text
stringlengths 70
9.35k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.<br /><br />The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd. <br /><br />Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.
| 0neg
|
Escaping the life of being pimped by her father(..and the speakeasy waitressing)who dies in an explosion, Lily Powers(Barbara Stanwyck, who is simply ravishing)sluts her way through the branches inside a bank business in big city Gotham. When a possessive lover murders who was supposed to be his next father-in-law(and Lily's new lover), the sky's the limit for Lily as she has written down her various relationships in a diary and subtlety makes it known the papers will receive it if certain pay doesn't come into her hands. Newly appointed president to the bank, Courtland Trenholm(George Brent), sends Lily to Paris instead of forking over lots of dough, but soon finds himself madly in love after various encounters with her in the City of Love. This makes Lily's mouth water as now she'll have reached the pedestal of success seducing a man of wealth and prestige bring riches her way. Though, circumstances ensue which will bring her to make a decision that threatens her successful way of achieving those riches..Trenholm, now her husband, is being indicted with jail certain and has lost the bank. He needs money Lily now has in her possession or he'll have absolutely nothing.<br /><br />Stanwyck is the whole movie despite that usual Warner Brothers polish. Being set in the pre-code era gives the filmmakers the chance to elaborate on taboo subjects such as a woman using sex to achieve success and how that can lead to tragedy. Good direction from Alfred E Green shows through subtlety hints in different mannerisms and speech through good acting from the seductive performance of Stanwyck how to stage something without actually showing the explicit act. Obviously the film shows that money isn't everything and all that jazz as love comes into the heart of Lily's dead heart. That ending having Lily achieve the miraculous metamorphosis into someone in love didn't ring true to me. She's spent all this time to get to that platform only to fall for a man who was essentially no different than others she had used before him.
| 1pos
|
Unfortunately, Jean Eustache (1938-1981) belongs like so many once leading French film makers nowadays to the great unknown ones whose movies are hard to find and are not released on international DVDs. Since we have a good old-fashioned video-store in Tucson, I had the chance to watch this 3 1/2-hour marathon masterwork that is not boring for ten seconds.<br /><br />Since we speak here about one of the most discussed (and most controversially discussed) movies of all times, let me tell you my impression that the endless dialogs, originally typical for the early "Nouvelle Vague" of a Jacques Rivette or Alain Resnais appear almost ridiculous in this movie. The dialogs are basically monologues, mainly the longest ones spoken by Jean-Pierre Léaud. The most characteristic feature is that the intersections of the speeches of two people is almost zero. Léaud, or his character, Alexandre, pleases to tell more about himself than about the topics he is seemingly to speak. Therefore, one can hardly speak about communication in this movie. It is well possible that the director had a gargantuan satire in mind against the idle running of the once so hotly discussed political and sociological ideas, but the type of man Alexandre exists to all times, we find him already in Petron's "Satiricon", which work has actually great resemblance with "The Mother and the Whore".<br /><br />Alexandre does not only nothing, but he has developed an own kind of metaphysics about the absence of acting, at least acting in the sense of responsibility toward the society whose part he is. He mocks at the people who run to work at 7 c'clock in the morning, when he is just busy having his last drink before he goes to bed in the apartment of one of his girlfriends from whose money he lives. He is unable to speak one sentence without quoting one of the leading thinkers between Nietzsche and Bernanos. Especially Sartre who is shown quickly in the French intellectual café "Aux Deux Magots", where Alexandre, too, is sitting all day, must serve as excuse for the life-style of Alexandre and his colleagues, because they suffer existential crisis from bourgeois nausea. However, the intellectual speeches of Alexandre seem to be rather pseudo-intellectual, and the sentences and quips he cites seem to come rather from a dictionary of quotations than from his actual reading of the respective books.<br /><br />It is true: This movie demands an extremely broad European knowledge, especially the connoisseurship of French existentialist philosophy and there consequences to the 68 student revolution movement, but if you have this knowledge, than you will enjoy 215 minutes of your life by staring amazed into the TV and crying out with laughing like you have probably not done it since a long time.
| 1pos
|
This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like "I don't know"; "I like his arms"; "I like the way he makes love" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving.
| 1pos
|
It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.<br /><br />At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:<br /><br />1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.<br /><br />2) The "flies" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?<br /><br />3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.<br /><br />4) Excessive patriotism. For example: "They are American files after all!" Oh, give me a break.
| 0neg
|
<br /><br />Artisticly shot, actors portray exactly their role. You get a real feeling watching Lucienne ascend from poverty to the most beautiful girl around. A sense of tragedy to triumph to tragedy again. All in all I have seen this film at least 10 times. And can VERY well say that Prix De Beute' (the Beauty Prize, Miss Europe) is a MAJOR favorite in my silent film collection. The expressiveness of Louise Brooks is perfect and I recommend this film to ANYONE who appreciates artistic beauty coupled with a tragic story line.
| 1pos
|
I've been using IMDb for a few years now, but have never written any reviews before. However, this movie so disappointed me (even with a modest score of 6.4 at the time of writing) that I couldn't keep quiet anymore.<br /><br />Noise is the story of a New Yorker (Tim Robbins)who is so perturbed by noise pollution that he takes on an alter-ego as a as a vigilante, "The Rectifier", and vandalizes any cars he finds with a car-alarm sounding.<br /><br />I take the name of the movie to be somewhat of a misnomer. Although there are one or two instances of other sources of noise being addressed or mentioned, the only true focus of our protagonist is car alarms. Car alarms, car alarms, car alarms. There is really no other focus. When the movie tries to tie other examples of noise pollution to the problem of car alarms, it seems to be just thrown in to give merit to the actions of Robbins' character. <br /><br />Yes, we're all annoyed by noise. Nobody likes the sound of car alarms. Of course we all have that internal urge to take a baseball bat to a shrieking vehicle, and this movie uses that fact, and pretty much that fact alone, to sell this movie. I say 'pretty much' because there is also a blatantly contrived sexual relationship (including a completely needless threesome) which is obviously thrown in for those movie-goers who need such things thrown in in order to enjoy a movie. Honestly, it's eye-rolling.<br /><br />Robbin's character, very shortly into the movie, becomes completely unrelatable. It seems less that he decides not to put up with the noise anymore, and more that by focusing so much on the noise he has begun to lose his sanity. The first half of the movie is essentially the story of how he turns from just an angry, car-bashing dude into this hero of the little guy, The Rectifier. However... the transformation doesn't take place. He just renames himself.<br /><br />I could go on for a while. Annoying generalized social commentary comes in every now and then to add to the pretentiousness of the movie, and the self-satisfied smirk which never quite leaves Robbins face doesn't help either. <br /><br />Overall, I think it's very obvious what this movie is trying to be, as it's pretty much shoved down your throat, but in my opinion, it fails in a big way. Just one guy's opinion, cheers.
| 0neg
|
I think that the shots and lighting were very poor. When I watched it for the first time I thought it was the old version(1956). When I really found out the true year of the film I was shocked. I didn't know that there could be such a bad film made so recently. Thats really all I wanted to say. This film had a good plot though, nothing you couldn't miss out on if you would simply read the novel that George Orwelll wrote. All I really want to say has already been said except for this: I can't believe that this film could have possibly received so many awards and nominations.I gave this film a One (awful), because I felt that it was very badly made. Well that is all. So long
| 0neg
|
Well I don't know where to begin. Obviously this was a made for TV movie, so my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall direction of the second hour, but anything before or after that seemed to be a paint by the numbers sort of movie.<br /><br />And talk about bad chemistry between the tow lovebird detectives. ..<br /><br />I would go more in depth, but this movie doesn't really deserve it. Grade: D+ (IMDB rating 3/10)
| 0neg
|
Portrays the day to day stark reality of survival on a ranch in the old west. Outstanding acting by both principal actors. This doesn't even feel like a movie...you feel like you're there. Animal activists should beware...many scenes are obviously not just realistic...they are real.
| 1pos
|
When anti-bush jokes get really easy to do, a show like this had better make sure it has something extra. When that something extra is kid versions of political figures making jokes about the future they don't have yet, it's just plain nonsense. Dick Cheney and George Bush are done well but Dick Cheney mutters mostly. There's also Condoleeza Rice who has a crush on Bush for some reason and Donald Rumsfeld who isn't really that similar to Donald Rumsfeld at all. The democratic characters rarely give their names so it's a mystery as to who could be who aside from Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.<br /><br />The episodes have coherent stories but that's not nearly enough to keep this from sinking.
| 0neg
|
The key to the joy and beauty, the pain and sadness of life is our ability to accept that life basically is what it is so we don't constantly struggle against that single compelling truth. In so doing, we find peace. Elegant in its simplicity but so hard for most of us to grasp.<br /><br />In this film, the director shows us this truth but allows us to discover it in our own way. This is a beautiful yet simple story, more of a fable, which is played very well. Watching the actors is more like being in a room with real people than it is just watching actors.<br /><br />I struggled with how to write a review of this fine film so others would be motivated to see it. I'm at a loss. The story is about men in a bath house. Sounds like a real turn off, right? But, nothing could be farther from the truth. The American title for this film is The Shower but that is almost an antithesis to a major thematic element in this film, which is the bath. I'm still at a loss. Talking about the story or the characters will not do them justice.<br /><br />So, I'll just tell you how much I enjoyed watching this movie and how touching and moving the experience was. I was also quite entertained. I cared deeply for the characters and I cared deeply about what happened to them. For any story, that is the highest form of praise.<br /><br />If you were moved by movies like The King Of Masks or Not One Less, then make sure you see The Shower. Netflix has it and the DVD video and sound quality are excellent. I watched it in the original lanquage with well done and well placed English subs.<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!!
| 0neg
|
I´m from Germany and I love the mvovies. I go 200 times a year. Tonight I saw "Pecker", it was a wonderful evening. Thank you, Mr. Waters. Everybody who has a chance to see the movie, go!!!
| 1pos
|
Unhinged follows the typical plot of the early 80's slasher trend. Pretty Young Girls In Peril. I have to give it up for the filmmaker who used a helicopter for some of the early road-trip shots, you actually think for a second there's going to be quality in the production. Watching "Unhinged" was like seeing an amateur acting class go through it's warm-up. Some of the most awkward, badly lit, overlong scenes are played out with the gusto of a Valium overdose. I wondered why they didn't just put the cue-cards on camera so the actresses wouldn't have to constantly shift their gaze. The two main girls were obviously chosen for their T&A factor rather than talent. Laurel Munson as the main chick Terry is as exciting as watching paint dry. Two nude scenes make for an adolescent thrill. Janet Penner and Virginia Settle as the crazy/creepy daughter and mother the chicks find themselves stranded with compete for Worst Acting Ever. Long pauses, weird expressions, emphasis on the wrong word, it's all there and is a delight for those of us out there who love bad films. The scenes shift suddenly with long black-outs you could drive a Mack truck through. Cartoon lightning crashes across shots without even bothering to show the sky. Eighties eyeshadow assaults the viewer. But ya know, it grew on me. I felt sorry for it. I wanted to hug it, kiss it's boo-boos and make it better. The ending doesn't make up for the damage it's caused but I grinned anyway. I have my own theories regarding the whole "banned" hype and hope that anyone who chooses to view this film does so with substantial substance abuse and a sense of humor. Otherwise pass.
| 0neg
|
Manhattan apartment dwellers have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences. The worst one is the lack of closet space! Some people who eat out all the time use their ranges and dishwashers as storage places because the closets are already full!<br /><br />Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, a great comedy writing team from that era, saw the potential in Eric Hodgins novel, whose hero, Jim Blandings, can't stand the cramped apartment where he and his wife Muriel, and two daughters, must share.<br /><br />Jim Blandings, a Madison Ave. executive, has had it! When he sees an ad for Connecticut living, he decides to take a look. Obviously, a first time owner, Jim is duped by the real estate man into buying the dilapidated house he is taken to inspect by an unscrupulous agent. This is only the beginning of his problems.<br /><br />Whatever could be wrong, goes wrong. The architect is asked to come out with a plan that doesn't work for the new house, after the original one is razed. As one problem leads to another, more money is necessary, and whatever was going to be the original cost, ends up in an inflated price that Jim could not really afford.<br /><br />The film is fun because of the three principals in it. Cary Grant was an actor who clearly understood the character he was playing and makes the most out of Jim Blandings. Myrna Loy, was a delightful actress who was always effective playing opposite Mr. Grant. The third character, Bill Cole, an old boyfriend of Myrna, turned lawyer for the Blandings, is suave and debonair, the way Melvin Douglas portrayed him. One of the Blandings girls, Joan, is played by Sharyn Moffett, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Eva Marie Saint. The great Louise Beavers plays Gussie, but doesn't have much to do.<br /><br />The film is lovingly photographed by James Wong Howe, who clearly knew what to do to make this film appear much better. The direction of H.C. Potter is light and he succeeded in this film that will delight fans of classic comedies.
| 1pos
|
First off, I didn't know what to expect when I started the video.<br /><br />Anytime someone brings back a cult type movie genre and adapts it into the present, something gets inexplicably lost in the translation.<br /><br />That's not the case here. This movie just starts off on the right track. It's part familiar territory but manages to take it over the top as well. Crockzilla scene anyone? That has to be seen, and just try and keep a straight face. This movie takes some of the old fun cult movie classics and manages to blend it seamlessly into a modern production. It's good to see someone is filling the need in this market. Very well done.<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.<br /><br />and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.<br /><br />helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.<br /><br />see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists though.
| 0neg
|
This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.<br /><br />This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers.
| 0neg
|
Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha<br /><br />Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.<br /><br />The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.<br /><br />Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.
| 0neg
|
This is the best series of its type I've seen all year. I can't help thinking it's just my luck - a series I love gets 6 episodes (and more next year) and the constant stream of cookie-cutter cop shows get never ending episodes.<br /><br />I think the reasons New Tricks succeeds are many. The scripts are good, and the mix of characters superb, The acting is top flight, and the blend of comedy and drama works a treat. The stories aren't all that memorable, but that's not the reason I watch shows like this one. <br /><br />The theme song is a favourite, and we were disappointed to find it isn't available in any published edition. Great stuff, BBC- a triumph of sense over sex-appeal (aside from the young constable nobody's there as eye-lolly, and even if he IS, he can still act!).
| 1pos
|
Well I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an "Accident" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this.
| 0neg
|
Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. <br /><br />It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.<br /><br />It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.
| 0neg
|
A black guy fights ..... and supposedly wins .... yeah ... 1/10. Obviously fiction.<br /><br />So we're presented with a damm nice title, a real nice tag line and even a nice plot line .. Thats about it, thats where it ends.. We move into fiction after that.<br /><br />Michael Jai White, the black guy so don't get confused with the name.. portrays a black guy.. Umm, thats all there is to the name..<br /><br />Its so hard to find decent help, must have hired the black guys friends to help cause the low budget, low ineptness of this movie, has the camera's shadow trailing the first scenes.... Yeah obvious idiot moment for the average guy like you and me.. but yeah...<br /><br />10 lines. review submitted,. if you paid to see this movie, you got screwed.
| 0neg
|
I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a "submarine" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it.
| 0neg
|
A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.<br /><br />Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.<br /><br />There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.
| 0neg
|
Rented it last night. The opening(2001) ran WAAAAAAAAAY too long. The hitchiker scene served no purpose. Some skits were just retarded. I knew beforehand, Chevy Chase was on for less than 2 minutes. No problem. Here are the best parts:<br /><br />KOKO, URANUS, BABS COMMERCIAL, Curtis Mayfield song<br /><br />Total: 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movie<br /><br />Everything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell.<br /><br />Let me give you some advice: If you want a crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "Kentucky Fried Movie". If you want a less crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON" or "UHF"<br /><br />Otherwise, don't bother renting this movie. You'll save 2-3 dollars.<br /><br />IMHO: Ken Shapiro's best movie is STILL "Modern Problems"
| 0neg
|
After hearing raves about this movie for years, I finally decided to rent it and watch. Let me start by saying that I'm glad that the rental was free from the local library. This move was slow, boring, unrealistic and the plot made no sense. After 2 hours, I was ready to nuke that backwater Texas town and put the group of those characters out of their misery. I realize that taste is subjective, but believe me, I just do not understand all of the hype that I have heard about this movie. Dallas provided as good a detail of the life in Texas as this movie. Rent it only if you want to understand how movie studios can pay enough money to reviewers to convince the general public that a bad movie is good.
| 0neg
|
one word boring.<br /><br />the young demi looks good, but she's pregnant (- point for that =D) the movie is not scary at all...<br /><br />the first scenes looked little crappy, i could render better clouds with my laptop, and after effects. but that was then... and now is now. some movies do not get old well... this is one of them.<br /><br />not worth renting or buying... get something better instead like the exorcist, ...<br /><br />next =D<br /><br />oh the drama part in the beginning just and simply suxor =D
| 0neg
|
Finally, an indie film that actually delivers some great scares! I see most horror films that come out... Theatrical, Straight-To-DVD, cable, etc... and most of them suck... a few are watchable... even fewer are actually good... Dark Remains is one of the good ones. I caught a screening of this film at the South Padre Island Film Festival... the audience loved it... and my wife and I loved it! Having no name actors, I assume the budget on this film was pretty low, but you wouldn't know it... the film looks fantastic... the acting totally works for the film... the story is good... and the scares are great! While most filmmakers focus solely on the scares, they often forget about story and character development, two things that help to deliver the scares more efficiently. Brian Avenet-Bradley must know that character and story are important. He develops both to the point where you care about the characters, you know the characters, and are therefore more scared when they are in danger.<br /><br />Watching horror films that cost anywhere from $80 million to $5000 to make, I find "Dark Remains" to be one of the gems out there. Check this film out!
| 1pos
|
I noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable.
| 0neg
|
Six degrees had me hooked. I looked forward to it coming on and was totally disappointed when Men in Trees replaced it's time spot. I thought it was just on hiatus and would be back early in 2007. What happened? All my friends were really surprised it ended. We could relate to the characters who had real problems. We talked about each episode and had our favorite characters. There wasn't anybody on the show I didn't like and felt the acting was superb. I alway like seeing programs being taped in cities where you can identify the local areas. I for one would like to protest the canceling of this show and ask you to bring it back and give it another chance. Give it a good time slot, don't keep moving it from this day to that day and advertise it so people will know it is on.
| 1pos
|
"The Grudge" is a remake of Shimizu's own series of popular Japanese horror films. Shimizu knows he is not dealing with anything new, so he does what any intelligent person would have done in his place: he forgets logic and concentrates in giving viewers a fun ride. He uses commonly known clichés associated with ghost stories but Shimizu plays with these elements in an imaginative manner. The nonlinear narrative is not a mere gimmick but an interesting way to present sequences from different perspectives. At the end, all I can say is that if the only purpose of a horror film is to scare the audience (the same way a comedy is to make people laugh), this movie succeeded with flying colors. I watched it in a theater with an audience and it was fun to see viewers go wild over this one. It probably doesn't play as well in your living room.
| 1pos
|
Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball player who ever lived."<br /><br />You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.<br /><br />Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy.
| 1pos
|
Im still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.<br /><br />Don't waist your time into this movie. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.
| 0neg
|
This film was screen as part of the 2007 Sydney Mardi Gras Film Festival. I had no expectation of the film as someone else choose it for me.<br /><br />I actually like films that take time to develop, films that allow the characters to unfold and lets the story flow. Stillness is good. But this film though was just plain slow.<br /><br />Credit must go to the two main actors. There was a sense of tension between them as two totally different people, misfits really, come together in a very awkward way. There were tender moments and sadness as we learned more about them.<br /><br />I also liked the setting and the way it was shot. It was claustrophobic and monochrome and it added to the film's intimacy and reinforces the oddness of the characters.<br /><br />I just don't understand the ending. What was the point of it all?
| 0neg
|
First week of May, every year brings back the memories of the holocaust, through movies on televisions. Among many movies they showed, this was the one I had not seen.<br /><br />The story is about Hilter's life and how he came to power. It starts with his childhood and ends with his holding the top most position of power in Germany.<br /><br />The movie was earlier presented as a TV series and later converted into a movie format. Scottish actor Robert Carlyle plays Adolf Hitler with great guts, conviction and flare to give a real portrayal of this man.<br /><br />It is a good screenplay and narrative, that educates the audiences on the main events that lead Hitler into power, and also tries to show the probable psychological make up of Hitler. The movie is a biased viewpoint of the director Christian Duguay who shows Hitler as a one-track, menacing, angry, and shouting person who had such a strong hold on the Germans and people around him. Hitler is not shown as someone having charishma and attraction, and there the movie fails to convince Hitler's portrayal.<br /><br />Even though the venture was for TV, all the ingredients of production are first class and at par with any main stream movie. The production value, sets, costumes, etc. were perfect.<br /><br />There is a lot of criticism of this movie, in the authenticity about the historic events that is presented. But still the movie is gripping, every engaging and entertaining. Robert Carlyle overpowers and dominates the screen as no one else does. He is amazingly good brilliant! I would have liked a more balanced view of Hitler's life, because I think, Hitler was able to bring out the dormant feelings of million of Germans and it is not only him who should be blamed for the holocaust. As I have told several times, that very sadly - our society loves to garland or prosecute one person, as a representative of the society's good or evil respectively.
| 1pos
|
I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on "shallow blockbuster" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.<br /><br />Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating "One" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts. <br /><br />After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as "jazz hands." And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it. <br /><br />A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, "Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more "frontal" play. The answer they came up with was, "I'm sorry.. what was the question?" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.<br /><br />Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie. <br /><br />A Chorus Line is pure schlock.
| 0neg
|
From a plot and movement standpoint, this movie was terrible. I found myself looking at the clock in theater hoping it would end and relieved after 80 long minutes that it mercifully did. Basically, five characters appear in the movie, A Son & Father, son's girl friend, and two male characters of the son's age who appear and then disappear without context or explanation. The movie and scenes seemed to suggest homo-eroticism, but nothing ever actually happened to reveal this one way or another. There were a couple of brilliant scenes. At the beginning of the movie, the son's girl friend shows up at a window outside his room and they engage in an odd conversation. The photography and acting lent an incredible seductiveness to the interaction between the two, ending with her admitting to having another man who was "older". End of that story.
| 0neg
|
Bangville Police supposedly marked the debut of the Keystone Kops, named after the studio they worked for. In this one, however, they don't dress in the silly cop costumes or drive the fast-paced car that's their trademark. Anyway, Mabel Normand is a farm girl here who's begged her dad for a calf. She later sees some strange men in the barn and quickly calls the police. One answers and the chase is on. Next, Mabel slams her door just as someone is coming in. Turns out it's her mother who jumps to the conclusion robbers are in there! So while Mabel blocks her door with furniture, the mother and father try to fight their way in! This was perhaps the most amusing part of the short along with some explosions of the cop car. This was a short 7 minutes that went by so fast it's over before it's begun. The only real characterization that's developed is Mabel's who exudes charm with just her face and big eyes and seems so optimistically cheery here except, of course, when she's frightened. It's easy to see why she became a star. It's largely because of her that I'd recommended seeing this at least once and why I'm giving this a 4.
| 0neg
|
In the year 1985 (my birth year) Steven Spielberg directed an emotionally strong and unforgettable story of a young African-American girl Celie (Debut role for Whoopi Goldberg) whose life is followed through rough times. The story begins from the year 1909 when Celie is only 14 years old. She has given birth two children for her father. Celie has a younger sister Nettie with whom she is inseparable. A widower lays his eyes on Nettie but their father gives Celie to him. It is the beginning of an era of horrible abuse and constant controlling. Women are inferior of men and especially being an African-American woman their rights are less than a zero. Celie's story is a true survival story.<br /><br />"The Color Purple" is a master-piece and underestimated film of Spielberg. He should make more drama which "The Color Purple" and "Schindler's List" are good notion.<br /><br />The cast is amazing. Whoopi Goldberg is known better as a ravingly funny comedienne but the introducing role as Celie is a remarkable word that she really can pull of heavy drama. Danny Glover was surprisingly nasty "Mister". I have never seen him in a such an evil role. The talk-show icon Oprah Winfrey is brilliant as a strong-willed Sofia.<br /><br />Warning! Prepare to have a number of tissues with you when watching this film. You can really connect to the story of the strong sisterhood. Especially if you have as close relationship with your siblings like I have with my sister.<br /><br />Big applauds to Mr. Spielberg!
| 1pos
|
Unfortunately, one of the best efforts yet made in the area of special effects has been made completely pointless by being placed alongside a lumbering, silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate, clichéd screenplay. Hollow Man is a rather useless film.<br /><br />Practically everything seen here has been done to death - the characters, the idea and the action sequences (especially the lift shaft!) - with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film being the impressive special effects. However, it is just the same special effect done over and over again, and by the end of the film that has been done to death also. I was hoping before watching Hollow Man that the Invisible Man theme, which is hardly original in itself, would be the basis of something newer and more interesting. This is not so. It isn't long before the film turns into an overly-familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics - the mound of clichés piles up so fast that it's almost impressive.<br /><br />On top of all this, Kevin Bacon does a pretty useless job and his supporting cast are hardly trying their best. Good points might be a passable Jerry Goldsmith score (but no competition for his better efforts), a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effects. I was tempted to give this film three out of ten, but the effects push Hollow Man's merit up one notch.<br /><br />4/10
| 0neg
|
This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which like many a genre effort from this country was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish! once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weight
so Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay!
| 0neg
|
Oh my God what the hell happened here?!! I'm not going to say this again but what sort of backward movie is this? The dubbing in this is way worst than the dubbing in "King Kong vs Godzilla",Linda Miller had to be the worst actress in it and the suits are really cheesy.Its about some villain called Dr.Who who gets henchmen to build a robot gorilla that has the same strength as King Kong but when this robot breaks down he builds another one and then tries to kidnap Kong.When he does(thats when Linda Miller gets annoying)he makes Kong his slave but everything goes wrong and King Kong escapes.Then Dr.Who sends the robot after him.<br /><br />Later when I was watching the movie I got a headache when Linda Miller and the other clowns started moaning.As I sat through the misery of watching the DVD while it was playing I was hoping that the madness in the movie was going to end until the fight.The ending has to be a really bad one because they could've shown Kong back on his island fighting dinosaurs again.<br /><br />Don't watch the movie under any circumstances or if you do... beware of the disappointment you will receive.
| 0neg
|
The vigilante has long held a fascination for audiences, inasmuch as it evokes a sense of swift, sure justice; good triumphs over evil and the bad guy gets his deserts. It is, in fact, one of the things that has made the character of Dirty Harry Callahan (as played by Clint Eastwood) so popular. He carries a badge and works within the law, but at heart, Harry is a vigilante, meting out justice `his' way, which often puts him in conflict with his own superiors, as well as the criminals he's pursuing. But it's what draws the audience; anyone who's ever been bogged down in bureaucratic nonsense of one kind or another, delights in seeing someone cut through the red tape and get on with it-- even if it's only on the screen. And that satisfaction derived from seeing justice done-- and quickly-- is one of the elements that makes `Sudden Impact,' directed by and starring Eastwood, so successful. In this one, the fourth of the series, while working a homicide, Harry encounters a bona fide vigilante at work-- an individual whose brand of justice parallels his own, with one exception: Whoever it is, he's definitely not carrying a badge.<br /><br />In his own inimitable way, Inspector Callahan has once again ended up on the bad side of the department and is ordered to take some vacation time. So he does; as only `Dirty Harry' can. In a small town north of San Francisco, Harry finds himself smack dab in the middle of a homicide case, which he quickly links to a recent murder in San Francisco because of the unique M.O. employed by the perpetrator. Unaccountably, Harry encounters resistance from the local Police Chief, Jannings (Pat Hingle), who advises him to take his big city tactics and methods elsewhere. Not one to be deterred, however, Harry continues his investigation, which ultimately involves a beautiful and talented young artist, Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke). Gradually, Harry discovers a link between the victims; the burning question, though, is where does Jennifer Spencer fit into the picture?<br /><br />Eastwood is in top form here, both in front of and behind the camera, and it is arguably the second best of the five-film series, right behind the original `Dirty Harry.' It had been seven years since the last `Harry' offering (`The Enforcer,' 1976), but Eastwood steps right back into the character with facility and renewed vigor. And this one definitely benefits from having him in the director's chair, as he is able to recapture the essence of, not only his own character, but that `spirit' that made these films so successful, and he does it by knowing the territory and establishing a continuity that all but erases that seven year gap between #s 3 and 4. As with all the films he directs, Eastwood sets a deliberate pace that works perfectly for this material and creates just enough tension to keep it interesting and involving from beginning to end. <br /><br />The screenplay, by Joseph Stinson, is well written and formulated to that distinctive `Dirty Harry' style; the dialogue is snappy and the story itself (conceived by Charles B. Pierce and Earl E. Smith) is the most engaging since the original `Dirty Harry,' as it successfully endeavors to play upon the very personal aspects of the drama, rather than entirely upon the action. The characters are well drawn and convincing, and, of course, this is the film that gave us one of Harry's best catch-phrases: `Go, ahead-- make my day...'<br /><br />As Harry, Clint Eastwood perfectly embodies all of the elements that make this character so popular: He lives by a personal moral code, a true individual made of the kind of stuff we envision as that of the pioneers who settled this country and made America what it is today. Harry personifies that sense of freedom and justice we all strive for and hold so dear, possibly more so today than ever before. No matter who we are or where we come from, there's undeniably a part of us that wants to be Harry, or at least have him around. `Dirty Harry' is an icon of the cinema, and it's impossible to envision anyone but Eastwood portraying him; for better or worse, Eastwood `is' Dirty Harry, without question, just as Sean Connery is James Bond and Basil Rathbone, Sherlock Holmes.<br /><br />Sondra Locke is entirely effective here in the role of Jennifer Spencer, a young woman wronged and out for vengeance, or as she sees it, `justice.' She manages to bring a hard-edged determination laced with vulnerability to her character, with a convincing, introspective approach that is far beyond what is typical of the `action' genre. Even amid the violence, Locke keeps her focus on Jennifer and the traumatic events that have brought her to this stage of her life. Her portrayal makes a perfect complement to Eastwood's Harry, and becomes, in philosophy and deed, something of his counterpart.<br /><br />In supporting roles, two performances stand out: Paul Drake, as Mick, creates the best `psycho' since Andy Robinson's dynamic portrayal of the serial killer in the original `Dirty Harry.' With actually very limited screen time, Drake establishes a genuinely disconcerting presence that is believable and convincing, which adds much to the purely visceral response of the audience. This is the guy you can't wait to see Harry take care of in the end. Also effective is Audrie J. Neenan, who makes her character, Ray Parkins, the epitome of the proverbial `low life,' who can be found in any bar in any city. It's a performance that evokes a gut-level response, and it adds greatly to the credibility of the film, in that it helps provide that necessary sense of realism.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Albert Popwell (Horace), Mark Kevloun (Bennett) and Nancy Parsons (Mrs. Kruger). With a perfect blend of drama and action, `Sudden Impact' dispenses justice that is a fulfilling respite from reality; the perfect justice of a not-so-perfect world, that makes for a satisfying cinematic experience. 9/10.
| 1pos
|
This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.<br /><br />When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.<br /><br />One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.
| 0neg
|
As a fan of Paris Je'Taime, I went to see New York, I Love You with very high expectations. I gladly walked out with all my expectations met. It was funny, sweet, fast-paced, and entertaining. The film starts out with two cab hoppers (Bradley Cooper & Justin Bartha) trying to get to the same area but arguing which way to go. That was funny, and then the film goes into some of the best skits I have ever seen anywhere. There were four amazing ones out of all the good ones. Those four I will start talking about. One features Shia LaBeouf as a bellhop at a hotel who finds love in an old lady. The next one features Orlando Bloom as a music maker who is doing business with a woman played by Christina Ricci. Another one features Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirbly as two people going to prom, Thirbly's character being handicapped. The best one features Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as a bickering old couple. I will bring to your attention that Nataile Portman makes an impressive directorial debut directing, and writing a skit about a caretaker, and Ethan Hawke and Maggie Q are excellent as a flirting man and a hooker. New York, I Love You is definitely as good, if not better than the 2006 Paris Je'Taime. The skits are well-paced, and the film shows how indie films should really be. The film, however, does not have as many famous directors as Paris Je'Taime, which is why it was fantastic to live up to its excellence. If you want to laugh, see some great dramatic effects, see an amazing amount of great performances, and just plain be entertained then definitely go see New York, I Love You.
| 1pos
|
This movie is a lot better than the asylums version mainly its war of the worlds. The tripods look pretty cool but their walking and deaths could have been better. The action scenes were really cool. Walking... walking...walking...walking!!! oh my god stop walking please or i'm going to kill myself. The thunder child scene was my favorite sequence mainly because a ship rammed bunch of tripods. Good movie I recommend it for people ho have read the book. The music is awesome and the directors cut looks pretty cool.<br /><br />pros. Good soundtrack 99% to the book Cool violence Tripods and handling machines are cool to look at<br /><br />cons. some bad acting cheesy looking London
| 1pos
|
I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.<br /><br />I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.<br /><br />Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...<br /><br />Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.<br /><br />In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.<br /><br />Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...
| 1pos
|
Nora is a single mother-of-two who still wants to live the life of a young artist in the 1970s, as do her friends, a group of writers, singers and actors. The free love' philosophy isn't quite out of the system and Nora didn't count on falling in love, particularly with a junkie. Hazlehurst won her first of two AFI Awards in the space of four years for her amazing portrayal of Nora, who makes sure she does the right thing by her children, but falls in love with junkie Javo (Friels) at the same time. Garner who would later costar in films such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES and STRANGE PLANET is well-cast as Nora's pre-pubescent daughter, and Caton (perhaps in readiness for his role as host of the lifestyle program HOT PROPERTY in 2000???) appears as a bearded painter. Early effort by director Cameron is a winner; he went on to make the award-winning miniseries MY BROTHER JACK among his later projects. But it's the stunning delivery by Hazlehurst which brings to life the intelligent, searching script, based on Helen Garner's award-winning novel.
| 1pos
|
This film lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play. It could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors. I just don't know.<br /><br />But could it have been the screenplay? Just exactly who was the chef in love with? He seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant, and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits, than of anybody or anything else. He never convinced me he was in love with the princess.<br /><br />I was disappointed in this movie. But, don't forget it was nominated for an Oscar, so judge for yourself.
| 0neg
|
Riding Giants is an amazing movie. It really shows how these people lived back then just to surf. Their lives were basically surfing, living, breathing, and having fun. They didn't care about money, jobs, girls or any thing. To them the waves were their girls. I have never been on a surf board, and it looks so hard, I don't understand how they can stay on them, it makes no sense at all. This is an awesome movie and if you love surfing then you should really see this movie. If you're a surfer and you want to find out who started surfing, how it came into life, who is really famous at it or what ever, then you should really see it. It might be a documentary, but it is really good. -Tara F.-
| 1pos
|
Fräulein Doktor is as good a demonstration as any of how the once great film industry in Western Europe has declined in the past 40 years. Then, in the late 60s, while the big Hollywood studios were on the ropes, Italy,France and England were turning out movies to fill the void left by Hollywood's decline. There were the James Bond pictures (Doctor No was a surprise hit in the USA, it was first released at the Century theater chain in NYC with a 99 cent afternoon admission price), the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (with A Fistful of Dollars released by a distributor that never paid the Italian producers a dime)and French crime movies that usually went to art houses, with exceptions like The Sicilian Clan. And there were European co-productions like Doctor Zhivago and, of course, Fräulein Doktor. With its big budget for the time, and the world talent involved, Fräulein Doktor was good enough that viewers still remember the movie decades later.<br /><br />Kenneth More, playing a British intelligence officer, has a line in Fräulein Doktor where he tells a caught spy to either talk or he will play the Wall Game. The wall being opposite a firing squad, with little chance of the spy winning the game. That sort of cynical attitude played well across national borders, in the Vietnam War era of 1969.<br /><br />The steamy scenes between Suzy Kendall and Capucine probably did not damage these performers' chances at getting parts in Hollywood movies, Hollywood studios were in the process of shedding their overseas distribution and production businesses. Fox would no longer co-produce films like The Sicilian Clan, Columbia wouldn't distribute films like Belmondo's The Night Caller. MGM went even further, cutting almost all film production, selling its chain of theaters in India for the value of the land underneath and unloading its Borehamwood studio facilty as Kerkorian looted the studio to raise money for building his casino in Las Vegas (where a Bally casino gift shop sold MGM memorabilia at giveaway prices, stuff left over from the auction of MGM's prop warehouses).<br /><br />Paramount distributed Fräulein Doktor, but Gulf and Western's Charles Bludhorn, who had taken over the company and canned the studio's aged Board of Directors, unloaded the studio's film library to Universal (as I recall) and really became interested in movies after production chief Robert Evans started turning out one hit after another. But that was in the 70s. Fräulein Doktor with its lesbian scene was buried, with cut versions of the movie showing up on local stations through the 80s.<br /><br />Kenneth More was usually typecast as a bumbling guy when he was older, especially in the BBC detective series Father Brown. When he was younger, as in the British movie Titanic, he played his standard reserved British officer. In Fräulein Doktor, he had a chance to be a lot tougher than usual, as I recall. It would be nice to see if my memory of this movie is accurate, about his role and, of course, those cavalry horses wearing gas masks and protective covers riding into battle. That was some scene, and Alberto Lattuada showed he was some director, helming this World War I espionage movie, where the money spent on production values really shows up on the screen.
| 1pos
|
TACHIGUI: THE AMAZING LIVES OF THE FAST-FOOD GRIFTERS Japanese title: Tachiguishi Retsuden<br /><br />Director: Mamoru Oshii Featuring: Toshio Suzuki, Mako Hyodo, Kenji Kawai, Shinji Higuchi, Katsuya Terada Narrated by Koichi Yamadera ----------------------------------------<br /><br />Way back in 1995, Mamoru Oshii unleashed his dazzling animation feature Ghost In The Shell, which helped consolidate anime's international acceptance - and also burrowed itself into Andy and Larry Wachowski's overall concept for The Matrix.<br /><br />The movie's sequel, Innocence (2004), was the inaugural Japanese animated film to compete for the Palme d'Or at Cannes, and it left heads spinning as much for its style and innovative effects as for its oft unfathomable plot.<br /><br />Always the trendsetter, Oshii has now presented us with Tachigui: The Amazing Lives Of The Fast-Food Grifters which has absolutely nothing to do with Ghost In The Shell, nor Japanese anime for that matter.<br /><br />Say hello to Oshii's creation "superlivemation": not quite animation, nor exactly live-action. Instead the cast endured somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 snapshots, which were digitally processed and reconstituted in a deceptively simple paper cut-out fashion reminiscent of Balinese puppetry. The movement itself is a stilted, stop-motion style that echoes sequences from Shinya Tsukamoto's experimental Tetsuo: Iron Man (1988).<br /><br />"I couldn't think of any method but this one," said Oshii in a recent interview with The Daily Yomiuri. "I realized that this project was not suitable for traditional animation."<br /><br />The cast choice is equally enigmatic. Kenji Kawai - who also composed the superlative soundtrack - appears as a ravenous burger fanatic, while renowned Studio Ghibli producer Toshio Suzuki spends his screen time being murdered in bizarre fashion. Others include Katsuya Terada, who dabbled with Oshii on Blood: The Last Vampire, and Shinji Higuchi - a special effects whiz who's worked on Godzilla movies.<br /><br />Koichi Yamadera's narration sounds like the stuff of a dry NHK documentary which belies the comic undertone here as well as Yamadera's extensive career voicing stoic anime characters like Spike Siegel in Cowboy Bebop.<br /><br />And the plot itself is a bizarre re-imagining of post-WWII Japan in the context of various fast-food off-shoots - from soba ramen shops to gyudon stand-up bars; American dogs in the heat-up trays of convenience stores to McDonalds- inspired burger-chain restaurants. "Food is a primal root of desire," asserted Oshii, by way of explanation. <br /><br />Thrown into the mix is a new breed of consumer: the fast-food grifters of the title, people who don't like to pay for their tucker and are constantly fine-tuning their elaborate scams to score free munchies. <br /><br />Oshii said his ulterior motive was homage to the "art" of eating food on the streets something still considered a bit of a taboo in this country, and which goes some way toward explaining the use of "tachigui" in the title.<br /><br />The director of live-action movies (Avalon, Stray Dog) as well as animation, Oshii has often blurred the definition between the two mediums. The celluloid result here is deposited somewhere in the grey area between both formats.<br /><br />At times the visual experiment here is as exhilarating as it can be irritating. Just don't ask what it's all really supposed to mean; Oshii's films, which are equal parts cerebral and innovative, are often not particularly clear story-wise. Where Oshii succeeds is via a liberal dose of black humor here you'll find Kentucky Fried Rat, death by hula-hoop, the world's fastest samurai burger chef and in the movie's very nature of surrealism.<br /><br />This is a man who defers to the influence of filmmakers like Godard and Truffaut, and perhaps owes as much to Andrei Tarkovsky as he does David Lynch. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that at one stage a B-52 bomber does a fly- through in a Yoshinoya look-alike franchise. The 54-year-old writer-director seemed to think this natural. "The Japan I depicted in the movie may not necessarily be faithful to reality," he suggested.<br /><br />Of course. --------------<br /><br />By Andrez Bergen
| 1pos
|
The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.<br /><br />Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]<br /><br />Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.<br /><br />I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.<br /><br />Avoid<br /><br />* / **** (one star out of four)<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Ecstasy (1933) (USA 1940) Starring Hedy Lamarr (as Hedy Kiesler)<br /><br />The world's first glimpse of a 19 year-old Hedy Lamarr occurs in the early moments of this 1930's treasure as she sweeps across the screen in an angelic wedding gown. This was to be the start of a legendary career. This was our glorious introduction to the most beautiful woman ever to grace the silver screen.<br /><br />It is Eva's (Lamarr) wedding night and her older husband seems uninterested in her romantic advances. She retreats to the lonely bed and, in a beautiful scene, she fiddles with her wedding ring as the realization of her marital mistake overcomes her. The husband seems more interested in neatness and order than he does in love. Gustav Machaty uses gorgeous camera angles and pristine shot framing to capture Lamarr's considerable talent and beauty. With no words spoken in the early part of the film, she is able to grasp our sympathy, our hearts and our support. It is that combination that prepared the 1930's audiences for what they were about to see as the film unfolded. 'Ecstasy' was considered shocking for its time... Some thought it to be scandalous.<br /><br />She returns home to her father's estate and files for divorce. The next day, she wakes with a complete sense of freedom and happiness. She just has to go outside and feel the freedom of the countryside and fresh air. Eva goes for a horseback ride and happens across a beautiful lake. And in one of the most famous scenes in film history, Hedy Lamarr became the first person to ever appear nude in a major film. Her frolic in the woods and her skinny-dipping adventure in the lake were legendarily scandalous. But the audiences couldn't stay away. As with many of today's movies, the controversy made it a must-see film.<br /><br />Eva's mischievous adventure introduces her to a handsome young man who helps her find her horse, who had run off with her clothes. After an awkward meeting, they eventually fall for each other. Their first romantic rendezvous was almost as controversial as the nude scene, with its blatant waves of eroticism. However, Machaty does beautiful work in these romantic moments. Machaty creates one delightful moment, when Eva literally seems to sink into her new lover, using a gorgeous early camera trick.<br /><br />It cannot be overstated how brave this performance was on Lamarr's part. Many might have presumed it was career suicide. Instead, it gained her worldwide fame and caught the eye Louis B Mayer, who signed her to a contract with MGM. There are some truly erotic moments in this film, even by today's raunchy standards. It is impossible to imagine how they were received in the 1930's. Again, Machaty was very clever with his imagery, leaving a lot to the imagination. But we all understand very well what we are seeing and it is supremely well done.<br /><br />The meeting of Eva's former husband and her current lover is perhaps inevitable. However, the consequences of that meeting are not. The film takes a few unexpected turns in its final act and it all makes for a great story and a lovely debut on the grand stage of movie stardom for Hedy Lamarr.<br /><br />I highly recommend this once controversial, now tame film and urge you to seek it out in its restored form on DVD. It is easily worthwhile, if only for the pleasure of seeing Hedy Lamarr. But the story is compelling too and the direction is ahead of its time. 'Ecstasy' is a memorable early treasure.<br /><br />www.tccandler.com - TC Candler's Movie Reviews!!!
| 1pos
|
I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.<br /><br />On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.<br /><br />But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster.
| 1pos
|
The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68. <br /><br />Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...<br /><br />
To rob a bank!<br /><br />Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!<br /><br />The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score
? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles<br /><br />To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.<br /><br />The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass<br /><br />Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.<br /><br />My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.<br /><br />I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.
| 0neg
|
This episode is certainly different than all the other Columbos, though some of the details are still there, the setup is completely different. That makes this Columbo unique, and interesting to watch, even though at times you might wish for the old Columbo. I liked it a lot, but then, I like almost any Columbo.
| 1pos
|
What of Domino did I hate over everything, and I mean everything, else? Perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter; maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character; maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like Lucy Lui; who deserves a lot better than this junk; and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. Maybe it's the editing; that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as they're uttered by people like Kiera Knightly who, if you buy as a bounty hunter, then you'll probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012.<br /><br />Nobody comes away from Domino with any sort credibility, absolutely nobody at all. It is a painful and misguided experience, taking inspiration from things like Natural Born Killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. The principal question is: 'Was Domino supposed to be some kind of comedy?' what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she's coming across as 'tough' but really, she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school, attempting to impress her peers. There are things you genuinely don't know how to react to, whether they're supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be a comedy, that begs the next question: 'Is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs?' I don't think so.<br /><br />The film opens with the title card 'Based on a true story........sort of.' If that's supposed to be some sort of post-modernist technique that enables director Tony Scott to bend and manipulate the story of Domino Harvey for his own unique purpose, then you're simply on another planet. Truth is, in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying 'sort of' which I guess is supposed to enable them to make Domino older than she should be and appear on Jerry Springer. Following this, we learn of Domino's relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something; here is the first use of the 'sort of' cop out as in real life she was just four. But if the film had gone by reality's dates then her entire drive would've been born out of the death of........her goldfish.<br /><br />We are then thrust into action with Ed Mosbey (Rourke); Domino (Knightley) herself and would-be love interest Choco (Ramírez). During the scene, an American mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son's life to be spared. What a really misguided opening; presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers, fire off weapons at innocents we don't know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs.<br /><br />The immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads, a feeling of 'No, why are you doing this? Why is this happening?' Bad seeds are planted and, wouldn't you know it, they stick. The film is painful to watch, excruciating even; as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in Beverly Hills 90210. Here is another daft post-modernist slant, people playing themselves and that 'sort of' Joker card being played again. Christopher Walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of Robert Downey Jr's Natural Born Killers character.<br /><br />So as the film plods on and Domino is cast into Ed and Choco's gang, purely for her good looks I might add, it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver's registration I.Ds or something that Choco and Domino may have feelings for one another. The problem is, as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character; there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two; the film isn't a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place? Does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up? If there is any 'feeling' between Choco and Domino, it exists on such a small, tiny, minimalist scale that you have to ask why it's even included.<br /><br />So then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative-wise. We find out the reason for the fake I.Ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. The sound proof bubble I can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded? He must've swam really quickly double the speed of the film's fasted edit which means something in the region of .01 of a second. Yeah, sure. The film's story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. Plus, there's a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film's comedy runs SO dry, that it has to resort to the "Jerry, Jerry!" chant whilst people are on a popular American talk show. When did we last laugh at "Jerry! Jerry!"? when we were, say, seven years old? I came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film's existence.
| 0neg
|
I really wanted to like this movie because the critics have been unkind<br /><br />to it (to say the least)... but it was terrible. Really terrible. Badly<br /><br />acted, a witless script, cack handed direction... Watching this film was<br /><br />like watching a car crash- you want to look away but you keep staring<br /><br />because you want to see how messy it's going to get. Well, the car is<br /><br />wrecked and there are no survivors. On the plus side, the cinematography<br /><br />was nice, made me want to go on holiday, if only to cleanse myself from<br /><br />this unholy
| 0neg
|
Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.<br /><br />The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.
| 0neg
|
I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James "Not Jim" Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it.
| 1pos
|
I have to say I quite enjoyed Soldier. Russell was very good as this trained psychopath rediscovering his humanity. Very watchable and nowhere near as bad as I'd been led to believe. Yes it has problems but provides its share of entertainment.
| 1pos
|
Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman.
| 1pos
|
This movie is just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!!
| 0neg
|
I'm a bit conflicted over this. The show is on one hand awful, the acting is terrible (even when we get actual name actors like Brad Pitt and Bill Moseley in one episode), the dialogue is moronic and the premise/moral of each episode feels like something lifted out of a 50s educational short. There's no way you'll be scared for a moment from any of these episodes, and Robert Englund's cameos are short, pointless and corny in a sort of a Bob Saget on America's Funniest Home Videos kind of way.<br /><br />On the other hand this is one of the funniest things to ever be on television. The 80s fashions, the soft focus makes the actors look like their on the set of The View at all times, the premises lend the material more to self-parody than scares, so we're left with an episode where a high school kid is afraid if he fails his SAT's his girlfriend will dump him and his parents disown him, another is afraid she'll be locked up in prison because she's a substandard mom (her husband is played by Brad Pit), another is afraid that all the parents in the world are in league against him when he runs away from home, another is afraid she'll be confused with her socially-retarded twin, another is afraid if he doesn't break up his mom and step-dad he'll get killed for having a party at his house. The list goes on and on.<br /><br />Being that these are dreams I suppose you could look past the ludicrous plot points and devices, but they're so out of left field that there's no opportunities for the writers to actually scare the audience. You have characters dressed like something out of a 80s-themed nightmare wandering around delivering bad dialogue in very hammy fashion and making illogical decisions that serve no other purpose but to move the story to the next weird plot point (typically watching as a peripheral character does something uncharacteristic of a sane person while our main character stares aghast and too shocked to do anything about it).<br /><br />If you're looking for something that'll scare you stay away. If you're looking, on the other hand, for one of the funniest things to come out of the 80s ever. Watch it.<br /><br />Its been showing on Chiller TV lately (pretty much every day) and I've been watching, earlier out of morbid curiosity, and now just so I can get a good laugh in each day. With Arrested Development and Extras off the air this is officially the funniest thing on television right now.
| 1pos
|
Although the film is the adaptation of the French play (forgot the name - sorry), it is a wonderful portrayal of the cheerful side of Georgian character. This film will make you to burst into laughter and will fill your heart with warm sadness. It will display the overwhelming love of life along with human eccentricities.
| 1pos
|
So I flipped on the digital subscriber channels one night a couple of years ago and thought I'd pass a half hour watching "Girlfight" while waiting for "Hart's War" to start. With a title like that I figured it was some exploitation 'B' flic about inner city girl gangs.<br /><br />Much to my surprise it wasn't about that at all. Instead it is a well acted, well scripted story about a young woman who almost accidentally gets into female boxing. She is responsible for taking her younger brother to his practice sessions and get interested while observing his bouts. As he doesn't really want to be a boxer (only following through on their father's wishes) she convinces his coach to take her on in his stead. <br /><br />The story unfolds in an intelligent and believable way as she goes through various trials on her quest. For starters, her brother's coach doesn't want to take on a female boxer. After grudgingly doing so there is the problem of lining up matches for her. Then the confrontation with her father when he finds out what is going on. Yes, a love interest develops but it serves to enhance the plot, coming across more of an interesting inter-human reaction with its own fight related consequences.<br /><br />All in all this is a great little sleeper movie that few seem to have heard of. Some time later when I saw the much advertised and acclaimed "Million Dollar Baby" I thought "wait a minute, this seems kind of familiar". Needless to say, I didn't watch "Hart's War" that night.
| 1pos
|
I found this to be the most enjoyable Muppets movie, because I felt it was the most light-hearted and had the best comic delivery on most of its lines. The Muppets try to go on Broadway to sell an original musical they've written, but along the way, they run into the usual problems, including Kermit's memory loss here. While there aren't as many great cameos here as in the original "Muppets Movie," there are some including Joan Rivers and Dabney Coleman. Simply the timing and delivery of so many of the lines is great, and the situations the Muppets find themselves in are hilarious. The original songs are also good here, and the ending is satisfying. There is not much else to say about the film, but Muppet fans should see it for sure. It is the funniest Muppet movie and is sure to be enjoyed by all.<br /><br />***1/2 out of ****
| 1pos
|
There is not a speck of entertainment in this entire film. There's not one scary, funny, or even interesting scene in this film. It advertises itself as a horror, then goes on to call itself a comedy. It doesn't even ATTEMPT humor. Neither does it attempt to be scary.<br /><br />In order to not be bored by this film, you would have to be one of the most easily entertained people on earth. If you like this movie even a LITTLE BIT than you have no standard for what you watch at all. I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with this. Its not funny, scary, shocking, or intriguing. So was it supposed to be a drama? Because it really wasn't dramatic either.<br /><br />Please just do yourself a favor and don't watch this film. Life is too precious to be wasting 90 minutes of it watching this.
| 0neg
|
From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.<br /><br />In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.<br /><br />Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.
| 0neg
|
I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point "I'm gay, not corny." And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian.
| 0neg
|
... and I DO mean it. If not literally (after all, I have not seen every movie ever created!), at least, obviously, among the ones, the many I know.<br /><br />5.3 ??? The rule of thumb with IMDb is this: sometimes movies rated very highly (for example, the piece of Kannes-Kompetition-Krowned-Korean-Kraap called "Oldboy") can be truly bad. But rarely a movie worth watching is actually rated under 6. This movie, very much worth watching, is. A disgrace.<br /><br />True, I give it a 10 in protest. The movie is not perfect. Its true rating should be an 8 or a 9. It has some acting flaws (Belafonte especially), the script wanders around, sometimes. However, what we have here is one of the greatest directors of all times, the Czech Jan Kadar, directing two of the greatest actors of all time, the beloved, larger-than-life Zero Mostel and the sublime Ida Kaminska in an acting/poetic/moral tour de force. A pair made in Heaven! It's true that this movie, little flaws apart, does not pander to the average audiences, but those interested in watching an excellent (while, again, not beyond criticism) movie of the incomparable director who gave us "The Shop on the Main Street" (the best movie ever about Holocaust) should not miss this just because some silly IMDb rating system decides that "American Beauty" is better than "The Angel Levine".<br /><br />It isn't.
| 1pos
|
The turning point in "The Matador" comes about half through the movie when Danny, an unsophisticated man from Denver, is sitting in the balcony of his Mexico City hotel, enjoying a quiet moment. Someone knocks on his door, and knowing it's Julian, the paid assassin, he refuses to answer. But did he really? <br /><br />Richard Shephard, the director of "The Matador", presents us with a character, Julian Noble, who shows no redeemable qualities. In fact, we have already seen him in action, doing what he does best. When Julian meets Danny at the bar of the Camino Real in Mexico City, he spills the beans and tells his new acquaintance what he really does for a living.<br /><br />Danny, who has come to sell his program to a Mexican company, but it seems he is competing against a local outfit that appears to be in the front for getting the contract. Danny is a naive person who falls prey of the charisma and charm doled out by the smarter Julian. It's not until some time later, on a cold winter night that the killer appears at Danny's door asking his friend to repay a favor and accompany him on a trip to Tucson. It's at this point that the secret that binds them together is revealed in an unexpected way.<br /><br />Pierce Brosnan, acting against type, makes a great contribution with his irreverent Julian Noble. Just to watch him walking through the hotel lobby in his Speedo and boots gives the right impression about his character. Greg Kinnear, on the other hand, plays the straight part of this odd couple. Hope Davis appears only in a couple of scenes leaving us to lament why didn't she stay longer. Philip Baker Hall puts an appearance as the liaison between Julian and his assignments.<br /><br />Richard Shephard directs with style working with his own material. The musical score is by Rolfe Kent and the crisp cinematography of David Tattersall enhances everything.
| 1pos
|
Domino is a great movie. It's about a young woman names Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) who becomes a bounty-hunter because of her boredom with her lifestyle. She joins with two fellow hunters (Mickey Rourke & Edgar Ramirez) and the adventures begin. The script is good. Very down-to-earth and realistic with the tone of the film. The only problem I had with this movie is that it concentrates on the different things that they do, instead of the character of Domino.<br /><br />Even with that, Kiera Knightley gives a fierce performance. She shows the right amount of anger and dedication in this performance. Mickey Rourke follows up his Oscar-Worthy performance in 'Sin City' with another tough-guy performance. Edgar Ramirez really doesn't do anything except speak Spanish every once in a while and stare at Kiera. Delroy Lindoi gives a good supporting performance. Mo'Nique was herself, although she did surprise me on one particular scene. Lucy Liu has great chemistry with Kiera Knightley in her scenes with her.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie though, is the direction. Tony Scott's fast-paced style really brings the movie to life. The cinematography is some of the best, I've ever seen. It takes a regular movie and puts on acid. All the blacks are blacker, the whites are brighter, and it has a sort of green glow to it. The action scenes are exhilarating.<br /><br />OVERALL: If you liked Sin City & Man on Fire, you'll like Domino.
| 1pos
|
Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was grading papers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can say that no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. The Icelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, and I did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with the Christopher Lambert version. Yuck.<br /><br />What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is the faithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I am used to both with all the versions I have seen.<br /><br />Delighted Regardless, Peter
| 0neg
|
Prominent attorney Walter Pidgeon takes a murder case pro bono, wins an acquittal and discovers that his client (Keefe Braselle) was not only guilty but part of an extortion ring reaching to the highest eschelons of the city. Panged by his own complicity, he undertakes an investigation, stumbles onto the identity of the "unknown man" who heads the syndicate, and murders him.<br /><br />The ironies engage when Braselle is charged with this second murder and Pidgeon must defend him by pointing to the existence of another "unknown man" -- himself. Though somewhat short of urban grit and long on rhetoric, the Unknown Man belongs to the noir cycle less by style or structure than by its acknowledgement of the pervasive corruption of American municipal politics that came to light in the postwar years.
| 1pos
|
The movie was watchable while Nicolson was on the screen. However, I had to fight against passing out from boredom when the film depended on Meryl Streep to carry scenes without Jack; she was as bland as could be. The relationship between the characters was nothing special; these characters have been portrayed before -- and much better. It felt like a based-on-real-life scenario in the absolute worst sense: 90% of daily life is boring, and not worth writing about or watching. Why Ephron felt her life and relationship with Carl Bernstein was interesting enough to write about escapes me. Perhaps she wrote it as therapy -- for many writers, putting an episode from their life on paper is cathartic. Fine: but then why anyone in Hollywood felt this story was worth filming remains a mystery to me.
| 0neg
|
Although Misty Ayers (burlesque stripper) is certainly attractive as the blonde lead, this flick is just an excuse to let her strip down to her underwear a few times (no nudity in 1954 when this film was made; not 1965).<br /><br />The guy who hires her to work in a whorehouse resembles Bud Abbott of Abbott & Costello. Most of the other woman are unattractive, and the drunken woman is semi-amusing in a creepy way.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10. Ms. Ayers has a curvacious physique, but you can't judge any acting talent because the ENTIRE film is post-dubbed. Some of these "exploitation films", usually made later than this one, are interesting in some way, but this is really a bore fest. Sid Melton (MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY) directed. There are some Samurai-like facial expressions and interesting apartments, but there's really NOTHING here.
| 0neg
|
Unbelievable!<br /><br />this film gets a 7 out 0f 10. This has to be one of the worst films i have seen in years. not only was the acting incredibly bad, the storyline (if you can call it that) was just as bad. Offcourse everyone knows what's going to happen within the first 5 minutes. Which is not a bad thing if you can captivate the audience during leading up to that moment. That however, is not the case. There is no action, no suspense, not even a spark between the 2 leading actors. It was unfortunately a waste of my time, and certainly a waste of my money. <br /><br />and the 2 of merely for trying
| 0neg
|
Pinjar is one of the few movies that really leaves a mark and makes you think hard. Set in Partition India, this film Shows the true reality of partition India. Urmila gets full marks for her beautiful and deeply emotional portrayal of a suffering woman with no way to go. Her freedom, personal identity and family respect taken away overnight over a tragic land dispute. Manoj bajpai is simply brilliant as her remorseful abductor. There several moments in the film where one is brought to tears. The film at points is deeply traumatic. Some of the partition scenes are spine chilling, yet Urmila's endurance and survival are both remarkable. From a woman robbed of her freedom to woman who gave freedom to women in similar situations. A remarkable film that should be given credit for intelligent characters and storytelling.
| 1pos
|
I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.<br /><br />Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.<br /><br />I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.<br /><br />And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.<br /><br />I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.<br /><br />There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out.
| 0neg
|
"8 SIMPLE RULES... FOR DATING MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER," is my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred. I always laughed at that. Despite the fact that James Garner and David Spade were good, I liked the show more when John Ritter was the leading man. If you ask me, his sudden passing was very tragic. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope some network brings it back on the air for fans of the show to see.
| 1pos
|
Sweet romantic drama/comedy about Stewart and Sullavan writing love letters to each other without either one knowing who the other is. Naturally, they work together and can't stand each other. You can guess the rest. It's beautifully acted by the entire cast (especially Sullavan, Stewart and Frank Morgan), has a witty, intelligent script and looks absolutely stunning. It takes place in Budapest and was shot in Hollywood, but I found myself believing I was seeing Budapest! Everything looks so perfect and dream-like. A one of a kind film. Don't miss it!
| 1pos
|
honestly, where can I begin! This was a low budget, HORRIBLY acted film, it was so cheesy it had us all bursting with laughter to how completely retarded it was! the sword fighting scenes weren't even sword fights, they were playing around with some plastic swords they bought at wal-mart and all they were doing was just moaning to try and make it look like they were struggling!! Me and my family was in the mood for a really good action movie one day, so we decided to go to the store and look for one, and there it was The Sawtooth Island movie. I mean it looked so great but when we watched it at home I practically died after the first scene.<br /><br />Oh and the plot of the film, the story board, the script, etc..was a bunch of garbage that I don't even know why the director and producer even wasted their time making it!! But if you happen to stumble upon this movie..do not get it!!!!!
| 0neg
|
Disney (and the wonderful folks at PIXAR of course) offer a nice, humourous story combined with the best of computer animation. I admit that maybe the 'faces' of the bugs were a little more static than in 'Antz' and they only had four legs (in 'Antz' six...). But backgrounds were superb and animation was breathtaking. But let this be a lesson: it was not the computer who made it such a success : it was the man behind the machine, who added the nice little twists, which I missed in 'Antz'. Some highlights were of course the 'bloopers' at the end (So keep watching at the end, it's worth it!), which were highly amusing and original. The line 'Filmed entirely on location' was intended for the more attentive viewer.
| 1pos
|
A brilliant chess player attends a tournament and falls in love with a woman he meets there. On itself this would be a pretty bad angle on a story. So, there is more. There is the fact that the chess player is also completely alienated from the world because of his brilliance at the game and the fact there is some history haunting the player.<br /><br />This film steps back and forth from romantic frivolity to tournament tension to historic events that shaped the chess player and works quite nicely. It's easy to grow attached to the two main characters and easy to believe they might hit it off together like the way they do in this film. The added effect of the tournament is very good too and creates a nice tension setting.<br /><br />I have no idea of the strength of the chess players as I don't play the game myself but it looks nice and believable. All in all, most of the film goes down very easily. It is also forgotten again very easily though. So it's nice to watch but nothing more than that.<br /><br />7 out of 10 chess players caught between a rook and a hard place
| 1pos
|
i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Porretta was good looking but resembled like a Mexican porn star not an English outlaw. costumes? what costumes? a t-shirt with strips of black leather on it. it was Marion's clothes--or lack of them--that really got me. do the 'fans' of this stinker really believe women dressed like that in medieval england. the Mongols and vikings were inaccurate and stupid, but the episode with an ALIEN was worst of all. Especially as his make up mainly consisted of oatmeal on his face--an old trick.The hedgehog monster was pretty funny, as was climbing up the side of a castle on a ladder of arrows--as if. the US accents grated as did the initial drawling voice over' RAW-bin Hood and LIDDLE John'.the second robin and Marion were really quite minging in looks and what was left of the show went totally down the pan...
| 0neg
|
And Gi Joe go stuck in the water, I die of laufther every time I see this movie, and then a big brown shark came, This is comedy at it's best, this blows away the kings of comedy and anyone else, Andrew Dice Clay, Jerry, Tucker, Rock, They can't thouch the man the myth the legend Eddie Murphy,<br /><br />Yo EDDIE WE WANT MORE<br /><br />MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| 1pos
|
Now, I like sci-fi cartoons. However, when "Robotboy" appeared in Canada in late 2006, I watched the premiere and was inevitably appalled. The characters are generic and stereotypical (Do they REALLY need to make an African-American man wear tiger-stripe print clothing and speak in a Jamacian accent? WHY are all the Asian characters vibrant yellow and squinting? Does the mother HAVE to have big thighs and chest and constantly complain?) to the point where things become unrealistic, predictable, gross and sometimes disturbing. There are heavy similarities to, even stabs, at Astro Boy. Allow me to explain (dub names for the young): Robotboy/Astro, Kamikaze/Tenma, Constantine/Shadow, Gus/Abercrombie, Tommy/Alejo, Lola/Zoran+Kennedy, Moshimo/O'Shay, and it so on. Brief resemblances to "My Life As A Teenage Robot", "Star Wars", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Kamen Riders", "Sailor Moon" and co. are afoot. Not to mention the abundant racial/gender stereotyping. Don't even get me started on the innuendos. I'll just say they're hidden and quite dirty. But seriously. Don't even try watching this. Especially if you like Astro Boy.
| 0neg
|
I have been a Jodie Foster fan ever since we were both kids, from her Disney years. I loved her tomboy antics in films like Candleshoe.<br /><br />"Foxes" was such a huge departure from all of that.<br /><br />Where other young female actors of that era turned to sexual puerility disguised as comedy ("Little Darlings", anyone?), Jodie went for a depressing and tragic tale of teens dragged to their demise by the powerful allure of temptation and addiction.<br /><br />This was not Disney. This was not Porky's. This was not "Halloweed". This was a dark & powerful story of the destruction of young lives. Sadly it's a tale that still plays out on a daily basis all over the country, this film could be replayed (with a current soundtrack) and still be wholly relevant.<br /><br />It's not the best film ever made, it is tired at some parts, not all the performances are particularly outstanding. But Jodie Foster continued to show her chops as a real adult actor (a trend started when she was very young in Taxi Driver).<br /><br />7 out of 10 Barky
| 1pos
|
Personally, I disdain The Jerry Springer Show, however, I found "Ringmaster" to be the funniest movie I've seen this year. The never-ending satire of Jerry Springer "guests" starting in the opening scene keeps you laughing throughout the movie. Despite a brief scene in which Jerry Springer makes a feeble attempt at justifying his existence, I definitely recommend this movie for sheer entertainment value.
| 1pos
|
This movie probably would only get a 7 or 8 from me to tell the truth if I had seen trailers or had any kind of knowledge of what the film is all about. Since it was virtually all a surprise it was almost a perfect piece of edgy entertainment that gets a strong 9 from me.<br /><br />I read through some of the comments briefly and saw that someone else had almost the same experience as me and he advised to just watch it. It was good advice. Read the rest at your own risk of spoiling.<br /><br />Eva Mendez plays a head-strong, success-starved network TV programmer that took a joke made by a co-worker while brain-storming TV program ideas about Russian Roulette seriously. The story follows her in a documentary style on her pursuit to make this happen.
| 1pos
|
This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.
| 0neg
|
Two thirds of nearly 2,000 IMDb users who have voted on this film have rated it at 8, 9 or 10 and one user reports wearing out six videotapes (Was this a record, or merely a faulty VCR?). Although the film is primarily intended as a period piece it clearly has a quite unusual fascination. But for some reason I imagined it as largely whimsy and until recently never felt the urge to watch it. My mind was changed by Elizbeth Von Arnim's original book. My wife loves reading but her sight no longer allows her to read much so she borrowed it in talking book form. Such books are usually irritating to a companion who is busy with other things, but I gradually came to appreciate that this one was seductively soothing, although in no way syrupy, and was also very well written. I realised my wife would enjoy watching the film, and so decided to buy her the videotape. I am now very glad that I did, and would certainly recommend its purchase to anyone else who appreciates a quiet reflective work with no fireworks but with well constructed character development and a very successful pre-Mussolini Italian atmosphere. The story is set in the immediate post WW1 period and starts with two married London ladies who decide to pool their savings and enjoy a holiday together, away from their families, in a rented villa in Italy. Force of circumstances lead to this couple being joined by two others with very different characters and backgrounds. Its theme is essentially no more than the interactions that take place as their holiday progresses, not only between these four very disparate mature ladies, but also with the occasional male visitor. If you want action, thrills, dramatic sex scenes, natural or man-made disasters, or Harlequin style romances this would not be the film for you. But IMDb users have collectively and very emphatically demonstrated that none of these are necessary for a film to prove highly rewarding to watch, and if you care to give it a try you may, as I did, come to rank it among your much loved films.<br /><br />It is fairly rare for me to watch a film of a book with which I am already familiar. In many cases I find this takes some of the pleasure away from watching the film, but here there is such a strong visual appeal in the setting that I actually found my pleasure augmented by the anticipation of seeing the next segment of the book, effectively unrolled before my eyes. (Perhaps Italy itself has some part in this, the last time I had this experience was when I was watching tales from Boccaccio's Decameron on TV.) Generally films of books tend to increase the dramatic level of the original work to ensure that the filmed version has an even wider appeal, but here if anything it is reduced in order to keep the viewers attention on the gradual character development rather than on any background events. This works very well, although changes from the book are few and basically the film remains true to the original story. Great credit is due to the Director, Mike Newell, and all members of the cast, particularly those well known British Actresses who play the four principal ladies.
| 1pos
|
There's only one thing I need to say about this movie - the scene where Shaq is in a musical number with Francis Capra's character about wanting to be a genie; never see this movie. The story is horrible, the acting is terrible (c'mon, it's Shaq!) and I'd rather see Capra in Free Willy (equally horrible) twice before ever seeing this movie.
| 0neg
|
This film is another example of the curse of east Asian cinema: two or more separate stories rolled into one film. Other reviewers have obviously picked up on it as well because there are several mentions of the "first part" and "second part". How can you have any character development or a deep plot when the characters and the story are featured for such a short time? I was enjoying the first part until it abruptly stopped (it didn't "end", it just stopped in what appeared to be the middle of the story) to be replaced by an inane and totally unbelievable second part that seemed to focus around a girl rearranging and cleaning a guy's apartment (wow!) I look forward to the day when Wong Kar Wai is given a decent script to work with!
| 0neg
|
It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.<br /><br />As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.<br /><br />The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.<br /><br />The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.<br /><br />To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh.
| 1pos
|
This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.<br /><br />The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.<br /><br />The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners.
| 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.