!!!)w<br /><br />There are not many films in the world that manage to be entertainment and artistic at the same time. But Tallinn Pimeduses does that. Unfortenately Järvi-Laturi's other films are far from this kind of achievements. His first one, Kotia päin was too artificial and his latest, History is Made at Night was just a weird mess.
| 1pos
|
My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap
| 0neg
|
This installment very much makes the CIA look like a very foolish organization. In reality, perhaps they are. After all, the way the plot goes on this it very much looks like one man has the power to sanction killing everyone including his own people in order to kill Jason Bourne.<br /><br />Matt Damon does a very credible job as Bourne trying to stay one step ahead of being killed the entire film. He is still trying to remember who he was & how he has gotten where he is. He gets help from a couple of folks & it seems like every minute of the film, somebody is trying to kill him.<br /><br />There is little time for rest in this film & the action sequences seem very very real. There are a lot of chase sequences filmed with the shaky cam which in a way add to the realism & make it seem less Hollywood than many pictures. These sequences add realism to the film in feeling.<br /><br />The suspense in some of the sequences is brilliantly done as you wonder if someone is going to die or if Bourne can head them off. This is the kind of action suspense you go to see when you want to be entertained & I am sure this one will lead to the next film in the series.
| 1pos
|
This is a really heart-warming family movie. It has absolutely brilliant animal training and "acting" (if you can call it like that) as well (just think about the dog in "How the Grinch stole Christmas"... it was plain bad training). The Paulie story is extremely well done, well reproduced and in general the characters are really elaborated too. Not more to say except that this is a GREAT MOVIE!<br /><br />My ratings: story 8.5/10, acting 7.5/10, animals+fx 8.5/10, cinematography 8/10.<br /><br />My overall rating: 8/10 - BIG FAMILY MOVIE AND VERY WORTH WATCHING!
| 1pos
|
This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.
| 1pos
|
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith.
| 0neg
|
Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie.
| 0neg
|
Loved Joan. Great performance. What isn't she good in. I watched this film and then Jane Eyre right after... she just keeps getting better. My heart was racing. Great old movie drama. Just what i want from a classic movie. Facial expressions are worth the whole film. I'm glad i have it on video. Don't know what more you need in a film. Beautiful woman....wealth..... greed.....murder....detectives......a trial.....<br /><br />The costumes are very nice. Makes me wonder what the budget was for this movie? Wish they still made films like this. Whenever they try they just seem to make a cheesy movie. Films in black and white still hold a certain mystery.
| 1pos
|
Right up until the end the bad guys have the upper-hand - always - which kind of put into question the competence of the good guys. A couple of innocent-man-accused-of-a-crime plots are irritating. Some unnecessary dialogue in which various dull legal issues get debated. This is just a mediocre dumb old western, so what's this nonsense about trying to keep things "realistic"? Cagney's atypical presence in a western is one of the few - if not the only - entertaining thing about the movie. Somewhere around the middle there is a ridiculously-timed marriage proposal; sort of like "Where is the Kid hiding??!! Where is he?!... Oh, and by the way, will you marry me?"
| 0neg
|
This is an excellent little film about the loneliness of the single man. Phillipe Harel as Notre Heros is a bit like an amalgam of Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver, Inspector Clouseau (in his stoicism) and Chauncey Gardiner in Being There (also Peter Sellers). He is single yet doesn't have a clue how to attract the opposite sex - in fact, he really makes no effort at all!<br /><br />He has a stoicism and fatalism that defies any hope of ever achieving coupledom - his friend Jose Garcia as Tisserand is in the same plight yet at least makes a brave effort to transcend his extended virginhood (he's 28 and admits he's never had sex).<br /><br />Very good outdoor shots of Paris and Rouen, where the two software people travel on business. They try various nightclubs and places but all to no avail. My theory is that they're trying the wrong places - they go to more-or-less 'youth' nightclubs; they should try the type that has older people, more their own age.<br /><br />Harel increasingly becomes isolated and does a little de Niro effort, as in Taxi Driver, urging his friend/colleague to go and stab some bloke who's pulled a nice-looking girl in the nightclub.<br /><br />Worth watching.
| 1pos
|
One of the most heart-warming foreign films I've ever seen.<br /><br />The young girl is an amazing talent. Stellar performances by her (Doggie), the old man (the king of masks), and Liang (the Living Boddhisatva).<br /><br />(SPOILER) The deplorable treatment of children, especially females is disturbing.<br /><br />Loved the music. The original Chinese dialog heightens the emotional intensity of the performances and the story.<br /><br />This is a MUST SEE -- enjoyable family film, although not for very young children. Would have rated the DVD release even higher if the soundtrack had been transferred better onto the DVD and the transfer had included the widescreen version.
| 1pos
|
First off, I'd like to make a correction on another review of this film which said that the last musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award was 'Gigi' in 1958. That is misinformation as 'West Side Story' won in 1962, 'My Fair Lady' won in 1965 and 'Sound of Music' won the year after that. That said, this film is absolutely fantastic! The story from the novel has been somewhat altered, but that's more because of the limitations that they had on a stage that they just didn't change back for a filmed version. However, I don't mind. In fact, I rather think the whole production flows better than the novel does. I like Nancy bringing Oliver to the bridge with her and being killed there instead of later in the apartment. The subtle things in this film are the ones that make me laugh. I love the moment Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble start coming out at the beginning from the governors office. The underscore for that moment is brilliant. My three favorite actors for this film were Jack Wild, who plays the best Dodger in any film version of the story, Ron Moody, a playful and humorous Fagin (this character is worked out much better than he is in the book), and Shani Wallis, who is the strongest, most distressed version of Nancy. The only reason I'm giving this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the two big production numbers which are 'Concider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy.' I always hate when the choreography in musicals in meant to look like people doing everyday chores and jobs. It looks awful and cheesy, especially when they're dancing at the London Meat Co. They should've just done regular choreography for these scenes. However, this film is a rare treasure that will stay with us, hopefully, forever.
| 1pos
|
If I were to create a movie thermometer, this movie would be absolute zero. Out of ten stars, I would rate it as follows:<br /><br />Plot: zero stars Video quality: zero stars Sound Quality: zero stars Acting: zero stars<br /><br />It is as though high school students got together one afternoon with a camera, made up a plot and shot a movie. It is so lacking in any artistic value that I'd rather watch kids walking around a high school than watch this movie.<br /><br />HOWEVER, something is to be said for the abysymal depths. The "shootout" in the staircase is one of the most train-wreck funny scenes ever. First of all, the combatants simply wave plastic guns at each other, jerking their arms back and forth to simulate recoil. The pair actually "duck" each other's non-existent bullets. No squibs, no sparks, no blanks, just waving spraypainted squirtguns around. If you want to see two grown men play "actor", give it a spin someday... after you have cleaned the fridge, combed the carpet, polished all of the doorknobs, raked the gravel, straightened the books on the shelf, etc.
| 0neg
|
This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!
| 0neg
|
As a producer of indie movies and a harsh critic of such, I have to say I loved this movie. It is funny and intelligent, well directed and entertaining. Hats off to the producers and directors for making a good one! I'll be watching for the next one. I gave it a 10.
| 1pos
|
This movie starts out promisingly, with an early scene in which Frank Morgan advises against Gary Cooper's marriage to his daughter, Anita Louise. Frank Morgan, playing an unabashed gold-digger, loudly complains to Cooper about his perceived penury at the hands of his family - including his daughter, Anita Louise. I am a fan of all 3 actors. Frank Morgan is (to my mind) a Hollywood treasure, Cooper a legend, and Louise a very lovely, versatile and under-appreciated actress seldom seen in the leading role. I also have nothing against Teresa Wright, and while not blessed with great range, she usually delivers heart-warming performances.<br /><br />From a promising opening, the story slides downhill all the way to the end. I found nothing humorous about burning down the home of Cooper's would-be in-laws. The butler in such a fastidious, non-smoking household would never just blithely walk away, allowing Cooper to continue smoking, or alternatively he would certainly supply him with some means of disposing of his ill-timed cigarette. Moreover, nobody with any common sense would permit himself to be left holding a lit cigarette without asking for some means of disposing of it. And finally, nobody in his right mind crushes out a cigarette in a handkerchief and sticks it in his pocket! This whole sequence just made Cooper seem foolish and gauche. It is a poor contrivance - ill conceived and filmed in a way that induces ridicule not laughter. <br /><br />The forced medical examination of Cooper is equally contrived. Nobody lets himself undergo a complete medical examination without his being advised of its purpose or giving his consent! That Cooper did so is too removed from reality to be funny - it's absurd! Stealing babies from hospitals is a serious legal offense, and that, too, is nothing to laugh about. Finally, the scenes of Cooper's overly fastidious, neurotic attention to his baby's feeding and weight may have struck a nerve with a few people who have experienced anxiety over their own newborn babies. But to me they just seem tedious and slow. The wardrobe and prop departments went over the top in those scenes, while paradoxically, the script writer went to sleep.<br /><br />The lines are just not in the script to generate humor. They just miss on all cylinders. The laughs come not a mile-a-minute, but more like a light year-a-minute. The only time the movie has any energy or humor is when Frank Morgan is on camera.<br /><br />The scene that is totally wasted is when both of Cooper's love interests and their respective fathers are cooped up in the same hotel room together. There is probably a rich vein of humor somewhere in that mine, but none of it was extracted.<br /><br />In the end, one of the two very likable girls is going to get hurt. Predictably, it is the Anita Louise character, who gets jilted on her would-be-wedding night! While it is not on camera, that is her fate, and it is not particularly funny - even as a loose end. She hadn't done anything in this film to make me unsympathetic (unlike Gail Patrick, say, in My Favorite Wife). Consequently, I was expecting (perhaps "hoping" is a better word in the context of the film!) for Anita Louise to enjoy a happy ending, too. The fact that such a nice character is essentially wiped out at the movie's end really undermines the effect of the "happy ending" for Cooper and Wright.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen, for the witty dialog so characteristic of movies of the era... And it never delivered. A good performance by Frank Morgan in a slightly different role is totally wasted here.
| 0neg
|
WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS, in my opinion, is a very touching and kind of heartbreaking drama about the consequences of being anorexic or bulimic. Anytime Lexi (Katie Wright) or Jennifer (Marley Shelton) threw up, I wanted to vomit myself. It's kind of hard to explain why. If you ask me, they should have been more cooperative about things. However, I did enjoy seeing them do things together as well as get lectured by their parents. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "If you ask me, WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS does indeed show you how being anorexic or bulimic can affect a person's body. " Now, in conclusion, I recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. You're in for some tears and a good time, so the next time it's on TV, kick back with a friend and watch it.
| 1pos
|
While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here.
| 1pos
|
Any true wrestling fan would have to consider this Wrestlemania to be one of, if not the best of all time. It was packed with excitement and surprises. One of the greatest matches of all time was between Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin with special guest ref Mike Tyson. The show that Michaels put on was unbelievable, especially considering the shape that his back was in and that this was his last match.
| 1pos
|
Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.<br /><br />I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that??? <br /><br />Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.<br /><br />Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself.
| 0neg
|
What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.
| 0neg
|
One of the most peculiar oft-used romance movie plots is this one: A seriously messed-up man falls in love with a terminally ill woman, who turns his life around before dying. Occasionally this story is done well and realistically (as in "The Theory of Flight", an excellent weepie), but more frequently it's done like it is here, where as usual the heroine dies of "Old Movie Disease". You know, the terminal illness that has no symptoms but one fainting spell and a need to lie down as you're telling your lover goodbye forever; and your looks aren't affected one bit (and since this is the 70's, neither is your sex life). This is one of the worst versions made of that particular story, where a very silly script puts two incompatible and unbelievable characters together, and they're played by actors who are completely at sea.<br /><br />This has got to be the worst performance of Al Pacino's career, and I say that after having seen "The Devil's Advocate" only two days ago! He plays a control-freak, emotionally constipated race-car driver, and plays an unlikeable character lifelessly. He seems to constantly be asking himself why he's staying around the grating Marthe Keller (so does the audience), and spends most of the movie just... standing there, usually with his mouth hanging open. The only time he shows any sign of life is towards the end, where his character proves that he's changed from uptight to liberated by doing a hilariously bad Mae West imitation. Hey, it *was* the seventies!<br /><br />Marthe Keller is equally terrible as the dying love interest; her character was conceived as bold and free and touching and uninhibited and full of life even though dying, and was probably meant to be played with an actress with the sensitivity of, say, Vanessa Redgrave or Julie Christie. Instead, they got the expressionless face and heavy German accent of Ms. Keller, who comes across as more of a scary Teutonic stereotype ("You VILL eat ze omelet!") than anything like lovable. She's supposed to be reforming Pacino and filling him with courage and spirit and all that, but it doesn't work that way, it's more like she's harping on his faults in the most obnoxious possible fashion. This makes for one of the least convincing romances in movie history, where you can't believe she'd be with someone she finds so worthless, and you can't believe he's with someone who gets on his nerves that much.<br /><br />Some bad-movie fans call this a cult classic, mostly because of Pacino's silly "liberating" Mae West imitation. The scene is a scream, especially in context, but not worth sitting through the rest of the film for. No, only see the film if you're a serious bad-movie aficionado who is especially interested in studying Extreme Lack of Chemistry between leading actors, or Very Bad Casting (not only are the leads terrible, but Pacino's other girlfriend is played by an actress who looks and sounds just likes Keller with shorter hair, I got them totally confused). This isn't one of those laugh-a-minute bad movies like "The Conqueror", it's just a really, really bad movie.<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Shiri Appleby is the cutest little embodiment of evil turned good girl demon-kicking Buffy clone, Elle. But I'm getting ahead of myself, you see Lilith was the first woman made by god as a companion to Adam. But she got all uppity evil feminist so god banished her from Eden. A clandestine order known as The Fath captures her but doesn't kill her, so now with amnesia (which is not really explained that well) Lilith (now Elle) is free to become the aforementioned Buffy-clone who has to battle with a mad scientist who got an injection of Lilith's blood. <br /><br />If the previous paragraph sounded hideously convoluted, that's because it is. The movie is also dull, generic, and for a film with a plot steeped in theology it doesn't seem to know a lick about it. This bargain basement lousy-CGIed movie was apparently a failed series pilot. All I can say to the fact that it didn't get picked up is a resounding Amen.<br /><br />My Grade: D-<br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Writer/Director Bill Platt and Co-writer Chris Regina; and Stills gallery; video effects samples: before & after (it also has an "also available" selection that you would THINK would lead you to some trailers, but nope on DVD covers for other films, which is a stupid idea)<br /><br />DVD-ROM extras: Final shooting script and Deleted scenes transcript both in PDF format
| 0neg
|
I tried as hard as I could to sit all the way through this irritating mess, but I just couldn't do it. Brad Dourif absolutely sucked as the lead and all the supporting cast were only marginally worse. <br /><br />The whole thing is just ludicrous, from the awful acting to the laughable FX to the stupid plot.<br /><br />Complete waste of time; don't bother. Root Canal therapy would be more enjoyable. Bamboo slivers under the fingernails would be a lot more pleasant. <br /><br />Watching a Uwe Boll movie would be only a little worse than this. Get the idea?
| 0neg
|
Generally, I've found that if you don't hear about a movie prior to seeing it on DVD, there's probably a good reason for it. I hadn't heard about this movie at all until I was in a Blockbuster the other day and saw it on a shelf. Since all the good movies had already been rented out (the ones I wanted to see, anyway), I figured I'd give this one a shot.<br /><br />It's really not much different than other movies in the genre, such as The Singles Ward or the R.M. If you're into those type movies, you'll probably enjoy this.<br /><br />However, if you're not a mormon, this movie probably won't appeal to you. There's no way to avoid the overtly religious (mormon) message contained within, and at times it comes across as sappy and cheesy. Ultimately, if you don't fall within the mormon demographic, you're probably better off watching something else.<br /><br />Admittedly, there were some very funny moments in the film, but I didn't think that it was enough to salvage the movie overall.
| 0neg
|
I really enjoyed this documentary about Kenny and Spencer's attempt to pitch "The Dawn". Was a great look at how outsiders try to get to the inside to make it big. <br /><br />The story was put together well and organized in an interesting manner that made the film flow well. Certainly worth a watch. My only complaint is that their appeared to be no closure. Perhaps that is part of the point. We expect it but in reality that is not what happened (or usually happens).<br /><br />The film is also a great way to see the personality of Kenny and Spencer outside of their Canadian television show. You can see a bit of what is yet to come. <br /><br />I look forward to a chance to see The Papal Chase.
| 1pos
|
Well, EYEboy, I must say that it pleases me to no end when someone singles me out and tries to make fun of me, especially when it is someone who seems as intelligent as you do. My favorite part of your post was "But no big bang-bang good-guy bad-guy here, kimosabe. Me suggest you stick to movie with lotsa bang bang."<br /><br />Well said! I do like action movies, especially if they are well done, but I also like movies that don't have a whole lot of action, as long as THEY are well done. I'm sorry, but Secret's and Lies does not fit into that category and is simply a very bad movie. I really don't see very many non-American films, so maybe I was spoiled, and didn't realize how bad foreign films really were when I saw Secrets and Lies. Perhaps if I judge foreign movies by a different standard I could some day see how Secrets and Lies could possibly be one of the highest rated movies on the IMDB. Hmm... If true, that is very scary.<br /><br />Jeremy Barger [email protected](new e-mail)
| 0neg
|
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is, simply put, the worst movie ever made, far lamer than even the inept "Plan 9 from Outer Space."<br /><br />The Lampoon film is told in three segments, each one supposedly a spoof of a conventional movie genre, but each one landing at our feet with a sickening thud. There is no rhyme or reason for these execrable vignettes, and no discernible story lines.<br /><br />Another reviewer on this site has written that the only good points about the film are the nude scenes. True, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice it is too. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.<br /><br />Probably the worst of the three segments is the last one, featuring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark. Here, we see Benson as a young, eager-beaver policeman being paired with a cynical oldtimer played by Widmark. And for just a moment, those of us who are still watching this odious cinematic exercise are heartened by the thought that we are about to see a redemptive tale about how the young, idealistic cop brings about a purifying change in the old-timer's approach to police work. But no such luck. As we've said, this film has no redeeming values. It is sickening all the way to the final fade-out -- which, perversely, is stretched out longer than it should last on the screen. Apparently the film makers knew they had a bad thing going, and wanted to make the least of it.
| 0neg
|
This movie was so good. Leon Phelps is hilarious. I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!
| 1pos
|
I dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.<br /><br />Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.<br /><br />It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.<br /><br />What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel "The Last Don" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III.
| 0neg
|
Oh man, this s-u-c-k-e-d sucked.... I couldn't even get any camp value out of this......and I sat through the whole thing on Showtime.... Don't bother waiting around for the 'naked' scenes either.....it's too late and only plastic Jenna Jameson is involved.. Shows how much discretionary cash must be laying around Hollywood just to get your name on the closing credits.. I guess Showtime had to throw something in at 1am... Next time I think I'd even rather be watching ESPN loop around every 30 minutes...
| 0neg
|
Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.<br /><br />Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.<br /><br />Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.<br /><br />The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work. <br /><br />Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.<br /><br />This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film. <br /><br />What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.
| 0neg
|
This movie was by far the worst movie that I have ever seen in my entire life. I'm not even kidding. It was poorly made and the actors couldn't act. It was a waste of my time and money. It looked like a movie that my friends and I could have put together on our own. The case the movie came in is definitely a disguise. Nothing in the movie looks like the zombie on the front of the case. It appears that the director or make-up artist has just put black eye liner under someones eyes an called them a zombie. The credits at the beginning of the movie take up almost 20 minutes of the movie. Which watching the credits was the best part of the movie. This was honestly an awful movie and I couldn't believe how badly it was put together. Scenes jumped from one thing to the other and sometimes u were like "whats going on?" The audio was awful and the action shots looked like a couple of teen's joking around making a fake fight scene.<br /><br />IF you are considering renting or buying this movie I would advise you to at least watch the trailer for it because it show's how awful it truly is. I wish i would have watched it before i rented it.
| 0neg
|
I think James Cameron might be becoming my favorite director because this is my second review of his movies. Anyway, everyone remembers the RMS Titanic. It was big, fast, and "unsinkable"... until April 1912. It was all over the news and one of the biggest tragedies ever. Well James Cameron decided to make a movie out of it but star two fictional characters to be in the spotlight instead of the ship. Well, onto the main review but let me remind you that this is all opinion and zero fact and the only fact that will be present is an event from the film.<br /><br />So our two main characters are Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet). They're not annoying too much but watch this and you'll find out why they could become annoying ( http://tinyurl.com/ojhoyn ). The main villain I guess is bad luck, fate, hand of God (no blasphemy intended), or just plain Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). Combine all of the above and what do you get?! Oh yes! We get a love story on a sinking boat. The supporting characters are the following: My personal favorite, Mr. Andrews (Victor Garber)(idk he was so nice), Lovejoy(David Warner), Murdoch(Ewan Stewart), Lightoller (Jonathan Phillips), Captain Smith(Bernard Hill), Molly Brown(Kathy Bates), and many more. We also got the present day treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). They add something to the story, something good. The action in here is awesome, especially in the second half, the drama as also good. In the end you can have your eyes dropping rainstorms or silent tears. The story is simple and it works. A treasure hunter seeks the Heart of the Ocean and instead finds a drawing of a woman wearing the said diamond. She calls and tells her tale on the RMS Titanic. Two lovers separated by social class and ultimately, the fate of the ship. Everything about the story works and there are very few flaws. I give Titanic, an 86% awesome
| 1pos
|
I have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.<br /><br />I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.<br /><br />This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.<br /><br />Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us. <br /><br />I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works.
| 0neg
|
I recall seeing this movie as a kid. I don't recall where I saw it. I must have been around 14 years old. I thought the movie was incredible and wished to see it again. It came on the Kung Fu channel once, but I missed it. I was really bummed. It is the best special-effects Kung Fu movie that I've seen to date! I highly recommend it, and now that I've discovered where to get it, I can enjoy it once more and for years to come. I also have to check out this Return of the Venom movie of which some have spoken so highly.
| 1pos
|
I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do.
| 1pos
|
There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, "that vain, rich girl", and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.<br /><br />Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.<br /><br />The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight "the great evil" and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the "warriors" in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.<br /><br />Nevermind that, however- let us continue.<br /><br />Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when "the evil" starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: "If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone." Wendy: "Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else." Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.<br /><br />Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).<br /><br />This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.<br /><br />As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this "great battle" are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she "felt weird fighting an old man") inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.<br /><br />We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.<br /><br />Don't ask.<br /><br />Anyway, Wendy gets all "panicky." Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.<br /><br />Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.<br /><br />She screams title of said article out.<br /><br />Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her "destiny" and she had "the power within" her.<br /><br />Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.<br /><br />He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.<br /><br />Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more "finesse" to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.<br /><br />Ah-hem...moving on.<br /><br />I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.<br /><br />So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it.
| 0neg
|
In a way, this film reminded me of "Jumping Jack Flash". Remember Whoopi Goldberg at the shredding machine? Whoopi zonked out tranquilizers? Whoopi as Blind Lemon and imitating Mick Jagger? Great moments captured on film for sure but the movie still kind of sucks, right? That's how I feel about "Rich In Love". A man hears his wife sing for the first time. Post-coital teenagers talk about the nature of love. Albert Finney eats ice cream out of bucket and, in another scene, has a lovely waking moment regarding his absent wife. Alfre Woodard adds another colorful character to her acting wardrobe. But there's only the whisper of a plot here and you can't wait for it to Get Moving. Only when ex-Go-Gos' Charlotte Caffey's The Graces revs up a great pop song does the picture wake up...and then it's over!<br /><br />This picture is the equivalent of a lazy summer's day in the deep American South.
| 1pos
|
Philo Vance (William Powell) helps solve multiple murders among the wealthy after a dog show.<br /><br />Usually I hate overly convoluted mysteries (like this) but I LOVE this movie. It moves very quickly (only 72 minutes), is beautifully directed by Michael Curtiz (he uses tons of camera tricks that just speed the narrative along), has a very ingenious story line (including a solution to a locked room murder that was just incredible) and has a very good cast. <br /><br />Powell is very suave and great as Vance--he doesn't seem to be acting--he IS Vance! Mary Astor isn't given much to do but she adds class and beauty to the production. Everybody else is very good too, but best of all is Eugene Pallette as Detective Heath. He's a very good actor with a VERY distinctive voice and some of his lines were hilarious.<br /><br />Basically, an excellent 1930s Hollywood murder mystery. Well worth seeing.<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
My friends and I rented this for "Bad Movie Night" with high hopes, but The Brain was something of a letdown. The Brain itself is gloriously goofy-looking, but it mostly just sits on its little platform. Who thought that it would be cool that the Brain only gets to munch on three people throughout 94 drawn-out minutes? This movie has a number of things going for it at first, including an Estevez-knockoff lead playing a rebellious genius (we're told that his enormous intellect is misdirected into his elaborate pranks and school stunts, which include putting krazy glue on someone's chair). It also has some great lines, a hilariously out-of-shape and out-of-breath henchman who just barely manages to be everywhere, and, yeah, some chick gets naked. However, the director desperately needs some schooling in the art of pacing. During the last half things just start to drag on and on, with at least 3 or 4 pointless, boring chase scenes making up the middle third of the plot. The scenes inside the PRI complex are especially bad. At least 15 minutes of this movie are people running up and down the same stairwell. I could've fixed the screenplay to this thing in half an hour- more cheese, more gore, more nudity, more Brain action. If you're going to make a bad horror movie, at least give me something cool to look at while my superego shuts down. Maybe the director was trying to really bring the audience into his movie- I started feeling like one of the zombified townsfolk by the end of this crapfest.
| 0neg
|
Well I have to say that I have waited for it to come.<br /><br />I won't try to spoil it and quite a few people have really brilliantly spoken of the pilot. On the other hand I'm not quite sure to understand the detractors who claim themselves to be BSG fans and not like the pilot.<br /><br />What the frack did they expect?!! The background is setting 50 years before BSG we are there o assist at the birth of the Cylons, see the life of the Adama family (has we already knew some of it from BSG), get a deeper explanation of the Caprican population and its perception of the other colonies, and potentially the origins of the Gods belief of the human and the unique God belief of the Cylons. <br /><br />I do not expect the same profusion of special effect or space opera as the in the previous series, I make the difference between the two although I know that Caprica will reinforce BSG.<br /><br />This is 1h30 of promising start, I believe as well that this will put pressure for the scenarios to be as good as BSG. I expect a lot from the following but I have no reasons to doubts that we will learn a lot more.<br /><br />Watching the DVD's deleted scene also gives more material for your brain to chew on.<br /><br />Looking forward to January 2010
| 1pos
|
Well i do disagreed with the other comment posted. Piedras is much much better them Magnolia or any of the other films that were mentioned.<br /><br />specially about non real characters, i think that someone just wrote that only because he never lived in the Spanish society like i did (and i'm not Spanish), is a very real film with real characters, very well done by one of the best Spanish actress Antonia San Juan.<br /><br />about be a European film in contrast with an American film, well we different societies, personally i dislike American modern films a lot (i like the classics and some of the Andy American films but they are very few).<br /><br />Is a film about the continuous Constitution of a person, liked or not we all make mistakes but some can learn about the mistakes.
| 1pos
|
This movie documents the Harlem ball circuit of the mid eighties. Much more fun than than Palazzo Volpi, though just as diseased, this movie is a true gem of squalor. One cannot help but sympathize with the characters because of their freakness . The sole purpose of middle class intellectuals is to document the phenomenons of the trash and the glitz. Here the most genius of trash is extremely well documented and duly glamorized. The characters' penchant for idolatry of all that is glamorous inspires even more adoration of the characters themselves on part of the viewer, creating a "phenomenon of a phenomenon" effect which makes this movie a piece of art.
| 1pos
|
Adrian Pasdar is excellent is this film. He makes a fascinating woman.
| 1pos
|
Forbidden Planet represents the kind of science fiction that is precious in cinema, especially from the 1950s. There was The Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds, but lest not forget this gem which took some of its story from Shakespeare's The Tempest to tell a tale of astronauts on a planet that has a doctor on it who has made a remarkable breakthrough. It's the kind of breakthrough that is not so much incredible to look at (though for 1956 it does look quite amazing to look at some of those sets and that gigantic machine the doctor creates), but with its emphasis on the characters and its themes of technology taken too far by the more primitive side of human nature even when we don't know we're channeling it.<br /><br />On the surface- that is in the first ten minutes- it looks standard, if a little more professionally acted and directed with better skill than the B-movies of the period. A ship of astronauts are on a mission to the planet Altair-4 to bring back an expedition that went missing decades before. But the only one left is Dr. Morbis (Walter Pidgeon) and his daughter, who somehow were immune to an attack that left everyone else dead. Morbius appears to be a cordial and highly intelligent man, and his technology looks to be so impressive that the only thing the astronauts, led by the Skipper (Leslie Nielsen), can think to do is to report it back to their superiors on Earth.<br /><br />But there's a catch - something is killing off members of the crew of the ship, one by one, every night, even when the others keep an eye out and then put up an invisible electric fence, which the invisible something goes through easily. Meanwhile, there's some romance possibly between the Skipper and Alraira, and there's a more pushy vibe from the doctor: you shouldn't have come to the planet to start, and now you need to go. What happens from this is even more fascinating, just on a purely intellectual level, but Forbidden Planet never forgets that its audience should also be entertained by this story while getting some useful ideas. While everyone may remember Robbie the Robot, and for good reason, perhaps the most unforgettable image for me is the monster realized on screen with the crew firing to no avail, animated with red electricity and looking so beastly that it looks out of Fantasia.<br /><br />The acting from Pidgeon is subtle: you wouldn't expect him to be a villain, though something is there in the character and in the performance that speaks to this, and by the end it makes the character far more complex than one would expect. And the other performances are workmanlike but also excellent, from Nielsen as a born leader to Holliman providing some great comic relief as the Cook (who, I should add, helps with one of the funniest scenes in the film with those gallons of bourbon Robbie provides). And the effects for its time are extraordinary (sophisticated in a nostalgic pulp way for today too), and the music, done by electronics, is beautiful in its "tones". But ultimately it's the screenplay and careful direction from Hilcox that puts this a notch above the rest of the B-movie lot. When it's meant to be funny, it's intentionally so and it works. When it's dramatic it connects quite well even in its stiff moments with the actors. And when we are made to think about a horrible situation, it comes on gradually, with nuance, not shoved in our faces or injected with mega-action.<br /><br />An inspiration for many other sci-fi films, and a fine marker of thoughtful science fiction stories and books from time-old, it's a classy and entertaining classic.
| 1pos
|
I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.
| 0neg
|
Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!<br /><br />This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!<br /><br />One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!
| 0neg
|
"True" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, "here watch this", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable.
| 0neg
|
As a gamer, I can't say I like this film. Fact is, I down right hate it. I tried to watch it as open minded as possible, but when it gets down to it, it feels rather insulting to my social group.<br /><br />To me, there are several reasons why.<br /><br />1. The characters seem unnatural. I've met lots of players, of all different walks of life. I don't know any who act like any of the characters in the film. It's like the producers of the film have taken the worst aspects of the worst stereotypes and put them all into 5 people. Most gamers are rather social people, some with rather active lives.<br /><br />2. The style doesn't work. The mockumentary style is ill suited to the subject matter of the film. An actual documentary on gamers would actually work better. While it is good looking (I.E. cleanly put together), it isn't very good.<br /><br />3. The dialogue feels forced, unnatural. It also seems to lack any real world context. Gamers swear, I'll admit that, but we don't have Tourette's Syndrome.<br /><br />4. The humor is lacking. While self-deprecating humor is a mainstay of my group and several other groups I've encountered, this is less self-deprecation, and more like toilet humor. Likewise, a large part of gamer humor is full of in-jokes and anecdotes, not toilet humor. Most gamers would balk at and shun anybody who made such jokes.<br /><br />5. The biggest problem to me is basically this: Accuracy. I don't mean rules, but instead dynamics. Invariably, this film is going to be compared to the even lower budget films The Gamers and The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, both of which portray the players as actual people playing an actual game. The difference is, Gamers: The Movie presents a situation where you want to beat the players senseless vs. The Gamers, where you can say something like: "Huh, I know a guy like that... Yep, that's definitely like Gary."
| 0neg
|
Kate Beckinsale is as good if not better than Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma in this movie, although I really liked Gwyneth Paltrow in the other Emma version. They're both good in different ways. Kate Beckinsale as Emma seems more interesting, almost, though. And I liked the woman who played Harriet Smith in this movie better, too...she was more believably sweet and sentimental. There are certain things I like better about the Gwyneth Paltrow version, though, like how the humorous side is more apparent.
| 1pos
|
This film reminds me a lot of the anti-drug films of the 50's and 60's due to the fact that it was made by people that have obviously never experienced the social evil that they are warning us about. Tom Hanks and his buddies are "role playing", but there are no dice, lots of candles, and then you are just swept away in a bad montage showing Hanks falling for the lady in the group. quite funny but misguided. I wonder how many poor kids had their D&D stuff destroyed, and were told that the use of their imagination was the road to destruction. As a film it's basically an after school special, bad acting (although Hanks does show some of his talent) and relationship talks, and no one seems to be having any fun. It seems these films have a psychological focus on adolescents starting on the road to adultism, which is more serious, apparently, and requires you to buckle down and do the things everyone else does. Despite my vote of 2, this is worth watching due to its unique genre, scare films, which I personally find quite funny.
| 0neg
|
Normally when I write a review for a movie online, it is for one of three reasons. Either, I have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent, I feel that the public's perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons, or I believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. While all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative, I find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as, "This is one of the best films of all time!", does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides, nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good, which should be the point of the review in the first place. With that being said, War of the Worlds is nothing more than a hurried, incompetent attempt at a money grab; piggy-backing its loathsome carcass on the multi-million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Many people will buy this DVD in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. This movie is not even "so bad" that it becomes funny or endearing, rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. Now with most of the insults out of the way, allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than I. <br /><br />Judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (I found it as SAM's Club for 8 bucks), I assumed that the cast would be no-names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. Check. This is not a big deal for me, as I find a large budget and an over-reliance on big name stars and SE can diminish an otherwise decent movie. I also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. Check again. What I did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien/battle scenes. <br /><br />Now, as per IMDb's policy any spoilers must be announced in advance, no matter how small, so here is fair warning. The movie opens with a lot of inane small-talk, followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. Seriously, it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. It is very hard to describe every little issue in depth, but by the end of the first ten minutes, the combination of shaky camera-work, spliced scenes, and a LOT of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. However, the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. The next 30 minutes basically go as follows: one of the main characters walks to one of the pods, he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. They both walk back to town. These walks aren't two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. They are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. In a particularly grueling scene, the main character is shown looking at a pod, then he is shown pacing and panting, then he looks at the pod, then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town, then comes in to town and walks into a building, then he has a cup of coffee and says "Thank you Mary" to a random maid that serves him coffee, then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building, then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. I apologize for the extreme run-on sentence, but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. Characters speak way too long about mundane things, they walk a lot, they send other people to walk, the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed, but for no dramatic effect, simply the camera man is a sophomore at Tech somewhere. The editing is mind-bogglingly bad. People actions make little sense. For instance, when the professor goes to a farmer's house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town, the farmer stutters and paces around. When the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside, the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. Nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene, as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. The entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film, but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. I have seen better high school video productions. Finally, the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. I get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. However, it is so awful in technical aspects, and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. Avoid this film at all costs.
| 0neg
|
Although I generally do not like remakes believing that remakes are waste of time; this film is an exception. I didn't actually know so far until reading the previous comment that this was a remake, so my opinion is purely about the actual film and not a comparison.<br /><br />The story and the way it is written is no question: it is Capote. There is no need for more words.<br /><br />The play of Anthony Edwards and Eric Roberts is superb. I have seen some movies with them, each in one or the other. I was certain that they are good actors and in case of Eric I always wondered why his sister is the number 1 famous star and not her brother. This time this certainty is raised to fact, no question. His play, just as well as the play of Mr. Edwards is clearly the top of all their profession.<br /><br />I recommend this film to be on your top 50 films to see and keep on your DVD shelves.
| 1pos
|
This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.<br /><br />Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.
| 0neg
|
One of the last classics of the French New Wave. For direction, cineaste Jean Eustache drew from the simplicity of early-century cinema; for story, Eustache drew on the torments of his own complicated love life. So many things can be said of this film - observationally brilliant; self indulgently overlong; occasionally hilarious; emotionally draining...etc. etc. In my mind, whatever complaints that can be leveled against this film are easily overshadowed by its numerous strengths. Every film student, writer, or simply anyone willing to handle a 3 hour film with no abrupt cuts, no music video overstyling, no soap opera-like plot twists, and no banal dialogue should make it a point to see this movie. Everything is to be admired: the writing (concise, clever, surprisingly funny), acting (everyone, quite simply, is perfect in their respective roles), and, simple direction (the viewer feels like a casual observer within the film) make this film unforgettable. This is undoubtedly a film that stays with you.
| 1pos
|
Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.<br /><br />BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.<br /><br />Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone.
| 0neg
|
I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.<br /><br />What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.<br /><br />However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.<br /><br />And please forgive me for my bad English
| 1pos
|
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.
| 0neg
|
Typical 90's comedy, situational comedy similar to our modern day "My Family". Thatcher being the height of most political jokes, Bill (Belinda Lang) blames Thatcher for anything she can. "Bloody Thatcher" possibly shared with most of us. David the typical teenager, cutting up brains with bread knives, Jenny, the moody older teenage child, only interested in boys and more boys. Bill and Ben working as much as they can to keep their family afloat struggling within the economical climate of the early 90's. Granted the first two series were not as successful as the latter however, series 3 onwards is where it all kicks off with more laughs that i care to count. overall this show didn't get the best viewing times and they ought to have held on a bit longer. clearly they couldn't have carried on after Gary Olsen died but i think they should get rid of "catherine Tate" "the office" "little Britain" and bring back the classics!
| 1pos
|
I don't know why I'm taking the time to review this waste-of-time movie. If you stick with it long enough in hopes of a satisfying conclusion good, bad, or surprising don't. It finally fizzles out after stiff, formulaic, predictable dialogue and acting. Indoor scenes are so harshly lit you think if the camera were zoomed out one millimeter further you'd see the klieg lights. Costumes, hair-do's, and sets are starched, pressed, and immaculate. Are we supposed to imagine common people really lived like that in early 20th-century Arizona? Other reviews' comparisons to Sam Peckinpah are an insult to Peckinpah: at least that director wove his violence into the context of chaos and mayhem. HARD MEN's gore is gratuitous exploding squibs from wooden impersonations of bad guys with manicured fingernails. Huh?!? I can believe Heston thought he might have been making something of worth with this film. (He does get to clutch his gun in his cold fingers.) But Coburn? I'll never guess why he signed up for this travesty. Want to see a movie about the end of the West as we knew it, the end of Westerns as we knew them? Watch THE SHOOTIST or UNFORGIVEN again. THE LAST HARD MEN is a mockery of an obituary to the Western.
| 0neg
|
Why do I constantly do this to myself? I mean, really, it's right there in the title - "The Incredible Melting Man". What else would I expect? I have to admit, I'm a sucker for just about anything I come across on the Monster HD channel, but the only redeeming feature of this picture would be that truly grotesque makeup job by the legendary Rick Baker. As for creepy, I'll give the nod to that horny old geezer couple sucking on lemons just before lights out. Now they were truly scary.<br /><br />Something I could never figure out in horror flicks was why a monster's victims wouldn't simply just run away when faced with virtual annihilation. Like the chick in the cabin. You know, there was a door completely visible right there in the kitchen that she could have run right out of at any time. Incredible Steve-O couldn't muster much more than a brisk walk, so why not just blow right by him? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. <br /><br />This flick had some of the feel of a 'Tales From The Crypt' episode, but 'Tales' usually had a cool or grotesque twist which often times you didn't see coming. This was one picture that you couldn't quite get a handle on coming OR going. For example, in an early scene, you can clearly make out that Melting Man's eyeball fell out of his head, so how did he manage to get around for the rest of the story? I guess we're not supposed to ask.<br /><br />At eighty four minutes, this picture was about an hour and a half too long. When it was all over, I was ready to take up General Perry on his earlier suggestion - "I could really use a drink about now".
| 0neg
|
The plot had some wretched, unbelievable twists. However, the chemistry between Mel Brooks and Leslie Ann Warren was excellent. The insight that she comes to, "There are just moments," provides a philosophical handle by which anyone could pick up, and embrace, life.<br /><br />That was one of several moments that were wonderfully memorable.
| 1pos
|
I enjoyed this movie very much. Kristy Swanson Omar epps, and Ice Cube were all great in it. The movie dealt with many issues, and I didn't know if I was going to like it, but Singelton did a terrific job of creating characters that you really cared about.
| 1pos
|
I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.
| 0neg
|
I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.
| 0neg
|
This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.<br /><br />Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.<br /><br />The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the "naked ladies."<br /><br />The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves.
| 1pos
|
Wonderful film, one of the best horror films of the 70s. She is realistic settings and atmospheres. As usual it was inevitable the usual negative comments. I have noticed that most horror films of a certain period many times fail to reach even sufficiency. Obviously because most horror movies are old and must be denigrati, is like a mental mechanism that moves the minds of the potential of music critics here.<br /><br />Before you read the review already knew what was the final judgment. In the film a good gift because 10 is really well done. Raines reads quite well and the film as a way in which it was produced reminds me a lot of Kubrick films. He really impression. Excellent film really. I consider a film anthology of years'70.
| 1pos
|
I have to admit that Purple Rain is one of my deepest guilty pleasures. Purple Rain not only broke boundaries, it set a decade, the costumes, the music, the behavior, and the dancing! To this day, my friends and I still jam to the Purple Rain soundtrack and pretend to be Prince and the Revolution.<br /><br />Now the movie itself, I just meant what I said in the title, because for the most part, this movie itself is made by the music. The acting? Please don't let me judge on that since this is one of my favorite guilty pleasures, because I know that it was not Oscar worthy by any means. But I think the duo that took this movie was Morris and Jarome, their speech about passwords was just beyond hilarious. I just want to rate this movie on the concert sequences because I felt that it was what made the movie.<br /><br />Prince is a musical genius and created beautiful music. While the movie and acting is pretty bad, this movie is still a fun one to watch at night and even dance too. This movie defined the 80's, so just have fun with it. Prince would want it that way, just to party on down! Oh, boy, that sounded lame.<br /><br />9/10
| 1pos
|
When the Grinch came out I was excited though I thought it was going to be a happy go lucky film and it was. Though it did have a little Nightmare before Christmas touch to it. You know kind of dark and spooky. I loved this film because it helped fill people with the Christmas spirit. So mostly the Grinch saved Christmas. And what happened then well in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. MERRY GRINCHMAS!
| 1pos
|
Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.<br /><br />Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.<br /><br />Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.
| 0neg
|
With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype. <br /><br />'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness. <br /><br />If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.<br /><br />Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.
| 0neg
|
"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". <br /><br />Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. <br /><br />While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. <br /><br />The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? <br /><br />With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. <br /><br />While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.<br /><br />The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.<br /><br />I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.
| 0neg
|
This is a depressingly shallow, naive and mostly unfunny look at a wildly improbable relationship between Brooks' psychotic film editor and Harold, his vapid girlfriend. The two have ZERO chemistry together - primarily because Harold is incapable of doing anything besides looking pretty at this stage of her career; but also because Brooks' character is neither interesting nor likeable. There are 15 static, excruciating minutes at the beginning where Brooks, having just broke up with Harold, stumbles about his apartment in a depressed, drugged out state - unbearable.<br /><br />Sappily and unimaginatively bookended by Joe Cocker's "You Are So Beautiful", there simply is not enough material here for a feature film. There is hardly anything going on on the periphery of their relationship to give the appearance that these people exist in a real world. I'm sure Brooks' intention was to shine a white hot spotlight on the affair and, in a way, deconstruct it; but if you're going to do that the writing and acting needs to be far far better than what it is here.
| 0neg
|
This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting "Happy Ending" song at the end of "It Happened At The World's Fair", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called "Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little", and makes "Stay Away Joe" look like Olivier playing Othello.<br /><br />Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).<br /><br />Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).<br /><br />There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of "A Little Less Talk" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm.
| 0neg
|
I'm a Christian who generally believes in the theology taught in Left Behind. That being said, I think Left Behind is one of the worst films I've seen in some time.<br /><br />To have a good movie, you need to have a well-written screenplay. Left Behind fell woefully short on this. For one thing, it radically deviates from the book. Sometimes this is done to condense a 400-page novel down to a two-hour film, but in this film I saw changes that made no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />Another thing, there is zero character development. When characters in the story get saved (I won't say who), the book makes it clear that it's a long, soul-searching process. In the film it's quick and artificial. The book is written decently enough where people like Rayford Steele, Buck Williams and Hattie Durham seem real, but in the movie scenarios are consistently given the quick treatment without anything substantial. In another scene where one character gets angry about being left behind (again, I won't say who), it seems artificial.<br /><br />I realize as a Christian it's unedifying for me to say I disliked this film, but I can't in a good conscience recommend a film that I feel was horribly done. Perhaps it would've been better to make the first book into 2-3 films. Either way, Christians need to realize that to be taken seriously as filmmakers, we need to start by putting together a film in a quality way. I realize a lot of effort probably went into Left Behind, but that's the way I see it.
| 0neg
|
Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks.
| 0neg
|
this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child!
| 1pos
|
Note to self- just because a film is foreign, obscure, and stars Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't mean it's any good. Such is the case with 'Blue Juice,' a 1995 Brit flick about an unlikely group of surfing enthusiasts in what would seem (to a dumb American, anyway) an even more unlikely place to find surfers: Cornwall, England. You might be thinking this has the makings for an amusing, quirky little comedy. If only. The film is just a bit over ninety minutes but it seems interminable. The easiest way to describe it is as a sort of '90's British version of 'Grease' without the dancing, but even that makes it sound better than it is. No, the best way to take it is as a little slice-of-life set in a small town. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays Chloe, a young woman living with a surfing instructor, JC (Sean Pertwee; you remember him). Pertwee is actually the film's star, and his character is something of a surfing legend to a small group of surfing devotees, the requisite oddball group of free spirits that inevitably inhabit films like this. In this case, it consists of a drug dealer who wants to be a journalist, a former nightclub dj who wants to be a record producer, and a fat nerdy guy who, in a needlessly extended scene, gets stoned and loses all his inhibitions which of course turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. I can't honestly say everything that goes on in 'Blue Juice' is predictable, since it's set in a place and reflects customs and manners I'm not very familiar with, but there's certainly nothing surprising or even interesting that takes place there or with the characters. The comedy, though, IS very predictable and tired. One can sense the set-ups a mile away and almost recite the dialogue (in American form, of course) before the actors do. The relationship between JC and Chloe is every bit as hackneyed. She wants him to grow up; he wants them to stay the impetuous teenagers they started out being. He's afraid of losing face with his gang; she thinks he prefers them to her. You get the idea. As I struggled to stay focused on 'Blue Juice,' toward the end I felt, as the saying goes, that this was an hour and half of my life I'd never get back.
| 0neg
|
The first thing I thought when I saw this films was: It is not really a film, at least it is not what we imagine spontaneously when we hear the word "film". it is entirely symbolic, everything in it has a figurative meaning. So if you are not used to express thing in a symbolic way, you will find it strange, if you are not acquainted with philosophy, religion, spiritual life, you will think it's just a fairy-tale... and even a weird one, chaotic. For me "The legend of Zu" is perfectly transparent. And I do like it. It tells us in images the story about the fight between light and darkness, the fight that is as old as humanity, and every one who is in search of the sens in this life is confronted with it. The film is obviously made by Buddhists. I am not a Buddhist. My religion and the vision of the world and human is different. But as far as we are all humans and have the same human nature we necessarily have common experiences and can understand each other. It is a really beautiful film! And I which we had more films like this - films that have a meaning. There are too many empty stories which are good only to make time pass more quickly.
| 1pos
|
To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.<br /><br />IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.<br /><br />I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.<br /><br />How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love "The Godfather" but "9/11" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.<br /><br />jf
| 1pos
|
I saw this movie on Mystery Science Theater 300. It sucked so much. If I hadn't been watching it on MST3K, I probably would've thrown it out the window. The characters were incredibly lame and it didn't provide much of a plot in my opinion.
| 0neg
|
Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.<br /><br />OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.<br /><br />The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.<br /><br />My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.<br /><br />For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.<br /><br />The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.<br /><br />I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.<br /><br />Here Kitty, Kitty...<br /><br />Tom Willett
| 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.