Datasets:

avsolatorio

/

mteb-imdb-avs_triplets

like 1

"Scarface" has a major cult following even now, 22 years after its release.<br /><br />It has also been widely criticized as being very tacky, unrefined, over-the-top and all bloated up! These are people who compare Scarface to The Godfather movies. It is true that on the technical front, (cinematography, screenplay, direction, etc.) Scarface is way behind 'The Godfather'.<br /><br />But it is also true, that what Scarface has and some other gangster movies lack, is the rawness, the sheer crude approach of the gangsters. The Latino gangsters in this movie look much more menacing and real than any of the polished Italian or Irish gangsters from other gangster classics like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas'. This is one of the major winning points of Scarface and I strongly believe that this fact has been written off as "tackiness" by most critics! I have seen the original 1932 Scarface, and I must say that both these movies are way too different from each other and should be seen as two different movies instead of praising the original over the "remake"! <br /><br />Al Pacino has been criticized to be over-the-top and loud in this movie. But how about considering that that is precisely the way the film-makers wanted Tony Montana's character to be! He is this angry young man who takes hasty decisions and throws fits of tantrum every other minute! He is not the calm Michael Corleone here. He is Tony Montana, a very tacky, uneducated individual who doesn't really think much and gets angry all the time!<br /><br />There is definitely a very 80s feel to this movie. The soundtrack is all 80s! I love some of the songs, including 'Gina and Elvira's theme', 'Push it to the limit' and the title track instrumental.<br /><br />There are some memorable and beautifully shot sequences, including the famous chainsaw scene, the Rebenga hit, the first meeting with Sosa and Tony's visit to his mother's.<br /><br />About the performances: Al Pacino is brilliant as the angry Cuban refugee. He has reportedly mentioned that he enjoyed playing Tony Montana the most in his entire career. And it really does seem like he has enjoyed himself thoroughly in all his scenes! One wonders what "Scarface" would be like without Pacino. I just couldn't imagine anyone else portraying Tony Montana and in all probabilities, the film wouldn't be as effective without him!<br /><br />Steven Bauer shines as Tony's friend Manny.<br /><br />Robert Loggia is wonderful as Tony's boss, Lopez. So is F. Murray Abraham (as Omar) in a small role.<br /><br />Then there is some eye-candy in the form of Elvira played by Michelle Pfeiffer. She looks beautiful and is adequate in her role.<br /><br />The director does go a bit overboard during a particular part in the climax. Without revealing anything, I would only say that that was the only little part that suffers due to improper handling.<br /><br />"Scarface" is definitely one of the most entertaining and one of the best gangster movies to ever come out. Enjoy it for what it is: a raw portrayal of the Drug Lords and their gangland!

positive

Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note.

negative

Sholay: Considered to be one of the greatest films. I always wondered if they would ever remake being the classic it is. That was the time RGV announced this movie and I was somewhat excited to see it. I always thought that maybe this will be a good movie, but every week we would here RGV change something. And the movie is a very B-Grade movie, something that I had not hoped.<br /><br />I really tried looking for positives, but I promised to keep Sholay out of my mind. The cinematography is awesome. The movie tries to be its own. But that is the up side. The action sequences are weak. The screenplay had potential. The biggest flaw is editing. None of the scenes excite you. For example, the comedy sequences felt very out of place and forced. Ironic because comedy was just as entertaining in the original. And none of the characters are developed. And no scenes will linger until the end. And the ending was very disappointing.<br /><br />The biggest question is acting. Amitabh Bachchan was good as Gabbar Singh, nothing great. It seemed as if they concentrated too much on his look, that the character only looks menacing, but you don't get creeped out. Mohanlal is barely in the movie, but he impresses in his few scenes. Ajay Devgan was decent. It wasn't so much the performance, he gave it his all, it was the weak script. Prashant Raj is very confident, and has potential to make it far with better movies.<br /><br />I had most expectations for Sushmita Sen, who was probably the best of the lot. She was expressive, but this still was not enough. Nisha Kothari surprised me. She seemed disinterested for the most part, but her emotional scene after her friend's death was quite good. Seems as if she needs to find a director who will help her talent, not her cute looks. But what disappointed me most was chemistry. Ajay Devgan and Prashant Raj didn't look like friends. Ajay-Nisha were not a strong couple. No passion was to be found between Sushmita and Prashant. And Amitabh and Mohanlal did not the hateful passion they needed.<br /><br />As for songs, they pretty much suck. Urmila's Mehbooba was too overblown and I pretty much slept through it. It was however nicely danced. The Holi number was enjoyable, but not memorable. Same went for the other songs. For someone who looked forward to this movie, I was heavily disappointed. I had high hopes for RGV because of his Jungle, but seems as if he lost his talent during the shooting of this movie. But hopefully he regains his talent for Sarkar Raj. But this movie is best forgotten. All the positives still do not make up for the boring movie it is.

negative

Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this movie.

negative

I saw the The Bourne Ultimatum last summer with a friend, and, wow! I had already seen the first two films and I liked them, but Ultimatum, I loved.<br /><br />Matt Damon plays Jason Bourne, a amnesia suffering CIA agent on the run, trying to discover who he is.<br /><br />Like I already said, I loved this movie from start to finish, no plot holes, slow scenes, everything was paced just right and it fit in well with the other films, but in all senses it was much better.<br /><br />Best stunts, car chases, actors, and effects I've seen in an action movie all summer, (surprisingly due to Spider-Man 3, Pirates, etc.) But I it wasn't just action in this film, Jason doesn't just kill and run. He has a soul and the audience feels for him, so drama is included. But that doesn't slow it down.<br /><br />Of all the "threequels" that came out last summer, this was the best.

positive

The movie remains in the gray for far too long. Very little gets explained as the movie progresses, with as a result lots of weird sequences that seem to have a deeper meaning but because of the way of storytelling they become only just weird and not understandable to watch. It sort of forces you to watch the movie again but no way I'm going to do that. It is that I watched this movie in the morning, I'm sure of it that if I watched this movie in the evening I would had fallen asleep. To me the movie was like a poor man's "Blade Runner".<br /><br />The movie leaves far too many questions and improbabilities. It makes the movie leave a pointless and non-lasting impression.<br /><br />Also the weird look of the movie doesn't help much. The movie is halve CGI/halve real life but it's not done halve as good, impressive, spectacular and imaginative as for instance would be the case in later movies such as "Sin City" and "300". They even created halve of the characters of the movie by computer, which seemed like a very pointless- and odd choice, also considering that the character animation isn't too impressive looking. Sure the futuristic environment is still good looking and the movie obviously wasn't cheap to make but its style over substance and in this case that really isn't a positive thing to say.<br /><br />Some of the lines are also absolutely horrendous and uninteresting. The main God of the movie constantly says lines such as; 'I'm going to do this but it's none of your concern why I want to do it'. Than just don't say anything at all Mr. Horus! It's irritating and a really easy thing to put in movie, if you don't care to explain anything about the plot. Also the deeper questions and meanings of the movie gets muddled in the drivel of the movie and its script.<br /><br />The actors still did their very best. They seemed like they believed in the project and were sure of it that what they were making would be something special. So I can't say anything negative about them.<br /><br />The story and movie is far from original. It rip-offs from a lot of classic and semi-classic, mostly modern, science-fiction movies. It perhaps is also the reason why the movie made a very redundant impression on me.<br /><br />A failed and uninteresting movie experiment.<br /><br />3/10

negative

How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.<br /><br />Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.<br /><br />Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.<br /><br />As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.<br /><br />Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.<br /><br />He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10.<br /><br />

positive

The movie is more about Pony than Grey Owl. It's also about aboriginals, Canada, the English, Grey Owl's aunts and the North Bay Nugget. Excellent story.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, more like a book, that raises interesting questions about cultural identity and values. The key scene is Grey Owl admitting his imposture to Pony and her reaction.<br /><br />A few observations on the user ratings. Note that the user ratings are bi-polar clustering at 5 and 7; it's not for everyone, but has a strong following. This movie is underrated and overlooked but will be noticed for years to come. Also, few women have watched the movie but they rate it more highly than men. Has it been marketed properly?<br /><br />

positive

This was a really cool movie. It just goes to prove that you don't need silly litle things like continuity and scripts to make a movie. It traverses continents in seconds, people get shot and nothing happens to them, swords set on fire, samuari fight on sinking galleons, David Essex is the epitome of slimey villainy and John Rhys Davies is just the dude. I enjoyed this movie but I like s**t movies, this is the perfect example of a very s**t movie that just KICKS ASS. If you like Battlefield Earth you'll love this film, its swashbuckling, its fast, its silly, its samuaraitastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />It also looks as if it was made in 1972

positive

First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.

negative

Cor blimey. This film really surprised me as it is a comedy masterpiece. Billy Zane is stunning as the central character, and everyone manages to play it straight enough for the comedy to be natural and easy.<br /><br />The soundtrack is really good, and the set pieces are a joy to behold. I recommend that you watch this film with a bunch of mates, a few bottles of your liquor of choice, and prepare to be astonished and highly entertained.<br /><br />This carries on so perfectly from kitsch masterpieces like Plan 9 From Outer Space that it is in the true "B" movie tradition. But what makes it more than that is the caliber of the people who took part in the film. Ron Pearlman for example. I still find my self giggling at the scene where Zane prances down a set of steps for no apparent reason in an almost ballet style. All a bit mad, and all the better for it.

positive

Zatoichi The Outlaw was the first film made by its hero's (Shintaro Katsu) own production company, this is perhaps why this is a slightly lesser entry in the series, though it is by no means weak overall. It tells of our hero coming across two towns, rival bosses and a mysterious ronin helping the poor and from this set up spins a tale encompassing tragedy, violence and no little interest, all served up with lashings of the unshowy but inspired swordplay that is one of the series trademarks. It is a fairly predictable plot and it mounts in unsurprising fashion, but it zips along with style and is interesting stuff. The helpful ronin for example is a nobly inscrutable revolutionary character, upsetting the established order without being painted as a truly likable or heroic figure, Zatoichi himself makes one or two mistakes and causes harm by his actions, whilst the ruling system fuels the exploitation of the poor. Its a harsh world, with one or two more visceral than expected moments in the fighting, though things aren't as rousing as they could be. Shintaro Katsu turns in a typical bravura performance as Zatoichi, mixing wisdom, deadly skill and worldliness with a subtly sad sense of vulnerability, while solid work comes also from Rentarô Mikuni and an effectively baleful Kô Nishimura (later to appear as Katsu's superior "Snake" Magobei in the Hanzo trilogy) as the two main bosses in the film. There is also a good emotional turn from Yuko Hamada as a wronged woman. The film loses out through shaky pacing and a not so well constructed sequence of events, there is at least one slightly jarring time jump and the power of the plot becomes a little lost, meaning that when things heat up towards the end the film isn't as exciting as it could be, emotional impact is lost also. The action or scenes of Zatoichi using his ingenious skills are well handled by director Satsuo Yamamoto, though some of the gambling is less interesting and the film builds up in a workmanlike rather than really inspired way, without the lively characters or strong verve of some other installments. Still, I enjoyed this one, it has its flaws and isn't one of the best of the series but it still packs a sweetly satisfying dose of entertainment, a good story and decent doses of Zatoichi's trademark ingenious and quirky cool. Recommended for fans of the series, and a reasonable entry point, classy stuff though not a true great.

positive

Who would have thought that a movie about a man who drives a couple hundreds of miles on his lawn mower to see his brother, could possibly be good cinema? I certainly didn't. I thought I knew what to expect: one of the most boring experiences of my life. Well I was as wrong as I haven't been wrong too often yet, because this is one of the best, most realistic and honest Hollywood films I've ever seen...<br /><br />Giving a short resume of "The Straight Story" isn't very difficult. It's about an old and stubborn man who steps on his lawn mower and drives off to another state to pay his brother a visit when he hears that the man has had a severe stroke. That's already special on itself, but what makes it even more special is the fact that he hasn't seen his brother in ten years because of some stupid argument. In the meantime he has his share of bad luck and problems, but he also meets a lot of people whose lives he influences in one way or another with his philosophical approach to life. Despite all the difficulties he drives on for weeks, not knowing if he will reach his goal: seeing his brother again before it's too late...<br /><br />I can easily understand why there are people who don't like this movie and that's also the reason why I will not say that these people don't have a heart or things like that... This movie hasn't got any flashy action scenes, it is as slow as the lawn mower the man is driving on and no, you don't have to watch it for the nice soundtrack either, because there isn't any. But why should you watch it then? Well, the simple answer is the story. I haven't seen such a touching movie with such a powerful story very often and the fact that this actually comes from Hollywood and - to make things even better - from the Disney Studio's (that's right, the same studios that overwhelm us with sugar sweet nonsense) makes it even more special. I'm not ashamed to admit that I had the tears in my eyes a couple of times while watching it, probably because the whole situation of not seeing someone for many years because of some stupid argument is all too realistic for me.<br /><br />Some people will argue that the story is very shallow, but I really don't agree with that. Perhaps it is because they only see that old man driving on his lawn mower and don't want to think any further. If you look close enough than you'll understand that this man is doing all this because he knows he has once been wrong, that only his pride stood in the way of seeing his brother again and that he wants everybody else to see that too, so they won't make the same mistake. If that isn't deep enough, how much deeper does a story have to go for you then? <br /><br />I would also like to add that this movie really had it all. Some beautiful landscapes (finally an American movie that shows something else than the skyline of New York, Chicago or some other big city), some very fine acting by Richard Farnsworth, Sissy Spacek,... and a very understandable way of telling despite the fact that this is a David Lynch movie. I know now that I was completely wrong by assuming that this movie wouldn't be to my taste. It's one of the very best movies I've seen in a long time. This movie aimed for my heart and hit the bull's eye. I give it the full 10/10.

positive

I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.<br /><br />Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...

negative

This movie was pretty bad. Sci-fi is usually my favorite channel so I watch all the original movies that play on it. I really don't know if this movie can be called original. Starting a zoo/theme park on a remote island sounds pretty familiar. What was it, oh yeah, Jurassic Park. But this has Sabertooth tigers instead.<br /><br />The movie starts out with a few stereotypical college kids on an island doing some kind of treasure hunt. One of them ends up dieing a rather gruesome death with some of the worst special effects I've seen. The blood looked a lot like ketchup. Also at the beginning there is a scientist who wants to make as many saber tooth tigers as possible for people to enjoy. 3 of them have already escaped and are going around eating the tourists, or the people invited to the island to see the tigers first hand. Again, sound like Jurassic Park. Probably the coolest thing was the 1000lb saber tooth who crawled around on his front legs killing the mad scientist with a tooth statue of sorts that somehow shrinks and goes through the guys neck. Funniest death I've seen on TV.<br /><br />The acting is extremely cheesy, the special effects are horrible. The CG tigers could almost pass for clay models, and even some of the sounds were off. For instance, when one of the college students is trying to escape, he uses an ax to break down a door, the ax goes into the door and about 2 seconds later you hear the sound. This movie was pretty bad. The cheesy deaths were quite funny though.

negative

National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose.

negative

He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.

negative

I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.<br /><br />There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.<br /><br />The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.<br /><br />I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.<br /><br />Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.

negative

When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis. Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State. Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.<br /><br />A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter. In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department; they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem. Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.<br /><br />A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down. Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy; this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters. (If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).<br /><br />The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright. There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds. Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon. On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.<br /><br />The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny. Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed. There was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid-eighties, as this was the period which also saw the awful Ben Kingsley/ Nastassia Kinski film "Harem", about a lascivious Middle Eastern ruler who kidnaps a young American woman, and the mini-series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. The film-makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy, because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter-day "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about Democracy and the Constitution and the Citizen's Duty to Vote and We The People and how the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance blah blah blah……, but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy.<br /><br />Goldie Hawn has made a number of good comedies, such as "Cactus Flower", "Overboard" and ""Housesitter", but "Protocol" is not one of them. I have not seen all of her films, but of those I have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. 3/10

negative

My first exposure to "Whale Music" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.<br /><br />I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.<br /><br />I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.<br /><br />Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend "Whale Music" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world.

positive

Bad script, bad direction, over the top performances, overwrought dialogue. What more could you ask for? For laughs, it just doesn't get any better than this. Zadora's over-acting combined with the cliched scenarios she finds herself in make for an hilarious parody of the "Hollywood" machine. Almost as funny as "Spinal Tap" even though it was clearly not intended as such. Don't miss Ray Liotta's debut film line, "Looks like a penis."

positive

"Metamorphosis" hold a tiny bit of cult-value, simply because it was written and directed by George Eastman. This Italian bloke is more or less the personification of male sleaze and starred in pretty much every rancid Joe D'Amato production during the late 70's/early 80's. Wouldn't it be interesting for avid Euro-cult purchasers to own the only movie directed by the guy who walked around bare-butted in "Erotic Nights of the Living Dead" all the time? I thought so! Now, unlike the movies he starred in, Eastman's own "Metamorphosis" is kind of disappointing in the gore & sleaze departments. There are a handful of nasty murders, cheesy monster effects and naked female bodies (a guest appearance by sleaze-queen Laura Gemser!) on display, but it's mainly a talkative movie. The handsome & eloquent Dr. Houseman is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough with his research on human DNA codes when suddenly the university he works for threatens to cancel his funds. He developed a theory to decode genes and block the human ageing process, but if he doesn't come up with detailed reports any time soon, his research will be stopped. So Dr. Houseman does what any intelligent scientist would do and injects the untested serum into his own veins. Needless to say (and like the title implies), he slowly turns into murderous monster that actually ages much quicker! In other words, his research sucked! Like the other reviewers already mentioned, this movie "borrows" a lot of ideas from David Cronenberg's "The Fly" – the dramatic romance sub plot included - but doesn't add any originality from its own. The big difference is that you constantly feel connected with Jeff Goldblum's character in "The Fly", whereas Dr. Houseman becomes just another monster that needs to be destroyed as fast as possible. The rapid-ageing-syndrome aspect also reminded me of Ruggero Deodato's sadly underrated giallo "Phantom of Death", only the protagonist in that film inherited the disease and didn't inflict it on himself. The physical deterioration of the carriers is very similar in both films, though. Few scares or excitement to discover here, instead the movie features loads of bad acting, poor lighting, lousy editing and a completely retarded climax to boot. Feel free to skip this one.

negative

Because of the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike they had to shoot this episode in 3 days. It's pretty much crap, consisting of repeat cut + pasted clips from Season 2 and was described by its writer, Maurice Hurley as "terrible, just terrible." <br /><br />Why the producers couldn't just wait to shoot something decent who knows. I'm guessing because of the strike the production ran out of money and could only release a flashback episode or maybe Roddenberry was too sick at the time to be able to veto this half-assery. This episode also marks the final appearance of Diana Muldaur (Dr. Katherine Pulaski) on the series.

negative

A woman, Mujar (Marta Belengur) enters a restaurant one morning at &:35 unaware that a terrorist has kidnapped the people in said restaurant & is making them act out a musical number in this strange yet fascinating short film, which I only saw by finding it on the DVD of the director/writer's equally fascinating "Timecrimes". It had a fairly catchy song & it somehow brought a smile to my face despite the somber overall plot to the short. I'm glad that I stumbled across it (wasn't aware it would be an extra when I rented the DVD) and wouldn't hesitate at all to recommend it to all of my friends.<br /><br />My Grade: A-

positive

This film struck me as a project that had a lot of the right ingredients, but somewhere along the way they didn't quite come together. I don't know who made it, but it has a slightly Disney-esque feel. While parts of it are improbable (like when a pre-teen runs for a public office) and tend to prevent the story from being taken seriously, there is a healthy dose of normalcy (whatever that is) to keep things balanced and in perspective. The acting is alright. Strangely, the relationship between Frankie and her grandmother is convincing, but the relationship between Hazel and Frankie is a bit...off. It's interesting to see how she has to work hard to keep a balance between her best friend, her grandmother, and her two passions: ballet and baseball. Being a baseball player myself, it was quite painful to watch Frankie try to hold her own on a team of boys, but it does a good job of showing the struggle she faces. I read somewhere that she isn't really ballerina, but the editing in this film did a very good job of making her dancing look not only natural but beautiful. Overall, it was a good film about honesty and ambition, but its star Mischa Barton didn't quite achieve the level of realism we saw during her performances in "Lawn Dogs", "Lost and Delirious", and her small but shocking performance opposite Haley Joel Osment in "The 6th Sense."

positive

In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television.

positive

Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler?

negative

This movie really surprised me. I had my doubts about it at first but the movie got better and better for each minute. <br /><br />It is maybe not for the action seeking audience but for those that like an explicit portrait of a very strange criminal, man, lover and husband. If you're not a fan of bad language or sexual content this really is not for you. <br /><br />The storyline is somewhat hard to follow sometimes, but in the end I think it made everything better. The ending was unexpected since you were almost fouled to think it would end otherwise. <br /><br />As for the acting I think it was good. It will not be up for an Oscar award for long but it at least caught my eye. Gil Bellows portrait of a prison man is not always perfect but it is very entertaining. Shaun Parkes portrait of Bellows prison mate Clinique is great and extremely powerful. On the downside I think I will put Esai Morales portrait of Markie.<br /><br />Take my advice and watch this movie, either you will love it or dislike it!

positive

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

negative

This independent, B&W, DV feature consistently shocks, amazes and amuses with it's ability to create the most insane situations and then find humor and interest in them. It's all hilarious and ridiculous stuff, yet as absurd as much of the film should be, there is a heart and a reality here that keeps the film grounded, keeps the entire piece from drifting into complete craziness and therein lies the real message here. This film is about how we all survive in a world gone mad. That seems to be the heart of the film. For as insane and off the wall as things get, Leon, the 30 yr. old paperboy-protagonist, always tries to keep it together. He's like a child forever trying to catch the balloon that is floating away so that everything will work out for the best, so that everyone can have what they want.<br /><br />The acting in the film could have went far over the top but the exceptional cast really keeps the piece cohesive. Van Meter is perhaps the best of the bunch here with a performance that shines through her absurd diseased tics. Just as the characters in the film do, we overlook her sudden outbursts to see the real person underneath. <br /><br />Majkowski is a true genius here. He takes the utmost ridiculous plot twists and keeps them real. It is his script and his cast that help keep the whole thing afloat. It's a true testament to the skill of Majkowski and all involved that this film, with it's grating plot and characters, never once works our nerves. Majkowski has taken a film that could have been abrasive and repugnant, and somehow given it heart and humor. This is a unique film. Not to be missed. <br /><br />

positive

Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.<br /><br />'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system' <br /><br />'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time'<br /><br />'but it's not going after software, it's killing people'<br /><br />watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard

negative

I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man.

negative

There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.<br /><br />"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.<br /><br />####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!##### <br /><br />Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.<br /><br />Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess.

negative

"Moonstruck" is a lovely little film directed by superb story teller, Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night, Fiddler on the Roof, The Hurricane). The film is great on many levels. It shows a good slice of Italian culture, has a touching romance, and (best of all) is a hilarious comedy.<br /><br />One thing I liked most about the film was the relative unconventional looks of the actors. Nicolas Cage looks positively odd for most of the film, and Cher... well, Cher always looks a little odd.<br /><br />Overall, it's a fun film, and easy to recommend.<br /><br />7.4 out of 10

positive

This is definitely not one of Lucio Fulci's better flicks by any stretch of the imagination. The plot is pretty bad, a millionaire is murdered and his spirt calls upon his daughter to find out who did it. But the biggest problem i have with this (besides knowing who killed him within 10 minutes of watching the movie) was wondering why anyone should even care? The father comes off as being a really big jerk to everyone he came across (including the daughter who he asks to help him) which made it quite hard for anyone to care who killed him. But no one really watches a Fulci flick for a good storyline, to do so would be like watching a porn for incredible script writing and acting. Typically his movies try to compensate for this by adding excessive scenes of gore but even that is lacking in this movie. If you're looking for a good Fulci flick, check out The Beyond.

negative

This is an very good movie. This is one that I would rent over and over again. It is not like your normal superhero movie. This movie blends comedy, action and great special effects. It even has a person in it that does a lot of voices on The Simpsons. William H. Macy is the bomb.

positive

I loves this movie,because it showed that they were not killing for fun but to save the ones they loved! Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom did a great job portraying Ned and Joe. It has a few quick inappropriate scenes but is all right other than that. The language is very mild and sometimes don't even know it is there. This movie shows that just because they are outlaws does not mean that they are vicious killers! I hope that people will watch this movie and learn about important times in history like this one. There is one thing that fascinates me about this movie is that they got their inspiration for their armor from a book Ned looked at! Also that that is how people remember them,from their armor. I hope that people will watch this movie and get interested as I have.

positive

It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first "Nightmare" movie was his first).<br /><br />Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see "Freddy vs. Jason" again.

negative

I am proud to say I own an uncut copy of this choice chunk of 70's Crown International drive-in sexploitation comedy cheese on DVD. It's a really goofy and enjoyably inconsequential flick with a nicely breezy'n'easy 70's vibe to it. It does attempt to make a sincere point about true love and friendship being more important in life than a cool set of wheels and a quick piece of tail. Sure, it's essentially a blatant adolescent male fantasy pic -- the main teen goofus character Bobby Hamilton gets the girls, the respect of his friends, and a chance to show-up a local van-racing bully -- but it's way too dopey and good-natured to hate. Stuart Getz as our gawky protagonist makes for an endearingly dorky lead, Deborah White as the main object of Getz's affection is a definite cutie, Connie Lisa Marie is likewise quite luscious as a beauteous blonde babe, and sneering beefcake Neanderthal Stephan Oliver (a 60's biker movie perennial) is wonderfully hateful as the brutish Dugan Hicks. A pre-stardom Danny DeVito in particular is an absolute riot as Getz's cranky carwash owner boss Andy, a lovably cantankerous ne'er-do-well slob who wears very ugly loud Hawaiian shirts and suffers from a severe gambling habit. I especially love the scene where two thugs brutally beat Danny up -- one holds his arms behind his back while the other guy works over Danny's torso! And Sammy Johns' insidiously catchy fluke hit theme song will be bouncing around your skull for at least a week. In short, it's great groovy retro-70's fun!

positive

This was my first, and probably the last Angelopoulos movie. I was eager to get into it, as it featured Mastroianni, one of my favorite actors and was a film By Theo, of whom I've heard a lot. The opening was promising, a long shot over a jeep of soldiers across the Albanian-Greek border. OK! but that was all. Nothing left. The movie had big holes and I don't know which to mention first. The main plot of the story is revealed to the journalist by the old woman. during a long walk. It's like a 15 minutes monologue, killing the action and viewers patience, nothing happening on screen for 15 or even 20 minutes, apart this old lady telling a story. All that is presumed to be shown through action, was simply told to the camera by the old lady. In a moment, the equippe of TV was heading to the bar. They turn the corner and immediately the winter begins! Probably, shot in different days, continuity leaked. A lot of problems with the story-telling, it went from absurd to irrational never sticking to a style, making the viewer asking questions that never got answers. Poor Mastroianni, given a role which lacked integrity or charm. On the other hand, as many Greeks or Albanians or Balcan people would agree with, the movies showed lot of historic, ethnic, or politically incorrectness, just for the sake of making a movie about "humanity" as a red in another review. A lot more to say, but no time to lose on a poor movie, which was not movie at all, but lunacies of a person impressed on film and paid with state money.

negative

I hate this movie. I hate the show. i hate just about everything about it. it's so annoying and stupid. everyone's saying that nat and alex wolff are heroes in the music world and that they're going to make it big. WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE YOU TAKING???!!!?!?!?!?! nat and alex are going to end up as either hobos or end up like Jane Hudson from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". i could only get through not even 20 minutes of this one, barely 30 seconds of the show, and i managed to survive about half an hour of 'Battle of the Bands'. How anyone could cheer for these guys in the audience at the Kid's Choice Awards, i have no clue. days before the movie premiere on Nick, most of the teen girl actresses on Nick (Jamie Spears, Emma Roberts, Lindsey Shaw, etc.) showed up in a commercial influencing brain-dead kids about how awesome nat and alex wolff are. first off, they didn;t trick me, and second of all, nat and alex probably either drugged them or payed them loads of money in order to say that and sound convincing, because i don't see how anyone could find this show/movie entertaining. the music is just awful. nat's singing sounds like a sick, dying moose on crack. alex is the most annoying movie/TV show character EVER. he's not funny, he's annoying, he's really weird, and he thinks he's hot and knows everything about girls. this guy's lucky if he ever manages to get laid. you know this show is fake when you find out that some of the characters (in real life) don't even exist!! the character Jesse is actually played by Nat and Alex's cousin jesse Draper (they mustve had some budget problem). Their father is not single, he's married to Polly Draper, but she doesn't appear on the show, making it seem the Wolff's are mom-less. Rosalina doesn't exist either. Her name is Allie DiMeco. I'll tell ya, the Naked Brothers are gonna be in some deep sh** when their "fans" find out the whole thing is staged. 0/10

negative

This is easily the most disappointing, least gratifying movie of the entire so-called blacksploitation genre, which, by the way, are films we generally enjoy a great deal in our home. Rather than being "exploitation" or demeaning, these films actually provide a priceless insight into an era. Well, not Bucktown.<br /><br />In this story, Duke returns to Bucktown to operate the night club left to him by his recently deceased brother. He quickly learns that the city is entirely controlled by a corrupt police force, bleeding protection money out of all the local businesses. Duke resists, and determines that he will rescue the city from the corrupt police. Unfortunately, he does so by calling in a posse of his friends (these people are vaguely explained as some former black-militants who have worked with Duke on "jobs" in the past) and they simply murder the entire police department in cold blood. And literally in the presence of hundreds of witnesses who do nothing to stop it. Ignorance is not a justification for murder, and it would have been much more entertaining to see the Cracker Police suffer for their actions as opposed to merely getting whacked in the street. While revenge is a ubiquitous and generally satisfying theme in films of this genre, it is a far cry from seeing Pam Grier track down the thugs who off'ed her family, cuss them out, give them a jujitsu ass-kickin' and set their 'fro on fire. That has art (and a reason for existing) and merits a level of respect that is quite undeserved by simply shooting someone in the back. Of course, in this bizarre tale, she is playing a woman completely under The Man's thumb, afraid of the Crackers who run her town and oppress her people. Indeed, her advice to Duke is, "Run, man, they gonna kill you!"<br /><br />Following the sickening and gratuitous violence, we are expected to believe that the town's mayor wholeheartedly condones the actions of Duke and his friends, congratulating them and offering to throw a parade in their honor, as opposed to, say, calling the district attorney to press capital murder charges against them and have them taken into custody. Duke's posse declines the parade and instead opts to fill the numerous vacancies on the police force created by their recent killing spree. They immediately prove to be even more corrupt than their Cracker Police predecessors (to quote the mayor, "They are ten times worse than what we had before!"). Now Duke finds he must again rescue the citizens of Bucktown from corrupt, protection-racket law enforcement officials and again make it safe for decent folk to operate a prostitution business in the streets. Unfortunately, Duke has already lost all moral high ground and sympathy due a hero, as he was a willing participant in the murder of the original police force. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other if he had rescued Bucktown or gotten plugged himself at this point. I suppose we are to be entertained by the clever way Duke has to outsmart the new Police Goons, but in reality the film has now just become an opera of gratuitous violence, Duke murders all of his former friends and allies in cold blood with the same absence of compassion he had when gunning down the Cracker Police. Duke is a pig.<br /><br />Finally, when everyone in town but Duke, Aretha, and the employees of the local brothel are dead and bleedin' in the street, our hero and heroine walk off into the night as though they had some admirable qualities or redeeming values; they don't. Duke is merely a murderous thug and Aretha his enabling misogynist accomplice. If you are interested in this genre of film, by all means, I highly recommend them, see Coffy, Foxy Brown, Truck Turner, Blacula, Sheba Baby…but if in the process you should run across this DVD, throw it as far away as you possibly can! Drop it like it's hot! It should be treated as one would treat a glowing puddle of nuclear waste! There is no single film in the entire Blacksploitation era that is not dramatically more entertaining, satisfying and populated with more sympathetic and admirable characters than this piece of slime, obviously written by and targeted at some hormonally imbalanced high school sophomores.

negative

This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".<br /><br />Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.<br /><br />Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.<br /><br />Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.<br /><br />In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.<br /><br />In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.<br /><br />The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.<br /><br />Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.

negative

There's a certain allure I've always found in discovering the great (semi-) unknown film. These discoveries have nearly always been dramatic films - in my experience, unknown sci-fi, action and horror are unknown for very, very good reasons. I found "High Tide" on video at a junk store, mixed in amongst countless dozens of tapes of varying quality. Of course, that's the only place I would find it, as it is still not on DVD.<br /><br />While I was watching Judy Davis (as Lillie) throughout the course of this film, I was somehow certain I was watching a great undiscovered performance. Yes, I had previously seen Davis in several small parts - and one starring role in "A Passage to India". But, although she was superb in the aforementioned film, "High Tide" is a different animal entirely. Since recently watching Gillian Armstrong's later film, "Charlotte Gray", I was acutely aware of the sort of actress which impresses her. Davis draws much more than a passing resemblance to Cate Blanchett - in both manner and sensibility.<br /><br />Judy Davis' performance is stunning, I cannot say enough good things about it. She shares an amazing on-screen relationship with young Claudia Karvan (as Ally), this film's other great actress. There's a lot of drama and quiet humanity they share together, the details of which I won't presume to reveal here (see it for yourself!). There's too much good in "High Tide" to cover in one review. Indeed, I would hardly care to - the film speaks well enough for itself. In conclusion, I would like to praise screenwriter Laura Jones for her stunning dialogue, director Gillian Armstrong for her understanding of actors, and the great Russell Boyd for his brilliant, understated cinematography (please see his work in "Tender Mercies").

positive

This film screened last night at Austin's Paramount theater as part of the SXSW Film Festival. We were graced with the presence of director Mike Binder and stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle who took audience questions after the film. It is a remarkable and powerful film about what it is like to lose yourself and begin to find your way back. The performances are phenomenal and the story manages to be both tragic and funny in a way that is all too rare. (The trailer for the film tries a little too hard to emphasize the comedic aspects.)<br /><br />This is a breakout role for Adam Sandler. While he has begun to transition to more dramatic roles with Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, this role is a significant step forward for him as a dramatic actor. He deserves an Oscar nomination as he continues down to transition to more dramatic roles as Tom Hanks did and Jim Carrey is also doing. In this role, he seemed to be trying to channel Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Although playing an autistic man is certainly very different than Sandler's traumatized character, both characters for different reasons are trapped in their own worlds of child-like isolation and confusion.<br /><br />Don Cheadle's performance is less surprising, but just as good. After Hotel Rwanda and Crash, we've come to expect remarkable nuanced performances from Cheadle. He has the qualities of sincerity and honesty that comes through in this role. But he, too, is also broken and struggling if not in the such profound ways as Sandler's character. Cheadle is struggling with difficulties in both his marriage and in his professional life as a dentist. Together the characters played by Cheadle and Sandler struggle to heal each other in the way that true friends often do (in a way that reminds me of Matt Damon and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting). They are both searching for that part of the themselves that they have lost and trying to find again.<br /><br />Reign over Me is one of the best major studio films to be released this year. The soundtrack, which is almost another character in the plot is wonderful. The filming in the streets of New York - a city that suffered a great tragedy and has also had to heal itself - is also quite beautiful. The supporting roles by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows (in a very odd role), Donald Sutherland, and Mike Binder himself are all quite good.<br /><br />Writer/Director Mike Binder has really delivered a story that so many will be able to connect with on numerous levels. This is a story about grief, family, healing, male friendship, mental health, and the meaning of love. Reign over Me does not disappoint. The film is almost hypnotic as it draws you into the lives of its characters. Hollywood would have a much better reputation if it made more character-driven charming films like Reign over Me.

positive

"The Shooter" was a different type of film for Michael Dudikoff. Although normally associated with action flicks that incorporate martial arts, this film , because it was a western, enabled him to display that he is a far more capable actor than certain formula story lines have allowed.<br /><br />The major problem, of course, is that the film does not allow any solid character development. The fleshing in is really left to the viewer . We can only guess at the sadness that has made the Shooter, whose real name is Michael Atherton, the killer that he is- a killer, mind you, that a little town, terrorized by a local bully, welcomes as a hero who can release it from its misery.

positive

OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.<br /><br />I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).<br /><br />This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.<br /><br />I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.<br /><br />Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...

negative

"Maléfique" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with "Maléfique", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.<br /><br />The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.<br /><br />Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, "Maléfique" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.<br /><br />Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.<br /><br />The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.<br /><br />The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about "Maléfique" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.<br /><br />Anyways, "Maléfique" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10

positive

I don't understand why people would praise this garbage. Its wrong , stupid , unrealistic , awful , and just about everything else. The film is a view on life , racial issues , prejudice , and everything else that strangely goes on in College. This is where it fails. It has no grasps on reality. From many questionable non-sense scenes in the movie such as for example<br /><br />A black man chasing down a white man with a gun, the black man and stopped by the security guards handcuffed and carried out while the gunman runs right past them.<br /><br />The same white man snipering down people from a roof topic which is stopped and beaten down by the same black man is then stopped and given a Rodney King style beating while the gun man runs free while a moment later being chased back down by only one of the four guards.<br /><br />As one previous reviewer pointed out Several white 230lbs men being beaten down by several black men weighing around 160lbs including the 105lbs Bust A Rhymes<br /><br />Another critical flaw in the film are the shallow uninteresting main characters. From the scared and confused white people and the mean , angry , and yet rightful (?) black people. Its almost as its an insult to both black and white people. I am a white male and I know many black and hispanic people who agree that this movie is wrong to portray characters and giving them those characteristics exclusively due to their race.<br /><br />The storyline which I will explain now revolves around three characters. One a black athlete , the other a confused scared white girl who questions her sexuality , and the third is a white man who is also confused and scared , then blames his problems on black people in which he becomes a nazi later in the film. They all have their share of problems and adventures including sex , rape , fights , love , hate , prejudice , racial war , and oh yeah don't forget education. Which all comes down at the end for the fatal shoot out. In which after they go back to their boring lives and think "being white is bad". Does this sound alot like your college years? Didn't think so. I don't think the director attended college especially if he were to make this awful mess.<br /><br />Overall this is a really bad , bad , ugly movie. If you want to see a more accurate view or racial issues go see American History X. If you want to see a more accurate view of college rent Porkys. Just avoid this mess.

negative

I love killer Insects movies they are great fun to watch, I had to watch this movie as it was one of my Favourite horror books by Shaun Hutson.<br /><br />I have met him and I wish I did listen to him as this movie was terrible like he Said it was,after he said that I was still dying to see how bad it was.<br /><br />The plot: People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely, and nobody has a clue what the cause is.<br /><br />Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities.<br /><br />Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert from England begins snooping around does it begin to look like Mike had the right idea after all.<br /><br />This movie as the most overacting you ever see a movie! Slugs in this movie are fast (Then normal) and it looks like they fast forwarding the scenes! <br /><br />This movie is nothing like the book at all, the book was ten times scarier, ten times gory and had a lot more story to it!<br /><br />I didn't like this movie at all! As I am huge fan of Slugs the book and second book called Breeding ground! Both of books are Great <br /><br />Read the book then watch the movie, you may like more then I did Give this 2 out 10

negative

I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.<br /><br />What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.<br /><br />However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.<br /><br />And please forgive me for my bad English

positive

The film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time. <br /><br />This is the job of television, not cinema. <br /><br />The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend. <br /><br />I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence. <br /><br />I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest. <br /><br />That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm. <br /><br />I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. "Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do" or whatever the line was. <br /><br />Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife "I'm giving up smoking." <br /><br />An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too much.

negative

The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.<br /><br />Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).<br /><br />Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.<br /><br />See it with an open mind!

positive

To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see "Troy" If you liked epics in the "Jupiter's Darling" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business.

negative

" It had to be You" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch.

negative

I have watched quite a few Cold Case episodes over the years, beginning with Season 1 episodes back in 2003-2004. And while most have been good, this particular episode was not only the best of the best, but has few rivals in the Emmy categories. Though some may not agree with the story content (i.e. the male-to-male romantic relationship), I doubt that anyone could watch this without being deeply moved within their spirit.<br /><br />The story is essentially about a case that was reopened, based on the testimony from a dying drug dealer. The two central actors are two police officers in the 1960's named Sean Coop (aka, the cold case victim who goes by his last name, Coop) and his partner, Jimmy Bruno. <br /><br />In the story, Coop is single, a Vietnam war vet, with a deeply troubled past. Jimmy, however, is married, with children no less. Both are partners on the police force and form not only a friendship, but a secret romantic relationship that they both must hide from a deeply and obviously homophobic culture prevalent at that time.<br /><br />The flashback scenes of their lives are mostly in black and white, with bits of color now and then sprinkled throughout. Examples include their red squad car, the yellow curtains gently blowing by the window in Jimmy's bedroom, where Jimmy's wife watched Coop and Jimmy drink, fight, and then kiss each other while being in an alcohol-induced state. I found it interesting that only selected items were colored in the flashback scenes, with everything else in black and white. I still have not figured out the color scheme and rationale.<br /><br />The clearly homophobic tension between fellow patrol officers and the two central actors only heightens the intensity of the episode. One key emotional scene was when Coop was confronted by his father after the baptism of Jimmy's baby. In this scene, Coop's father, Sarge, who was a respected fellow officer on the force, confronts Coop about the rumors surrounding Coop's relationship with Jimmy. One can feel sorry for Coop, at this point, as the shame and disgrace of Coop's father was heaped upon Coop - "You are not going to disgrace our family...and you're not my son, either." - clearly indicative of the hostile views of same-sex relationships of that era.<br /><br />Additional tension can also be seen in the police locker room where Coop and another officer go at it after Coop and Jimmy are labeled "Batman and Robin homos". <br /><br />As for the relationship between Coop and Jimmy, it's obvious that Coop wanted more of Jimmy in his life. Once can see the tension in Jimmy's face as he must choose between his commitment to his wife and kids, his church, and yet his undying devotion to Coop.<br /><br />In the end, Jimmy walks away from Coop, realizing that he cannot have both Coop and his family at the same time. Sadly, Coop is killed, perhaps because of his relationship with Jimmy, but Coop may also have been killed for his knowledge of drug money and police corruption that reached higher up in the force.<br /><br />The most moving scene in the whole episode was when Coop, as he sat dying from gunshot wounds in his squad car, quietly spoke his last words over his police radio to his partner: "Jimmy...we were the lucky ones. Don't forget that."<br /><br />The soundtrack selection was outstanding throughout the episode. I enjoyed the final scene with the actor Chad Everett, playing the still grieving Jimmy, only much older by now, and clearly still missing his former partner, Coop.<br /><br />I highly recommend this episode and consider it the best. It is without a doubt the most well-written, well-acted, and well done of all Cold Case episodes that I've ever seen.

positive

This is a film.., not porn.<br /><br />This is a wonderful film!!! Full of tender moments and memories!! A beautiful piece of work!!! Excellent!!! For intelligent, viewers only!!!<br /><br />If you are a film lover. A romantic. A person who has loved deeply, this is your film!!!!<br /><br />It has a beautiful surreal quality. Fine acting and directing. Watching this film made me remember my first love.<br /><br />Thi is a film for those who want to reflect on life, love and the meaning of loss.<br /><br />Highly recommended for all film lovers.

positive

I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.<br /><br />There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?

negative

A very enjoyable film that features characters who do bad things and who let emotions like anger and a desire for vengeance bubble over. The cast is very good, there's plenty of action, and Stewart gets the girl and his revenge (with a twist) in the end. I've seen this film several times, and always watch when it's on AMC or cable. Highly recommended...

positive

Penny Princess finds American working girl Yolande Donlon the inheritor of a small kingdom that lies in that triangle where France, Italy, and Switzerland meet called Lampidorra. It seems as though the Lampidorrans owe bills all over Europe and the main occupation of the country is smuggling due to its geography. An American multi-millionaire buys the place, but dies before he can take title. His nearest heir is Donlan.<br /><br />But of course the estate has to go through probate in America and what are the Lampidorrans to do? Especially since Donlan who has now become a princess has forbade smuggling.<br /><br />Enter Dirk Bogarde who is on a trip to Switzerland to learn about the cheese industry. It seems as though the Lampidorrans have a kind of cheese that they playfully refer to as Schmeeze. With a few bumps in the road, Schmeeze solves all the problems both financial, geopolitical, and romantic between Donlan and Bogarde.<br /><br />How does Schmeeze work, well that's the gimmick to the whole film. But here's a hint. In Lover Come Back Jack Kruschen might just have gotten a hold of the secret of Schmeeze when he was busy inventing VIP for Rock Hudson and his advertising agency.<br /><br />Anyway Penny Princess is a delightful blend of British farce and romantic comedy. Yolande Donlon once again plays a role that Marilyn Monroe would have been cast in if the film had been made this side of the pond. Dirk Bogarde was well cast in the part which was at the beginning of his career as a romantic heart throb, way before anyone but him suspected he had the acting chops he had.<br /><br />This film was sadly shown at three o'clock in the morning on TCM. But at least I found a reason to be grateful for insomnia.

positive

The story of peace-loving farmers and townspeople fighting for land, water, law and order, and the respect and ultimate subjugation of the long entrenched cattle interests and their hired guns had been worked over better in earlier (Shane) and probably later films as well. There's some good action scenes and the general layout of the story, excluding a disappointing ending, is well executed. Law and order and religion have established roots in the town, but the old order of cattle drives, cowboys, and gunslingers is still around as well. The clash of the two occurs in a nicely staged ambush scene where the townsmen ride right into a trap. Granger, an ex-gunfighter, plays the guy who is shunned by the very townspeople who need his expertise with a gun.

positive

MAKE A 0 YOU SACKS OF German STAPLES! well, when i started to watch this sack of crud, it was a Sunday afternoon, and i was just looking for stuff on show time. I was introduced to a hot naked babe, and like any guy (im a guy, the e-mail is my sisters...) i was happy. But then they threw it all to the dogs, spit on it, lit it on fire, and peed it out. You wanna know how? THE DUMB CHICK TALKED! The dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. The violence was nice for some scenes, but some was just totally moronic. The scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife... dumb moron! To sum it up, this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity, and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.

negative

With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.<br /><br />The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase.

negative

I realize that bringing a novel to the big screen is always problematic. That is the only positive thing I can say about this truly horrid adaptation.<br /><br />Have you read 'Wise Blood?' It's an amazing book. Flannery O'Connor wrote about the south as no one else has. She was a southerner herself, a devout catholic, and a remarkably gifted writer. In her first novel she wove together a dark and deeply disturbing tale of faith, doubt, and redemption with a macabre sense of humor and surprising evenhandedness. The characters in the book may seem outrageous to those who have not lived in the rural south, but I can assure you that such people do exist. Not only do they exist, they are human beings with families, feelings, and concerns like anyone else. Flannery's intentions were so often misunderstood - she was not lampooning these backwoods zealots - she saw in them the beautiful operation of what she would have called 'grace'...even in the most violent, distressing, and maddening of circumstances. To read 'Wise Blood' is to be washed over with a sense of dread and impending doom. Finally, it is to think long and hard about our judgments and preconceptions - our entire world view.<br /><br />None of this comes through in John Huston's 'Gilligan's Island'-like adaptation. None. It is a farce. A bad farce. The entire film is saturated with a hauteur that turns the stomach. The acting is poor, the southern accents are fake and insulting. The filmmakers show no insight into the thinking of religious southerners. Ms. O'Connor's intense prose are reduced to sight gags and cheap, amateur theatre. The soundtrack is a mixture of hayseed silliness and 'Clockwork Orange'-style cheeseball electronics that doesn't fit the story or even the MOVIE. I was granted free admission to this movie and almost walked out. Truly, truly terrible.<br /><br />As an aside, I do not agree with Ms. O'Connor's religious views, and while I was raised in the deep south, years ago I made my way north and have not looked back. But the south is a beautiful place full of fascinating individuals (like every other place on earth), and the cartoonish mockery with which southerners and their attitudes are dealt in this movie borders on offensive. If you're into being offended (which I am not), then this movie most DEFINITELY crosses the line.<br /><br />I don't like to talk crap about an artist's work - John Huston was a man that I did not know, and I'm sure he was a sincere and gifted filmmaker, to which his respected place in film history attests. My views are clearly skewed by having read (and loved) Flannery O'Connor's work. So I don't claim to be coming from any other perspective. Maybe as a stand-alone film it works for cinephiles. But for Flannery O'Connor fans - and, I might add, for self-respecting southerners and openminded individuals of all stripes - this movie is a waste of time.

negative

First of all I need to say that I'm Portuguese and it's not usual to me spend my time watching Portuguese movies, probably one each year or even none...<br /><br />...And the reason is the almost generalized idea between the Portuguese people that the national pictures are awful, really close to the worst ever made! However, in the last decade, it starts to surprises me when we get back the funny of the 40s when "Leão da Estrela" e "Costa do Castelo" were among the worlds best of their time, with movies like "Pulsação Zero" or "Sorte Nula", both from director Fernando Fragata and also with some actors and music in common.<br /><br />This one is also good, not of the same kind because it isn't a true comedy; in fact it's officially a drama, a woman's drama the has some unexpected funny parts, cause of humorous characters or hilarious things that happen to them, like the hypothetical travel to the Caribbean just to get laid. <br /><br />The plot works and can surprise us a few times; the actors are fine, the locations regular as the score; but the truth is that it all make sense, then we can count it as a nice effort for the national cinema, that seems to be starting from the ashes as the phoenix.<br /><br />If you want to watch a Portuguese movie, surely you can take better option, but it stills one to be measured.

positive

Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the "Jeep" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the "Jeep"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense.

negative

Surprisingly good. The acting was fun, the screenplay was fun, the music was cheesie fun, the plot was stupendously fun. This was a fun movie to watch and to give your brain some rest. Parts of the plot and quotes I found to be very creative. 7 out of 10. Actually for what it was, it would deserve a 10 out of 10. You are not supposed to compare this to an arthouse film or to a bloody slasher film.

positive

This movie is not in anyway funny, it tries to be funny with it's lame humor, which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. Throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing, "when is this gonna end". One thing you have to hand to them, is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments, which is also why i gave it a whole 2 stars. It is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book, even the ones that wasn't funny the first time. It basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes.<br /><br />To sum it all up, this movie is blonde humor gone bad, it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch, it is just that bad.

negative

We have a lake. We have an animated meteor crashing. We have a killer stop-motion dinosaur with flippers. Okay, so let's call this movie THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER. What else can we add? Hmm, two idiots called Arnie & Mitch to define the ultimate definition of "comic relief". We also got to have a sheriff who doesn't really do a damn thing in this film and whom nobody listens to. Aw crap, we're over halfway through the movie and we forgot to insert a bad guy! No worries, let's introduce some guy with a moustache, have him rob a store to indicate he's a bad guy, then have him pop up somewhere near the lake, have him chased through the woods and all this for the sole purpose of him ending up as dinosaur snack food. That should work.<br /><br />A complete, clumsy mess, this film. Its logic will twist your mind to force laughter out of you. The first film to feature Dave Allen as a "stop motion supervisor". After this one, he joined forces with Charles Band for several years until the the mid-nineties, when Band ran out of money to pay him, I guess. The dinosaur effects are charming and the whole film is pretty damn unintentionally funny. Unfortunately, that's about the only good thing that can be said for it.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes. The mind-bending logic in the narrative should be enough reason to put it on the list. If not, Arnie & Mitch will do the trick. 3/10 and 8/10

negative

I cannot see why filmmakers remade this movie. <br /><br />The 1972 movie with McQueen and McGraw is almost a classic. Steve McQueen was an outstanding actor and Baldwin is only an inadequate actor. He has no passion in his play.Also the action in the original "Getaway" was fantastic. But the remake has no action! It is almost boring despite the fact that the film-making in 1972 was more difficult than in 1994. <br /><br />I don't understand the way that Baldwin imprisoned from Mexico. I think this is a mistake in the story.<br /><br />So i think that there was no need to remake it, or if they decided to remake a classic, they must choose an excellent actor for the first role, like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt...

negative

After watching this, I had lost a little respect for Christopher Lee (This has passed over time). This film was utter garbage. First, they tried to recreate the ending from the first "Howling," with incredibly bad make-up. Then they try to turn it into a sad excuse of a werewolf porn film! The plot sucks and the whole film is just AWFUL!!!! A brother of a werewolf victim from the first film (From the look of it, it was SUPPOSED to be Dee Wallace Stone)teams up with Lee and another woman to destroy the group of werewolves, lead by Sybil Danning, who seems to be naked all the time.<br /><br />This is not even worth renting (Unless you want to waste your time and money watching the nudity.). Try to catch it on cable instead. It would be so chopped up, it may actually make sense.

negative

This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10.

positive

This film turned up on local TV here in South Africa recently and I thought that I'd warn even those who enjoy watching B grade bad movies (which I do)that this is not even amusing. The plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. Some strangers appear and .... The problem is that most of the film, obviously shot in the early seventies, consists of extreme wide shots of people walking, in real time and awfully slowly, from A to B. This makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. I am really curious - how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end?

negative

This is a great idea for a film but it, unfortunately, doesn't turn out to be a great movie. What starts out as a sweet and almost goofy romantic comedy about a Fluffer in love with his Fluffee spirals out of control into a bizarre combination of genres and a veritable stew of plots, with liberal borrowings from BOOGIE NIGHTS, THELMA AND LOUISE, SHOWGIRLS, FRISK, and even a curious "dash" of 400 BLOWS thrown in towards the end. (At least the director did his research!) The result is not necessarily boring but, in the end, this slick, well-produced flick doesn't quite add up to anything. However, the actors all do a game job with the material and there are a few good laughs at the behind-the-scenes world of gay porn.<br /><br />

negative

I didn't think it would be possible for Joe Don Baker to make a movie as bad as his stinkbomb 'Mitchell', but this one succeeds.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this if you're a fan of Joe Don Baker's MUCH better work. But,if you like to watch fat guys sweat and really, really drawn out gun fights, you'll love this movie.

negative

In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale "Romulus, My Father," Eric Bana, of "Munich" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).<br /><br />Even though I admire "Romulus, My Father" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again.

negative

"A stage company cast finds themselves terrified when a bizarre killer known as 'The Fiend' targets them for death. A pair of reporters and their clumsy photographer set out to work the story of 'The Fiend' and find themselves targets as well. Just as you think our trio of heroes has the case solved, you're thrown another twist that has you wondering who the killer really is," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Taking "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to Hollywood, producer Sam Katzman's lack of studio settings probably helps "A Face in the Fog" look interesting, especially toward the end (1930s traffic). The direction could be improved upon; for example, the camera angle on the fight scene is not helpful. The budget appears slight. Under the circumstances, most of the silent/talkie crossover cast perform it amiably.<br /><br />**** A Face in the Fog (2/1/36) Robert F. Hill ~ Lloyd Hughes, June Collyer, Al St. John

negative

This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!<br /><br />The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.<br /><br />The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.<br /><br />It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!<br /><br />René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.<br /><br />The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.<br /><br />One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!<br /><br />8/10

positive

Master cinéaste Alain Resnais likes to work with those actors who are a part of his family.In this film too we see Resnais' family members like Pierre Arditi, Sabine Azema, André Dussolier and Fanny Ardant dealing with serious themes like death,religion,suicide,love and their overall implications on our daily lives.The formal nature of relationship shared by these people is evident as even friends, they address each other using a formal you.In 1984,while making L'amour à mort,Resnais dealt with time,memory and space to unravel the mysteries of a fundamental question of human existence :Is love stronger than death ? It was 16 years ago in 1968 that Resnais made a somewhat similar film Je t'aime Je t'aime which was also about love and memories.Message of this film is loud and clear :true and deep love can even put science to shame as dead lovers regain their lost lives leaving doctors to care for their reputation.L'amour à mort is like a game which is not at all didactic.It is a film in which the musical score is in perfect tandem with its images.This is one of the reasons why this film can easily be grasped.

positive

If you have ever seen a movie by Brian Avenet-Bradley and compares it to the feedbacks it gets on IMDb, you know that most of the comments and votes are faked. TRUST ME: you will be bored! People of the production team write their feedback themselves (sometimes they even admit it). But that's not enough: They also click constantly "no" whenever there is a negative comment on the movie. That's why negative critics are always placed behind the hyped ones.<br /><br />The movie itself is bad, bad, bad: bad acting, bad lighting, bad script, bad ending. Believe me now! If not, you will believe me later!<br /><br />Brian Avenet-Bradley might be quite a good business man. Otherwise it cannot be explained that he finds people who still finance his movies. (Okay, they are cheap, but nevertheless.) But as a creative person, he is a complete failure.

negative

At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.<br /><br />Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.

negative

The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.<br /><br />The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.<br /><br />Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.<br /><br />That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.

negative

`Our Song' gives us the lives of the three teenagers Lanisha, Maria and Joycelyn - best girlfriends hanging at the end of summer. Adolescent summer - even if we don't know the signals and landmarks of this particular terrain, Crown Heights, Brooklyn - is/was the same for us all. A lazy respite from the pressures and tumult of school. Welcome heat and idleness.<br /><br />But if this experience of adolescence is universal, the inner city of the 90s is a different place than most of us know - maybe as foreign a country as any. Young bodies carving new silhouettes...beckoning new territory...the maze towards adulthood. The young mind coming into itself, speaking for itself, saying this is who I am, this is who I want to try to be. It is/was always thus. But this is how it plays out in Brooklyn in the late 90s.<br /><br />Jim McKay is the writer/director of this film project but he acknowledges all who have shouted suggestions at him. The opening title slide `A film by' seems to list everyone in the universe. It's a gesture but by the end of the film, we know it to be a genuine one. [The closing titles also have some of the most on-the-money and appreciative credits I've read.] The vivid sound recording by Jan McLaughlin deserves to be especially noted. McKay's a modest leader who knows who is telling this story - it's his three graces Lanisha, Maria and Joycelyn. They're the real thing, their interactions have the fire of real friendship and the focus of reality. This ain't no music video shorthand telling of teenage life. It has the seriousness of the long unblinking stare.<br /><br />Hanging out with them, we don't quite feel included but we do feel privileged to be listening in. These are real voices speaking with plainness about the crises and dullness of daily life. We are witness to the modern math of teenage life - how its problems are interpreted, calculated and summed and solved. Small scenes illustrate large thoughts throughout. Lanisha hangs with her dad at his security job - it's the only way she gets to spend time with him. We see the love that exists between them but also the failures of family and fatherhood. In a connected scene, Lanisha defends her dad to her mom, and we see how desperately she needs to love them both and for them to love her in return. Later, the three friends lay in the dark sharing visions and dreams - and we remember how crazy/funny kids are and more tragically, how realism hammers idealism these days. And at the end, Maria simply walking down the street is a short story in itself. We see her gather up the courage to hold all her fears and doubts at bay. She demonstrates for us the strength one needs to have to be able to embrace the fragility that makes life livable.<br /><br />`Our Song's greatest gift is that we really feel deeply the terribly ephemeral nature of friendship - how, one day, alive and enlivening, that intimacy can, in the next, just turn and drift away. It's awful, but that's just the way it is, isn't it?

positive

It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.<br /><br />It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment. <br /><br />Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.<br /><br />I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?!

negative

Harsh, yes, but I call 'em like I see 'em.<br /><br />I saw this in the late 80's, and it was truly one of the most awful, boring films I've ever forced myself to watch.<br /><br />Yes, the cinematography is lovely. The Czech settings are truly stunning. The political backdrop is enticing, but unlike similar "historically set" stories (e.g. _Dr. Zhivago_ (qv)), this one failed to make the politics relevant to the story, or even interesting.<br /><br />Sure, Olin and Binoche are beautiful. But this film manages to make even "erotic" scenes plodding and slow. I'm all for romance, but this movie was so boring, I started hoping the Russians would shoot them all and put an end to my misery.<br /><br />I'm sure if I'd read the book, the story would have made a bit more sense. However, life's too short to expend any more time on this one.

negative

I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.<br /><br />I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.<br /><br />I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.<br /><br />This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.<br /><br />I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.<br /><br />On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!

negative

Of all the film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s, this has to rank as one of the strangest, and most fun to watch. I say that because of the four main actors: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. <br /><br />The first two names are familiar to everyone but it was the last two that made this movie so entertaining to me, especially Anders. His character, "George Grisby," is one of the strangest people I've ever seen on film. His voice, and some of the things he said, have to be heard to be believed. Slaone isn't far behind in the "strange" category. Hayworth is not as glamorous with short, blonde hair but still is Hayworth, which means a lot to ogle if you are a guy. Welles' is as fascinating as always. One tip: if you have the DVD, turn on the English subtitles. His character in this movie is an Irishman and you need the subtitles to understand everything he says. <br /><br />Welles also directed the film which means you have great camera angles and wonderful facial closeups. You also have a unique ending, visually, with a shootout in a house of mirrors. Great stuff! As bizarre as this film is, I still thought the buffoon-like carnival atmosphere at the trial near the end was too much and took away from the seriousness of the scene. Other than that, no complaints. <br /><br />This is great entertainment, which is the name of the game.

positive

I grew up watching this series. I was about seven/eight years old when it was on. I still remember the 1st episode which was called "The New House." It scared the h*ll out of me! I can almost still hear that statue, laughing madly. And the ending, oh my God! The hooror spirit comes in the room for the child: Yikes! This was classic TV and it was a one of a kind series. I have found a DVD collection for sale on the internet: 2 actually. My question to any readers: Has anyone purchased this set? Its a bootleg. Both sellers claim to have very good copy. I have a sketchy and poor DVD of "The New House" episode, and a couple of other episodes that are a bit better,however, if anyone knows if these are much clearer it would be worth it to me to buy and share with my kids. A great series, clever, scary and daringly supernatural. Thanks in advance to any fans who have the low down on any of this- In fact, I'd love to discuss it. Chris Walker

positive

here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.<br /><br />(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards. <br /><br />It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.<br /><br />On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless. <br /><br />At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.

negative

I enjoyed it. In general, I'm not a fan of comedies and comedians, but I do like Whoopi. I'm also partial to Sci/Fi Fantasy. And the dinosaur craze. I read for pleasure, but when I'm feeling over-stressed or really mind-dead, I watch TV & movies to escape. Theodore Rex enabled me to do so. That makes it a success in my eyes! I didn't even walk away to do something else while it was running. Whether or not it was rated as "good" or not doesn't really matter to me. And no, I'm not a juvenile. Nor am I a moron.

positive

Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.<br /><br />An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.<br /><br />This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.

negative

Largely dense road movie with some comic relief provided by the excellent John Cleese (although he is really sending up his performance in Fawlty Towers). Seems to flip from over the top slapstick to slushy sentimentality at the drop of a hat, and the worst part of the film is that Martin and Hawn have to "find themselves", who they are, etc. See it at your peril.

negative

Artimisia was on late last night. At first I didn't think I would like it, but seeing I didn't feel like sleeping yet and nothing else being on, I continued watching and felt myself intrigued by the young Artimisia, a virgin, pure and passionate. Her romance with the older Tassi envoked recognisable feelings. Even though the film is based on a very romantisised level and not reality, I loved it a lot more than the usual biographys or costume drama's. Great play, great camerashots, great music and texts. I loved it and I want more of it! :-)

positive

A great British Indy movie! Fantastic chemistry between the 3 main characters make for some hilarious drug-fuelled set pieces that Cheech and Chong would be proud of. Great to see Phil Daniels back on the big screen (even if he has swapped sides since Quadrophenia!) and Gary Stretch is surprisingly good and a treat for the ladies! Loved the final fight scene with it's nod to Zulu and now I know what happened to Arthur Brown after he set himself on fire on Top of the Pops!...he's not acting....he really is a bona-fide British hippie!!! You don't have to be a biker to enjoy this and it's straight into my Friday night post-pub repeat viewing collection. <br /><br />Give this film a go and you won't be disappointed.

positive

After 30 seconds, you already realize that there was no real budget for this cheap knock-off. The story is taken from great movies like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Hills have Eyes". I like those kind of movies, even if they're duplicated well (Wrong Turn, Timber Falls, Carver). <br /><br />But "Side Sho" is hard to watch: the actors are really bad, the dialogue is cheesy and the music is stupid and totally misplaced. You do not care at all what happens to the characters. The so-called bad guys are also not interesting at all and rather stereotypical. So how about the blood and gore ? Well there is some, although it is rather cheap and the action is executed very poorly. 2 Points, just for the gore and blood but do understand that this is hardly worth a look, even for the gore-hounds..

negative

'The Vampire Bat' is definitely of interest, being one of the early genre-setting horror films of the 1930's, but taken in isolation everything is a bit too creaky for any genuine praise.<br /><br />The film is set in a European village sometime in the 19th Century, where a series of murders are being attributed to vampirism by the suspicious locals. There is a very similar feel to James Whale's 'Frankenstein' and this is compounded by the introduction of Lionel Atwill's Dr Niemann character, complete with his misguided ideas for scientific advancement.<br /><br />The vampire theme is arbitrary and only used as a red-herring by having suspicion fall on bat-loving village simpleton Herman (Dwight Frye), thus providing the excuse for a torch-wielding mob to go on the rampage - as if they needed one.<br /><br />This is one of a trio of early horror films in which Lional Atwill and Fay Wray co-starred (also 'Doctor X' and 'The Mystery of the Wax Museum') and like their other collaborations the film suffers from ill-advised comic relief and a tendency to stray from horror to mainstream thriller elements. Taken in context though, 'The Vampire Bat' is still weak and derivative.<br /><br />All we are left with is a poor-quality Frankenstein imitation, with the vampire elements purely a device to hoodwink Dracula fans. But for the title the film would struggle to even be considered as a horror and it is worth noting that director Frank Strayer was doing the 'Blondie' films a few years later.

negative

John Carpenter's Halloween is quite frankly a horror masterpiece. It tells the immortal story of escaped mental patient Michael Myers, who returns to his hometown on Halloween night to stalk and kill a group of babysitters.<br /><br />This was the first and without doubt the best in the Halloween franchise. Carpenter shows great restraint in pacing the story very slowly and building likable characters; unusual for a horror picture.<br /><br />Even more unusual is the non-existence of blood and gore, and yet it remains the scariest Halloween to date. Get that! <br /><br />Halloween marked the film debut of Jamie Lee Curtis and a defining point in the late great Donald Pleasance's career. A true classic.

positive

With a minimal budget, a running time of eight minutes and a great amount of imagination, Nacho Vigalondo has achieved one of the most moving shorts I've ever seen. The subtlety of the screenplay is really remarkable, since it doesn't give the ending away until the very last moment.<br /><br />Don't let anybody tell you what the short is about, since you'll be able to enjoy it a lot more. Nacho Vigalondo is the discovery of the year for his one-man show: directing, writing and acting in this formidable short is the most remarkable effort I've seen in years. Also pay attention to the performance of Marta Belenguer, her reaction shots are incredible.<br /><br />Overall rating: 8/10

positive

Was it foreshadowing when Tori complained that her first boyfriend was treating her like a robot, and then her new boyfriend (the murderer) turned out to be a designer of artificial intelligence? I think so. Scenes to make you squeal with delight: montages galore, a strip-tease in a kimono (what do you call it when you seductively put clothes on, instead of take them off?), and a climactic battle on skis! Definitely tune in for the beginning and end, but you can grab a sandwich during the second act when all the plot is happening. Is it better than CO-ED CALL GIRL? Nah. Does Tori ever make it to paradise, or out of the snow, even? Nope.

negative

WWE Armageddon, December 17, 2006 -- Live from Richmond Coliseum, Richmond, VA <br /><br />Kane vs. MVP in an Inferno match: So this is the fourth ever inferno match in the WWE and it is Kane vs. MVP (wonder why was it the first match on the card). I only viewed the ending parts where Kane sets MVP's ass on fire as they're on the apron and then MVP is running around the arena while yelling – eventually the refs put out the fire with a fire extinguisher as MVP sprawls around the entrance ramp. Funny and visually quite entertaining ending. 7/10<br /><br />WWE Tag Team Championship: This was originally supposed to be William Regal & Dave Taylor vs. Brian Kendrick & Paul London (c) in a regular tag team match. However, GM Teddy Long comes to the ring and announces that it's going to be a Fatal 4-way tag team ladder match. MNM and The Hardys are thrown in and it's all chaos. One word to describe this eye-opener – wow. Man, I really can't remember how many sick spots there were in this match and words can't really do it justice. There was one particularly notable spot where The Hardys set up a ladder in a see-saw position and Jeff jumped off the top rope while Matt held MNM for the kill, and then WHAM! Nitro blew away while Mercury apparently botched it and was bleeding like hell with lacerations over his face. He had to be taken away and Nitro continued the match alone. Another spot was when Jeff powerbombed London while FLIPPING off the ladder. There were other high-flying breathtaking spots too many to remember. London finally unbuckles the belts to win this rave show-stealer. 8.5/10<br /><br />The Boogeyman vs. The Miz: The two men get thrown in and around the ring until Boogeyman explodes a sit-out powerbomb for the victory and then and drools worms over The Miz's mouth as usual. 5.5/10 for this three-minute incognito.<br /><br />United States championship: Chris Benoit (c) faces off Chavo Guerrero in yet another typical Guerrero match. Some good spots included a superplex off the top rope by Chavo and an unusually long chain of German suplexes by Benoit. Vicki Guerrero comes in the ring with the belt to nail Benoit but Benoit scares her off and takes a long time deciding whether to put her in a Sharpshooter or not. This allows Chavo to go for a roll-up but Benoit rolls it up once more and Chavo is locked in the Sharpshooter. Game over. Nice hard-fought battle albeit slow at times. 7/10<br /><br />WWE Cruiserweight championship: Gregory Helms (c) vs. Jimmy Wang Yang for this one, in a fairly moderate-paced match. The match had some good high-flying spots – most notably Helms' moves off the top rope – but the crowd didn't seem to be into it after witnessing the ladder match, and Yang needs to get more airborne. Helms won the match after blowing Yang away with a facebuster on the knee. 7.5/10<br /><br />The Undertaker vs. Mr. Kennedy in a Last Ride match: After a series of matches between these two, this time it is a Last Ride match, the second ever of its kind and the winner has to escort his opponent out of the arena in a hearse. Pretty good indeed for what these two could offer. Kennedy manhandled a good deal of Taker and even broke free of a chokeslam to throw Taker off the Armageddon set about 15 feet below; and thank God for Kennedy, otherwise it would've been brutal. Kennedy almost got the win until Taker got back up inside the hearse (I liked the camera view inside the hearse). Taker then missed a steel pipe hurl on Kennedy and broke the hearse's window instead, but then later busted Kennedy open with a chair, and followed with a consecutive chokeslam and Tombstone on the hearse's roof. Kennedy was unconscious and Taker drove him out of the arena to win. I actually found myself really interested into these guys' willingness to take/give real sick shots. 7.5/10<br /><br />Santa comes into the ring, I go "what the hell?" like many of the kids in the crowd, and then the word "lingerie contest" gets in my ear. Break time.<br /><br />Batista & John Cena vs. Finlay & King Booker: talk about charisma vs. technicality. This match was actually a quite good main event with the momentum rationally shifting from one team to the other and retaining good suspense. Even Finlay got some legitimate good shots on his opponents this time (I kind of doubted his strength against the champs), and him and Booker mainly didn't succeed in trying to cheat — except at one point where Booker rammed his scepter into Cena's throat. Batista hits the Bomb on Booker for the win, didn't get to see the F-U; Cena performed the 5 Knuckle Shuffle anyhow and I think he also did the STFU. This was probably the best technical match of the night and the participants did superbly indeed for what they could without a ladder 7.5/10.<br /><br />Being an on-and-off WWE fan, I have to agree that Armageddon was laced up with numerous eye-catchers throughout, and the ladder match ultimately swallowed half of the show; the Last Ride match featured some fairly nerve-wrenching spots, and the main event also did very well for its category. All other matches also lived up to their billing except perhaps the Boogeyman vs. The Miz bout and the ever-useless lingerie contest. Overall Armageddon was a highly enjoyable pay-per-view and despite some big setbacks earlier in the PPV chronology, Armageddon wishes this year's goodbye respectably. PPV rating: 8/10.

positive