text
stringlengths 32
13k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
The greatest movie ever.<br /><br />How's that for a contention? However, if we look at it through purely cinematic terms, it is clear that Three Colours Red is a masterpiece. It is not enough to merely say this - Three Colours Red is the masterpiece of world cinema. If you accept that Citizen Kane is not human enough, if you accept that Star Wars is not actually very good, if you accept that Ozu and Mizoguchi both have to take a step back - then Three Colours Red is the foremost masterpiece of all time. As a discussion into human morality, Three Colours Red works on an intensely metaphysical level, with a depth that none can match. Blue went almost as far into the human psyche, but stopped as it was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat. White forced us to reflect on the humanity of equality - this, in retrospect, was better still, but still not quite there. Red, however, is the real thing. What he expresses in this movie, is an expression of what it is to be human. In fact, what he expresses is _how_ it is to feel human. It forces us to examine up to the minutest detail, the very nature of our souls, of our ethical selves. In Red, one may find meaning on one of its several levels. On the first level, Red achieves a high level of verisimilitude - we could have no trouble in calling Red an exceptionally entertaining story. However, the coincidences inherent in the film and its conceits force us to examine the movie as a movie. It is as if Kieslowski is saying: "Ceci n'est pas la réalité". In effect, in pursuing a humanistic goal, Kieslowski can also challenge reality. It is a trick that Kieslowski has been attempting since Le Double Vie de Véronique, but not until this, his final film, did he finally manage to reach this divine intertwining of fate, philosophy and circumstance. The actors and actresses, too, appear to be at the mercy of a greater power. Valentine (Irène Jacob), is aptly name, for she seems to represent an almost pure love. Meanwhile, the idea of first impressions is challenged by Jean-Louis Tritignant's Judge Kern, a cantankerous man, who, by the end, becomes an almost all-knowing observer of events - a character who symbolically seems to possess the power to bring characters together - a power to make people happy, a power which he could only achieve through Valentine.<br /><br />We have a capability to see films as more than just a series of pictures. In fact, films have the potential to possess more meaning than literature. It won't happen, of course, but at least we have the power to view this film, knowing that it gives us the power to achieve the something that we can't define, but all possess. A synopsis of this film read: "A film about a woman who runs over a dog". Well, it is.<br /><br />Isn't it?<br /><br />-Simon Huxtable<br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
I also made the mistake of thinking that I was going to see the 2003 Swimming Upstream with Geoffry Rush. This was worse then a lot of student films that I have seen. The script was forced, the acting was subpar and the editing annoying. It was so slow that I just managed to force myself into staying. But I always give a movie a chance, so I suffered until the very end. Apparently there was a memo out about this movie, because my friend and I were the only ones in the theater. Why didn't somebody send me this memo?!?! That is why I'm posting, as a warning to others thinking of shelling out good money to see this. I just hope that you actually got to this page, and didn't get trapped like I did by looking at the wrong "Swimming Upstream." P.S. Sorry to the cast and crew if you are reading this. I know that you worked hard to make this. I know what goes into making a movie... keep trying! | 0 | negative |
What is he supposed to be? He was a kid in the past,... and the future? This movie had a lot of problems. Is he a ghost, or just a strong kid. Man,... what a piece of crap. I'm still confused. Also, is he supposed to be an abortion? Strange. Very strange. This movie will mess with your mind,... and it's not very scary,... just confusing. Why was he,... Where did,... What was the,... oh, who cares,... Milo isn't worth it,...<br /><br />My score: 10 | 1 | positive |
Hollywood is one of the best and the beautiful things that had occurred in my life. I admire and am very much fascinated by the way Hollywood generates ideas and implement them. It makes me wonder about the scope of human brain. I saw Flatliners a long time back but the story, direction, cast and of all acting is still fresh in my mind. The story begins with our lead actor Sutherland saying during sunrise "what a beautiful day to die." For all of us, It's a story which shows emotions that are sometimes withheld in our mind during our entire life. Never able to understand few things in life. It shows us to get motivated and to improve our quality of life. Anyway I suggest it to all that watch it once. | 1 | positive |
I've seen this film so many times, It's that good. Maybe because I can relate to Tittas way of life is the reason why. Not everyone would find it to their taste. Also, my Italien is improving after each viewing. Am I a sad case? Thankyou Mr Sorrentino. I look forward to your next film. Although I did not see the film at a cinema, I have the DVD and would encourage anyone to buy it. The Special feature extras alone is worth the price. The amount of time a director spends on the making of a film is very seldom appreciated, the extras on the DVD gives an excellent insight to the making of a film. As for the story of the film, I'm bias.I happen to rave about it to all my friends, but as I said before, I relate very much to the main character who is a loner in a situation not of his own choosing. The Mafia in Sicily use Titta to launder their money in a Swiss bank. He owes them for costing them Millions of dollars years ago in stock market deal that went wrong.Love kills. | 1 | positive |
I first saw this film by chance when I was visiting my uncle in Arizona about 3 and 1/2 years ago. The VHS print was a little faded looking, but I was very haunted by what I had watched. Did it all make sense? Well, honestly, no it didn't. However, this is a film that requires more than one viewing to understand all of its aspects. The beautifully tragic score haunted me and the bizarre images made quiet an impression.<br /><br />Well, when I found out that Anchor Bay had released this oddity on DVD, I picked it up immediately. I was very pleased by the transfer, though I felt the extras rather lacking. Though the film concerns the "O" and Sir Stephen characters, it really has nothing to do with Pauline Reage's original novel or the 1974 film The Story of O. However, the film does pay attention to artistic detail and symbolism of an almost mystic kind. "O" decides to prostitute herself for Sir Stephen in violent 1920s Hong Kong. Her mission is to prove her unending devotion and love for her master through giving her body to other men. Naturally, Sir Stephen enjoys watching her during her unpleasant sexual escapades and even finds himself a mistress. However, the tables are turned when "O" actually finds a kind of love with a young male admirer. Suddenly, Sir Stephen feels the threat...<br /><br />I feel that the deep meaning behind the film (including the tragic score and artistic direction) really make this film a classic. The viewer is introduced not only to the lives and pasts of "O"'s fellow brothel mates, but the turmoil of 1920s Hong Kong is also explored. Like the political setting, the prostitutes all find themselves in need of belonging. No one is happy in the film, even if they believe that they are. (However, "O" does find a sense of happiness with her young admirer). One prostitute tearfully remembers how her father used to act like a dog when she was drunk, naturally leading to a fetish for having her customers act like a dog. Another older prostitute is obsessed with her past as an actress. She cannot let that vision go. She treats her clients as co-stars and even swears she hears a piano in the river. <br /><br />As for "O", she has a flashback about her father leaving her in a chalk circle. When he leaves, she feels a sense of abandonment. Of course, in that same flashback Kinski suddenly becomes her father. I was very, very disturbed by this image. I truly felt for "O" at this point in the film. She hardly ever smiles and this scene really explains why. Her fear of abandonment is so great that she sees Sir Stephen as her father and caters to his every obscene demand in hopes of proving her love. <br /><br />Another curious aspect of the film is the young child (that ages at the end) that sells fortune in a box. It is a very random character, but somehow it just adds to the sense of loss and emptiness in the film. At one point, the director even uses painted cardboard figures to represent people. Now, if that isn't symbolism for you! (Laugh) <br /><br />All in all, I really love this film. I feel that it is a very deep and somewhat moving experience. It has erotic scenes, but the scenes aren't really meant to arouse. Like the lives of the characters, the sex acts are empty. They are motions, but lack feeling and tenderness. (Once again, the only tender scene is between "O" and the young man). "O" believes she is in love and that lowering herself is an honor, however, she finds in the end that she has choices. She too can be her own person and pursue her own happiness, however, she also has the option to stay in that circle that her father drew. The director leaves a lot of unanswered questions, however, some things don't need answers. The viewer will make the judgment that works for them. <br /><br />I must say that I wish a special edition of this DVD would be released that had director commentary. I think it would be fascinating to hear his opinion of the film and its message years later. It is a shame that the soundtrack was never released. This film has a truly haunting and heart breaking score. There is something about the lingering vocals that send a chill up my spine. I can truly feel the sense of loneliness in the film by just listening to the music. | 1 | positive |
The acting was very sub-par, You had Costas Mandalar acting like Triple H's dumber forest ranger brother, a Scott McMahon look-alike as his depute who I guess your supposed to care about but there is no emotional involvement anywhere. You have the Stupid lesbian, Not that I have any thing against lesbians, i don't just stupid ones who keep running around in a punisher like shirt and a grunge like hat who keeps asking if anyone saw her dead lover.<br /><br />The Villain could be scary and there is a morality tale somewhere about trying to fight age and death but it is lost in this movie. Costas Hurst Helmsley points out to the soon to be victims the way back into town, while obviously there are city lights behind him.<br /><br />Also A mispronunciation of Ed Gein but pronounced it Gine. As a citizen of Wisconsin. We have had our share of Monsters Gein,Dahmer, and McCarthy, but if your going to use it pronounce it right.<br /><br />God Why do i watch all these terrible films. Oh yes I am a glutton for punishment and I watch these so you don't have to. | 0 | negative |
This is possibly the most perfect film I have ever seen - in acting, adaptation and direction. It is self-contained and of a kind, so there is no point in saying that it is better or worse than other great films, just that it can stand by itself as a perfect work of art.<br /><br />And it was fun watching confused horror fans getting up and walking out! | 1 | positive |
Whenever this film gets a mention, usually the discussion begins and ends with the wonderful collection of cars and drag scenes, often overlooked are the at times eclectic characters that populate the film around the three central characters<br /><br />One character that stands out is Rebel played by the great veteran Australian actor Max Cullen. Rebel is a blind drag racer, who nearly runs down the hero and his group in the middle of the night because he is not using any headlights.<br /><br />In the back story we discover that Rebel master builder of street racing cars, and he and his wife seem locked in a time warp of the 1950's. Rebel goes on to play a small but pivotal role in teaching Mike, played by Terry Serio, the almost spiritual truth about street drag racing. It is not speed, reaction times that make a great racer. It is the one who feels the car best who will become the greatest<br /><br />This is best exemplified as Rebel explains to Mike after a test drive "You got all the agony, just missing the style"<br /><br />Graham Bond, is another well credited actor lending his talents as a crooked police officer looking to get in on some of the financial action being generated by the street racing. The confrontation between Bond and Fox played by Richard Moir adds tension to the story. Bond not only expects results but also Fox to drum up racing business<br /><br />For most of the movie Fox displays a real manipulative and evil side, yet in the climax he presents a sense of honor that turns the final few minutes into an extremely tense and memorable ending. It is almost as if the film is refocusing on its true intention, to show us the culture of street racing rather than the day to day activities of people<br /><br />One of the major complaints about the film is the script. Although it is nothing exciting, I believe the complete lack of any chemistry between Mikes girlfriend played by Deborah Conway and his mechanic played by Vangelis Mourikis has more to do with the problem. Any scene in which these two interact simply should have been cut<br /><br />Lastly in terms of the actors, one truly standout performance is delivered by Kristoffer Greaves, who plays a deaf and crippled member of Fox's inner circle. His back story is never explored, was he injured in a race, born that way, what is it that Fox sees value in to keep him around <br /><br />The reality of the film is simple, it is about street racing, and the culture behind it. When the cars are flying and action sequences are in motion it is the only time Director John Clark and his writer Barry Tomblin seem really comfortable with what they are doing.<br /><br />So if you are looking for an in depth exploration of human relationships, moments of life defining drama, then this film is not for you. If your pulse races at the thought of a blown 57 Chev or the iconic GTO Phase 3 blazing away on the streets of Sydney, then you wont find much better than this film | 1 | positive |
I have seen this movie and anybody who has every been with the Marines or any branch of the service can appreciate the accuracy of this movie. It is a must have for any collection. Jack Webb does an excellent job as the hard drill instructor. My father went to Marine boot camp at Camp Penelton and says this movie is so accurate that he feels like he is back in basic training. There is a line in the movie where Jack Webbs character gets mad at a boot for killing a sand flea. Well let me tel you there are nothing but sand fleas at the camp. I have been there and can appreciate it. As a matter of fact the exit to the camp is Las Puljas which in English means city of the fleas. you must watch the movie to appreciate what I am saying. Anybody who is into WWII movies, all the battles start right here with the drill Sgt. A must have for you collection | 1 | positive |
Ha ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.<br /><br />First - let's start the with good.<br /><br />1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.<br /><br />2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.<br /><br />1). This movie feels like a 2 hour "Twilight Zone" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.<br /><br />2). Do you remember in the movie "From Dusk til Dawn?". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.<br /><br />3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.<br /><br />4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.<br /><br />This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.<br /><br />If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer. | 0 | negative |
I stumbled upon this movie by accident. I mean, how else could I find out? It wasn't hyped at all by the studios, nor did I even hear about it's release from my normally plugged in friends. After throwing my money away on so many bad movies this year, I wish I could've seen this one in theaters as opposed to DVD. Mike Judge is the master of disguising deliciously intelligent humor in a low brow package. Just watch "King of the Hill" for a while...it's ostensibly redneck humor, but it's a very subtle jab at rednecks while being very sympathetic at the same time. I read the tagline for this film, and immediately I ordered it off the internet. I really don't understand where these negative reviews are coming from, except maybe from Carl's Jr. This movie is not only hilarious, but it's balanced as well. Moments of levity are interspersed between hilarious sight gags and jabs at our current superstar/corporate culture. Sure, there is some fart humor, but it's only there to laugh at derisively. The premise is only semi-plausible, but since when did that even matter? I don't see people heaping scorn upon "Futurama" because the premise is very similar. Just watch this movie. If you don't laugh, then something is really wrong with you. Maybe your dad works for Gatorade or something, and he was really offended by the movie. Maybe you're an idiot. Probably the latter. | 1 | positive |
Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys.<br /><br />I caught this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager (I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be with the popular kids. I give it a 7. | 1 | positive |
My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.<br /><br />On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good. | 0 | negative |
After watching this film I decided that it was so awful that I must join IMDb and write a review to warn other people of the pit falls of renting/buying this film. To be fair to the film there is only one good section to this film and that is the end credits cause then you know that this crap is well and truly over. I watched it to the end in the hope that I may get a little bit of pleasure out of the film. Just tunnels more tunnels and an old man talking to himself (If you watch this film too many time so will you). As for Val if he keeps selecting films like this he may as well kiss goodbye to his acting career. There is no point in even writing about what is in the film as that has already been done. Keep your money and sanity and keep well clear. | 0 | negative |
there is only way to describe this movie.<br /><br />so bad its hilarious.<br /><br />the acting is so bad i laughed my ass off throughout. The male lead in this movie trying to use a gun is so ridiculous you would think he was trying to copy a toy action figure, i know this sounds ridiculous but when you see it for yourself you can't help but agree.<br /><br />the monster looks like a cgi guy trying to recreate the clay monsters you get in old Sinbad movies.<br /><br />in short this movie is good for only one thing a really large laugh at how bad movies can get.<br /><br />If you want to see bad acting bad script and special effects gone wrong<br /><br />THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU | 0 | negative |
I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.<br /><br />For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.<br /><br />All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).<br /><br />Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).<br /><br />I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!<br /><br />By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it. | 0 | negative |
Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out "Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought "Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I." Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet | 0 | negative |
A chick flick that Guys still like - Yes! Wonderful. Now I can have fun, enjoy the company of my girl, and not feel like I can't wait until the movie ends! Light - but funny. Great stuff. What ever you do don't miss the DVD extras. This a great "blind date" file too. Will Smith does well in this - even though in is light acting - he pulls trough it all well. The movie is a little slow in pacing - don't expect too much action - the laughs are there - and so is the message - but the timing is a little slow. Use the low moments to whisper or kiss - it will pick up. The ending makes the feel good moments worth it. Most of all expect fun light hearted fare - and watch for some great upstaging by the supporting actors - they make the film. The plot twists are predictable - but it IS a date move, so get the refills of popcorn from the kitchen - and don't make her pause it. Count on more dates after this movie - she'll want o see what is next in line. Remember Hitch's advice!!! <br /><br />Enjoy. | 1 | positive |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There must have been something in the air in the immediate postwar years that made night cities attractive settings for movies. A gaggle of nocturnal, urban films were made at that time, and not just in America. One of the most notable was Carol Reed's Odd Man Out, an English picture about a wounded gunman staggering through the streets of Belfast. In America it was the high noon, or more properly, high midnight, of film noir.<br /><br />Crossfire isn't really film noir, but has the trappings of noir, though it uses them for its own aims, which have to do with bigotry. Directed by Edward Dmytryk, written by John Paxton, it was adapted from a novel by Richard Brooks. The book concerned the murder of a homosexual; in the movie the victim is changed to a Jew. Though filmed like a mystery there is little suspense in the film, as it is fairly obvious who the murderer is early on. What makes the film so watchable and beautiful is its evocation of a city, Washington, D.C., just after World War II, by some of the most gifted craftsmen working in films at that time. Unlike many night movies Crossfire is set mostly indoors: in police stations, rooming houses and all-night movie theaters. Soldiers are everywhere in the film, and most are itching to get back to their civilian lives. Yet one senses, from most of the men we meet, that their personalities have been so shaped by their military experience it's going to be tough for them to return to their old neighborhoods; for some maybe even impossible. They seem more bound to one another than to anything or anyone else.<br /><br />Yet some men never truly bonded with anyone in the military. The murderer, Monty, is one such individual. One senses that he was never connected in his civilian life, either. He is a lone wolf who also needs people. Desperately alone, he has a sadistic streak a mile wide, and always needs someone nearby to be the butt of his jokes. The man he kills did him no harm, and was in fact a stranger to him. But once Monty figured out the man's religion, that was enough. He didn't really mean to kill the guy, as it was his intent to 'merely' humiliate him and just beat him up. But as he was quite drunk at the time, Monty's fists got the better of him. It is this act that sets the story the story in motion.<br /><br />Once the movie builds up a head of steam the other characters come rapidly into focus. Monty's opposite number is Keely, another soldier, who, though introspective like Monty, and somewhat detached, harbors no resentment toward anyone and seems a reasonable, even amiable guy. Finley, the pipe-smoking homicide detective, is dandyish and a tad effete compared to the men in uniform, but proves more than a match for the various and mostly recalcitrant soldiers he deals with. The actors who plays these roles, Roberts Ryan, Mitchum and Young, give excellent performances, each in a different key. Ryan, as Monty, is tense and paranoid, always looking around for someone to pick on; and one can feel his anxiety over becoming a victim himself. As Keely, Mitchum is low-key, almost nonchalant; he never raises his voice; and he seems to have more to say, more to offer, than is permitted by the script. Young's performance has often been criticized as being too soft, but I find it deceptively strong and nicely offbeat. He cuts against the stereotype of the hardboiled cop, and makes the character of Finley a bit of a prince of crime detection.<br /><br />There are few surprises in Crossfire, though the script is at times surprisingly well-written, even brilliant. Character actor Paul Kelly gives one of the best short performances in the movies as the 'boyfriend' of a woman a soldier picks up in a bar. Kelly may or may not be her husband; and he may or may not live with her, though he seems relaxed enough in her apartment. The beauty of these scenes are that nothing is made clear, and this man himself seems more than a little confused over what his role is, was or ought to be. In a way these few scenes form the thematic core of the film, which is anomie. With the exception of the detective all the men in the film are drifting, aimless and basically lost, some more seriously than others. In this respect Crossfire is, for all the preaching near the end, a film about the vagueness of identity, and how easily it can be lost or warped. Men drift from one bar to another in this film, as they engage in a sort of woozy camaraderie, their personalities merging into a kind of general American male template. Then something happens, something is nailed down. A word is mentioned, whether 'Jew' or 'hillbilly', and things suddenly turn tense, and the very notion of individuality, of an identity outside the group, of anyone not like them, becomes deeply offensive, even loathsome. Then, after tempers flare and whatever stirred them up has been resolved or forgotten, the men revert to their loose, non-personal group normality, and order is restored. | 1 | positive |
OK I haven't read the book
And maybe the book was better
.WHO KNOWS???// But I loved the movie. It was entertaining, not a bit boring, enjoyable and most of all heart wrenching. The friendship between the two kids was so pure and innocent. These kids acted so well, especially the son of the Servant. Oh my GOD that's like the form of GOD on the face of EARTH. ARGHHHH he steals our heart so easily. *********Spoilers************* The other Friend the rich guy is a Kid and his confusion and frustration can be understood. BUT I did get angry when he Abandoned and ignored his friend in the time when he needed consoling. Anyways he was just a kid and a bit stubborn to. I wish the movie would also have shown the older version of the poor kid. Arghh it pains to just think of the ending. This movie is sad. I felt terribly sad during the ending. Tears dropped down my eyes. Yes the background scores are fantastic, the scenes are WOW. The Kite scenes are Fascinating. And well it gets a bit of an adventure in the middle. Wonderfully acted and superbly cast. The kids acted so well. GREAT Direction. don't know why this movie failed to WOOO the Critics. But it sure did WOO me. 10/10 Must-See
| 1 | positive |
Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.<br /><br />Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage! | 0 | negative |
I bought this out of curiosity. How did John Carradine (who died in 1988) and Cameron Mitchell (who died in 1994) make appearances in a film made in 1995? Thanks to the miracle of unused film can footage that's probably been sitting on a shelf somewhere for ten years, that's how! You can tell because the film stock used to shoot their scenes doesn't match the film used for shooting "Jack-O." The curse of Ed Wood lives on. The good thing for both Carradine and Mitchell is that this is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect to find on both of their filmographies. Same goes for Scream Queens Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith.<br /><br />The setting is Oakmoor Crossing on Halloween, and some kind of curse is released when dumb, beer-guzzling teens disrupt a grave. The result: a hulking killer with a scythe and a big plastic pumpkin on his head! He (it?) goes after the wholesome Kelly family for revenge (and kills others who get in his way). The father opens a Haunted Garage for the neighborhood kiddies. The son (Ryan Latshaw, son of the director) has one continuous, perplexed facial expression for all his scenes and one hilariously badly acted dramatic scene lying in a grave. At least he's a kid. The mother's eyes about pop out of her head while she strains to read her dialogue. There is also an annoying woman who shows up to explain things who seems to be trying to phonetically pronounce all of her dialogue.<br /><br />So what about the name actors? You see Stevens, Wildsmith and Mitchell briefly on a TV screen (they're used to pad out the time). Linnea has a bigger role as a babysitter, and she does exactly what she can with it. Her enthusiastic performance helps a little bit. There's also one out-of-nowhere laugh when an ultra-conservative couple who watch a Rush Limbaugh clone on TV bite it. The woman slips on a rug and stabs a toaster with a knife. She's electrocuted and the end result looks like a flame-broiled Muppet.<br /><br />All and all, pretty entertaining stuff! I wasn't bored! | 0 | negative |
This is just Art house rubbish. I sat watching this trash with my Bosnian Friends they found it as boring as i did. For a more interesting and more true account watch the excellent movie Saviour. This is just a snoozefest with people talking in coffee shops.A cure for insomnia. 1 out of 10 | 0 | negative |
I find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of "improvisation", another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel. | 0 | negative |
"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would be an improvement. | 0 | negative |
I love low budget movies. Including those that are intentionally or un-intentionally funny,excess fake gore,violence etc.<br /><br />This,however is beyond stupid. Once you see the ending you'll say,what the hell was the point of all the killing scenes with no one around(except in a couple) to witness them.AND how did the ending actually come about(I won't give the WHOLE story away for those dumb enough to actually watch this) Granny is like a psychic Jason. First she's outside the window with a body and 15 seconds later she's in the living room knitting. The whole thing is a setup for a newcomer. They pull off graphic kill scenes,the knitting needles in the eyes,that only Chris Angel Mind Freak could pull off. And again,the very end was Pre-posterous. 56 min waste of time. I've seen one of the directors other films and it was almost as bad. Give me 20 grand and I could do better. This really deserves a big fat 0. | 0 | negative |
I can't believe they even released such a movie. The only good acting came from the water in the movie. This has to be one of worst (if not the worst) movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The only scary part of the movie is the bad acting, me giving this movie a 1 is me being to kind, this movie deserve a 0.<br /><br />The storyline, and if you can call it the plot of the movie, seems to have been written by an high school kid. Ofcaurse you have to ask yourself if it may have been better with better actors in it.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, wait for it to show on TV. <br /><br />AND EVEN THEN WATCHING IT WILL BE A WAST OF TIME. | 0 | negative |
This movie is a hard-to-find gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss. The complications are wild, she is not so ordinary as she seems with five children from five different ex-husbands who are all still madly in love with her, and he is not so shrewd as he thinks he is. This movie doesn't follow a predictable path and that's what keeps you watching. The acting is superb and there are some very moving moments along the way as well. The working class displays more savvy than those above them, almost in the same way "Gosford Park" showed the upper crust is not all it's cracked up to be mentally. I recommend this movie very much. See it! 9/10 | 1 | positive |
Black Rain is a superb film, but watch out for the DVDs currently being sold for as much as $300 apiece. I have the DVD, and it's terrible. Very tiny non-anamorphic image that has to be blown up to resolution-killing size. Acceptable sound. This is a primitive DVD that absolutely *has* to be rereleased.<br /><br />BTW, I also own the laserdisc and the VHS of Black Rain. The VHS is a huge step upward from the DVD! And the laserdisc has far and away the best picture of them allsubtitles in the black, sharp, big picture, simple but very good soundtrack. Buy the VHS and avoid the preposterous prices these scam artists are demanding! | 1 | positive |
I've noticed that a lot of people are taking Opera to task for the way Betty reacts to the murders. I think they are basing these complaints on how they imagine a "normal" person would react. The thing is...Betty is not a "normal" person, due to traumatic events in her childhood. She has problems way way before the movie ever even starts...and by the end of Opera...in my opinion...she has become totally unhinged.<br /><br />---------------------SPOILERS--------------------------------------- You have to keep in mind that when she was a very small child she witnessed her mother's lover commit at least one brutal murder while her sadomasochist mother was getting off watching it.<br /><br />She was raised by a woman who achieves sexual release tied up watching girls get hacked, slashed, and strangled to death. That does not make for a healthy home life. I think it's pretty easy to conclude that her mother would have employed all sorts of emotional manipulation and negative reinforcement to ensure that her daughter never snitched on her. It is also likely that at her impressionable age, Betty might have been deeply confused by what she saw. Is this just something that adults do, etc.<br /><br />Betty obviously looks up to her mother...I mean...she's become an opera singer just like her. If mommy likes it it can't be bad, can it...mommy can't be bad, can she? She couldn't tell the police on her mommy or this mysterious hooded fellow she associates with mommy.<br /><br />Betty has a lot of deep-seated emotional issues. Her mind has for years been trying to block out the memory of what she saw her mother doing...but it keeps coming to the surface, manifesting itself in the form of horrible nightmares, skull-throbbing migraines, a dependence on relaxation techniques, and sexual frigidity She associates brutal violence/bloody death with sex on a subconscious level. There's an inner struggle between the part of Betty that has confused murder/sex and the part of her which believes these things to be wrong.<br /><br />After she's seen her boyfriend murdered by the hooded man...she calls the police, yet is unwilling to give her name. The part of her that thinks murder is wrong forces her to make the call, but the part that is ambivalent won't allow her to admit personal involvement. The ambivalent part of her takes control before she can go all the way. So she walks away from the phone in the rain...and when she's picked up by the director she's acting surprisingly calm, not as upset as you would think a "normal" person would be...because the part of her that's been blocking stuff since she was a child is trying its damnedest to block the horror of what she's just witnessed.<br /><br />The state of affairs in her life all contribute to an impasse within Betty's psyche. Her singing career is starting to bear fruit...she's going to be a great opera singer like her mother was. But is she going to become like her mother in all ways? In the darker ways? Or will she be able to make her own path? Add this to the re-emergence of the hooded man murdering everyone around her.<br /><br />It's not until the hooded man kills Daria Nicolodi's character that Betty really takes an active role in defeating the killer. Here's someone who loves Betty, who's supported her wholeheartedly in her emerging career, who is in fact a maternal figure in Betty's life now since mommy's dead. Imagine how terrible it would be to lose your real mother and then to see the woman who is the closest thing you have to a mother get shot through the eyeball.<br /><br />I could go on...but I won't. The main gist of what I'm saying is that the character of Betty is a lot more complex than most of the reviewers on here have been willing to acknowledge.<br /><br />Opera is one of Argento's best...and not just for the visuals alone (although they are truly magnificent) and not just for the inventive murders (although they are). There is a depth here...and attention needs to be paid. | 1 | positive |
This is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting is good, the plot is solid, and the whole movie is very believable, which adds a lot to the movie. I rate this at least a 9. | 1 | positive |
If you thought Day after tomorrow was implausible, wait till you see this.<br /><br />Okay so the premise of most disaster films is usually a 1 in billion event occurring, compounded by other circumstances. In this case, the even is the joining of two huge storm systems. Fair enough so far. Oh but hold up, no, the "event" is the sabotage and subsequent destruction of the power grid.<br /><br />Next throw in loads of human interest elements - in this case a cheating husband, a psychotic gun-wielding boyfriend, a rebellious daughter, a hacker with a point to prove, a senator trying to push an agenda, a reporter trying to stand up against "the man", and a pregnant women stuck in an elevator.<br /><br />Finally add a handful of taster events to add excitement.<br /><br />Jeez if the director tried to fit in any more meaningless plot lines, there would have been no time less for the actual disaster, which, given the pitiful state of the computer graphics, was almost certainly the intention.<br /><br />Jeez, if you can't even model a truck convincingly, you really should not be taking on twisters, exploding power stations, Las Vegas getting ripped apart, or destroyed oil stations.<br /><br />In case you didn't already gather how appalling this movie is, let me just add that all three bad guys get killed in separate, and wholly ungratifying, implausible manners, that stunk more of moralising that good film-making.<br /><br />I'm have no problem with first month film students writing jaded, hackneyed, cliché-soaked scripts, but for god's sake, that doesn't mean anyone has to make them into movies!<br /><br />It manages to make the abysmally implausible 10.0 Apocalypse look not quite so dreadful. Avoid them both. | 0 | negative |
The first time I saw "Alice in Wonderland an X-rated Musical Comedy", was in the early '80 in a Movie-Theater in N.Y. City with some friends. I remember we actually enjoyed it very much, although we were left wondering why all the "goodies" were covered by in various forms shaped colored patches and why the movie was suddenly jumping from one scene to the next one, leaving us guessing...what we just missed. Obviously it was the soft-core edited (chopped) version, which left me with the desire to watch it again soon, but in its original integral version. Well, more then 20 years went by, during which I forgot all about this movie and, only a few days ago, by sheer chance, I stumbled upon a heavily used VHS copy (which had seen better times: a bit washed-out colors, scratchy sound and a few flaws), but guess what? It's the original uncut version and, this time, I really had a ball! Humor, Musical and Porn may sound an awkward combination but, in this case, it really works and, unlikely the big majority of boring porn-flicks nowadays invading our screens, this is a really amusing and entertaining sex fantasy, which will not disappoint you. The direction is clever, the swift editing makes the movie fly like a bird, all the familiar characters are lovable or just plain funny, all the actors seem having a good time, the songs are catchy (worth mentioning the one about "growing up" sung by Alice at the beginning of the movie and the hilarious "What's a nice girl like you doing on a Knight like this"), the dance numbers are well choreographed and staged (amazingly energetic Terry Hall proves that she can "also" dance and dances enthusiastically her guts away...Don't worry, she also does what she was best known for...), the acting, the singing, the set, the costumes are of quality level and then...there is Kristine "Blue Eyes" DeBell, in the first starring role of her career and (oh boy!) she indeed has a few H.C. sequences! Personally I think they are absolutely not distasteful, on the contrary, they are spontaneous and quite arousing. She is young and (ohhh!) so very pretty; with the help of her new friends in Wonderland, she discovers her body and her sexuality so, she sings, she dances and...what do you expect? She is also experimenting sex! The closing sequence, when she finally makes love to her boy-friend, is exceptionally well photographed and directed and is the highlight of the movie. I think her "physique du role" (the innocent blue eyes and captivating smile) and her acting ability, make those explicit sequences more then acceptable and actually highly enjoyable. There is plenty of sex going on in (this) Wonderland and everybody seems eager to "get busy" with the first available boy(s) or girl(s), which means lot of hard-core action to be seen. On the other hand, some close-up shots, clearly "spliced in", just to make the "porn-hounds" really happy, are a bit redundant for my personal taste. In general, however, the sex-action is not offensive since handled with a great deal of humor and it blends almost seamlessly with the music, the dances and the comedy. If you think you and your partner can handle graphic sex, watch it together. Take my word, you will have an hour and a half of very good time (perhaps also an after-show extra action...) This is "Adult Entertainment" so be careful, don't leave this video around or among other kid's videos. If your 10 years old can put his hands on it, he might amuse himself, but you will be forced to provide embarrassing explanations about the reasons why "this" Alice behaves quite differently from the one he red about in Lewis Carroll novel or he watched on the Disney's video. I bet, you will not forget this "one-of-a-kind" very soon. It's a real shame that they don't mak'em like that anymore...! I give it a 9 out of 10. | 1 | positive |
I rented this because I couldn't pass up the chance to see pre-Hollywood-fame Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones together, but it definitely wasn't worth it. The only reason I give it two stars instead of one is for the novelty of seeing them before they made it big across the pond.<br /><br />Zeta Jones, who is usually fun to watch even if she isn't the greatest thesp in the world, is awful. Owen seems really uncomfortable to be in such a turkey, plus he wears a ridiculous, egregiously ill-fitting chin-length wig (at least I hope that's a wig and not his real hair). And the scene where he dances a country jig with Zeta Jones just makes you embarrassed for him. Joan Plowright walks around in a daze the whole movie -- she's probably wondering how she got herself into such a mess.<br /><br />The actress who plays Clive Owen's wife isn't terrible, but just about everyone else is. Oh, and the writing stinks too. | 0 | negative |
Sean Bean returns as Napoleonic hero Richard Sharpe in Sharpe's Honour, the fifth movie in the series and as always Patrick Harper and the rest of Sharpes chosen men are all along for the ride, but this time Major Sharpe is in serious trouble.<br /><br />Under the influence of Sharpe's sworn enemy Major Ducos, a mysterious lady by the name of La Marquesa has accused Sharpe of rape. Her husband arrives at Sharpe's camp to challenge his wife's attacker to a dual.<br /><br />The dual is discovered and stopped by the authorities, and as a result Sharpe becomes the prime suspect when his opponent is murdered in the middle of the night.<br /><br />As no-one in the British Army other than Wellington and Major Nairn consider Sharpe anything but a rough commoner with little or no honour, he his given a shambolic trial and is sentenced to death by hanging, and Harper and the chosen men have no choice but to look on as their beloved commander walks slowly to the gallows.<br /><br />However, convinced of his innocence Wellington and Nairn hang another convicted prisoner in Sharpe's stead and release him and his chosen men to find the real killer and La Marquesa herself, to not only prove his innocence but to find out her reasons for framing him in the first place.<br /><br />Daragh O'Malley, Micheal Byrne and Hugh Fraser co-star with brilliant performances by Alice Krige as La Marquesa and Féodor Atkine as the villainous Major Ducos, in what is another exciting, swashbuckling instalment through Sharpe's eventful journey through the Napoleonic Wars. | 1 | positive |
First off - this film will not be for everybody. There are scenes of extreme graphic violence and "disturbing" images that by their nature alone will turn off many possible potential viewers. Obviously from the reviews on this board - SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY has divided those that have seen it. I'm among the ones who liked it very much for several different reasons. I feel this was a very ambitious (and quite competently pulled off...) undertaking for a bunch of 18/19 year olds with no budget and little experience. I think that each aspect of the film - the direction, the acting (though the character's performances are more likened to stage or free-form performance because of the nature of the film...) the production, the FX, the score/sound design - all are far superior to many films I've seen that exceed these kids budget and experience ten-fold. I honestly haven't been this impressed with an "art-house" style horror film since Nacho Cerda's GENESIS...<br /><br />First off - I'm not going to pretend to understand and/or grasp all of the graphical content in this film - but knowing that this wasn't a straight-narrative type of film when I went into it, I wasn't disappointed with how it played out. SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is 4 relatively short vignettes that all sort of revolve around the theory of right brain/left brain lust/anger/psychosis vs. restraint/compassion/"normalcy". To very briefly give a synopsis of each "chapter":<br /><br />OVARIAN EYEBALL basically just has a naked girl who has an eyeball cut out of her abdomen. I'm sure it's symbolic of something - I don't think I was paying that much attention at that point and this one blows by pretty quick. <br /><br />The next "episode" - HUMAN LARVAE - is a nihilistic, horrific, genuinely creepy story of a guy who's both in love with and repulsed by his pregnant sister, who gives into his growing psychosis which leads up to the shocking conclusion of that particular chapter. HUMAN LARVAE is the best of the bunch in my book, and will probably get under your skin. The dead-pan narrative dialog accentuates the growing tension as you know something horrible is going to happen - but you're not quite sure what it is. Do yourself a favor and if you are interested in seeing this film - don't do too much research on it. Come into it with an open mind and an iron stomach and I think you be pleasantly surprised, especially with this particular episode.<br /><br />REBIRTH has a bunch of people in a field screwing the ground and blowing trees and stuff. Apparently an "arty" interpretation of the rape of the earth or something to that effect. Not bad, but this one is pretty short too and I sorta missed the point on it...<br /><br />And RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM seems to be about religion and religious hypocrisy and also along with HUMAN LARVAE, has some of the "hardest" images/messages of the whole feature...<br /><br />OVARIAN EYEBALL isn't anything to write home about, mainly because of it's very short running time but does make a decent segue into the insanity to come...and REBIRTH is also kind of short and not quite as thought provoking, but HUMAN LARVAE (especially) and RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM are so off-the-wall and well done that they more than make up for the other parts. I think the main reason that I liked this one so much is that as "shocking", "repulsive", "violent" and "excessive" as it is, it is also done very beautifully and you can tell this was a real labor-of-love from those involved. Nothing about the film feels cheap or rushed, and even if the content isn't completely decipherable, it's undeniably original - and that alone up's the points some in my book. Not that every "weird art-house" film that has an unintelligible plot should be praised for it's "originality", but SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is the type of film that I do think I'll watch a few more times in the near future to see what other interpretations I may gain from it. Again, this film is ABSOLUTELY not for everyone - with some VERY extreme scenes of gore, murder, rape, incest, sacrilegious imagery, etc...that is definitely there to shock the viewer into taking a harder look at this film. I have to say it worked for me, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Hussain/Cerda collaboration that is rumored to come next. Check this one out if you have the stomach for it - 9.5/10 | 1 | positive |
The numbers don't lie, 109 people have voted for this film. That says a great deal about the standing of one of the most intuitively insightful comedians of the late 20th century. And for those of you who know the work of Bill Hicks, if he were alive today, imagine what he would have to say about the boy president from his home state? That his short career remains unrecognized is a sad situation and this film, or rather these two films explain why. First, you see how his talent was obvious from the start, again and again, those who knew Bill Hicks always say he was not only funny, he was also unique. The film also shows how the quality of his material was too challenging for many in the entertainment industry. His drinking also contributed to his career problems, but that is less evident in this film. And then the second film is a complete performance. If you have never seen or heard Bill Hicks, this is a wonderful introduction to the person and his dark but intelligent humor. Especially due to the fact that the topics are now almost 14 years old, yet remain ironically up to date is underlined by the fact that many of the events took place under the first President Bush.<br /><br />Watching them together - first the biography and then the performance - makes you aware of how greatly talented this young man was, how quickly his life passed and how the American media can sometimes act as the great big homogenizer. Let's make sure nothing is too provocative, nothing will be too interesting And the result? Well, as the man himself said, go to sleep America, your government is in control........... In his lifetime, at least in Great Britian this artist was recognized for his talent and was successful there. 11 years after his death, 109 people at IMDb can say something about the film. After you've seen them both, I hope you understand why more people should be listening to Bill Hicks. | 1 | positive |
Danny Glover and Carey Elwes obviously forgot how to act when they made this movie, the acting is absolutely atrocious. The pay-off is even worse. I feel sorry for Danny Glover, I hope he got paid well for this because it makes him look completely foolish, the same goes for Mr. Elwes.An absolute slap in the face to any horror movie fan. Despicable. This is probably the worst display of acting by veteran actors I have ever seen. I wonder if they bothered to look at the script, or if they did it must have said "forget everything you know about acting" because this makes the two of them look ridiculous. For two seasoned veterans to act this way is appalling, I hope the pay check was very large, I thought, at first, it was a spoof. If you can find satisfaction in this movie then more power to you. | 0 | negative |
Surely the best film directed by Claude Lelouch after "L'aventure c'est l'aventure". The Jacques Brel's life inspiration is really present. Richard Anconina and Jean-Paul Belmondo played a really amazing duo and are really great in the psychological discovery of the two characters they are playing. | 1 | positive |
<br /><br />Giorgino is a strange, dark, obsessive object; the casting is impressive, the plot is powerful, reminded me of Edgar Poe's tales. Probably not a masterpiece, but it does leave us with the remembrance of strong images, fine music, fear, sadness, confusion, and a sentence that says it all : the wolves are coming. GIORGINO is quite forgotten now, and when it was released nobody seemed to appreciate it. That's a shame. If you ever have a chance to see this, well... give it a try. | 1 | positive |
What offends me most about the critics following this film is the mentioning of 'originality'. This film does not contain ONE innovating element. If, by 'originality' you refer to pathetic action scenes, overacting, gluttony in violence, blunt humor and a script beyond intellectual belief. Then, 'originality' is something Swedish film can do without.<br /><br />How Röse and Karlsson can agree to 'act' in this poor excuse for a film is a mystery to me. And how Eva Röse after the making of this film can be seen at breakfast-TV promoting it just disappoints me.<br /><br />This film doesn't contain a story, the script is illogical, stiff and last but not least, just plain bad. These two young directors have put together a quite disgusting boy-fantasy containing violence, comic-strips and trivialized psychological portraits. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene of DD masturbating in the kitchen over a micro-wave dinner actually is put there to describe the everyday life of these two overgrown cinematic nerds that pose as directors.<br /><br />I wouldn't show this movie to my worst enemy. | 0 | negative |
How on earth can people give this movie a low rating. Unbelievable. The performances of Wilkinson and Watson are so full of merit that I can only imagine that these detractors were weaned on blockbusters and porn. (If this sounds bad-tempered, it's because I just wiped my original 400-worder just now) I was so impressed by Tom Wilkinson. All hail the guy. This is a performance of considerable subtlety and massive skill. His development as an actor from The Full Monty to this masterpiece of a performance is amazing; one of the best things to happen in film-making in the last ten years.<br /><br />Emily Watson is somewhat less commanding, due to that glint in her eye that says 'see me? this cheeky woman, here? You can't guess what I'm going to do next because I don't know either!' It seems to be something she can't help showing us in every role, but still, she's an actor of terrific ability and presence. She is very sexy here, as she needs to be, and fair play to her for this: this is a screen quality that normally, for me, she doesn't have in previous films.<br /><br />As you might expect, Rupert Everett, required to play an upper-class late-30 something who could give tutorials at Phd level in How Not To Give a Toss About Heading to Hell On Account of Total Selfishness, delivers. He is so thin here, throughout the movie, however, I'm worried for him. Linda Bassett's housekeeper is also excellent: a smallish role but with a major plot twist to deliver, she makes you ponder how much talent we have in Britain in terms of character acting. I want to see more of her.<br /><br />The narrative arc is fine; it's an interesting enough plot, given that no-one in film-making seems to be trying to convince Joe Public that there's nothing new under the sun, though it does stray towards 40s melodrama in the last 'reel.' But never mind that - this is a terrific 80 minutes worth of anyone who has half-a-brain's money. Congrats to Julian Fellowes on his first directorial effort: o how we need more films of substance like this. He shows a lot of skill in terms of adapting the original novel, telling a story with much effectiveness and subtlety. And congrats too on conjuring an immense display of the film actor's art from Mr Tom Wilkinson. What a geezer.<br /><br />T. | 1 | positive |
If we compare the movie industry with an ocean, we have the tendencies to observe only the surface. Driven by the strong Hollywood marketing force, we all saw war movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. But underneath the splashy waves grow in silence, from time to time, less known pearls. When you pick one and look carefully at it, you wonder why this pearl lie almost unknown and why it's not already on the crown.<br /><br />"Stalingrad" is such a gem. Why, it has a bunch of multi-million dollars rated actors? No. It have thousand of extras? No. It have breathtaking, spectacular, shiny computerized visual effects?. Not at all. So, what's so special? Well, in one word, it's pure past reality recreated and transposed to celluloid fifty years later. The tragedy of the most bloody battle in the history is here. Filthy, wounded soldiers, Russian civilians who lost everything during the invasion, burning villages, collapsing buildings, decayed suburbs, gunfires, explosions, tanks in flames, soldiers shot, burned alive, ground by tanks in their pits or shred to pieces - you got all. But the real horror is elsewhere. People are reduced to simple pawns, without the power to change anything. The soldiers we follow in film try to leave the combat zone and they fail. The civilians stay in prostration in the middle of nowhere, only crying for their children killed. Mercyless, the huge grinding machine of war melt together humans, equipment, villages, cities - and ask for more victims and destruction, over and over.<br /><br />In all this collective insanity a group of German soldiers struggle to survive and to keep at least a minimum level of normality. They do their duty and fight bravely. But, as everyone know, a battle is almost lost when people start to loose confidence and faith. We see how all those people are abandoned, how they plan to desert, how they struggle to catch the very last plane to Berlin (full of wounded), how some very bad injured soldiers were treated as simulants and shot, how they were forced to execute a small group of Russian civilians, including a young boy, how they later discovered a place literally full up to the ceiling of food and drinks - destined only for some "superior" officers, of course. One by one, they drop dead. The end of the movie is one of the most bitter, depressing and touching ending I ever saw, all on the magnificent score of The Munich Philarmonic Orchestra. The war destroyed everything in its path.<br /><br />This movie is a must-see for everyone. A true movie-lover should have it in his/her collection. The strong anti-war message must be a warning for all of us. Unfortunately, the mankind never learn, nor the politicians. Self-destruction is in our DNA and the human pain seem to last forever. Can we be enough reasonable to stop THE WAR? | 1 | positive |
Cute Movie feel good movie I had never heard of this movie but ran across it while looking for something to rent. I had high hopes for this movie based purely on Flex being in this movie. I have never seen him in anything not worth while. True to form this movie delivered for me. I enjoyed the story. The movie is full of great actors and actresses. The hilarious Tasha Smith, Essence Atkins and of course Tangi Miller. I really liked this movie a lot. I didn't give it five stars because it did not discuss certain issues that I thought the movie should have detailed. The issue was apparently resolved but I would have appreciated a discussion resolving the issues. I liked the movie so much that I am now buying the movie after I've already rented and watched it. | 1 | positive |
I have only praise for this film. From start to finish it captured the brilliance of Stephen Sondheim's musical. I am not a big fan of musicals most of them are very overdone. This one however changed my mind. I am an actor myself and have actully played Sweeney and I know how hard this role is. George Hearn gave a stunning, masterful and rounded performance worthy of the highest awards that we can give him (He won an Emmy and that's something.) Everything he does he turns to gold. He is so good it will blow your mind why he's not in films winning oscars. Lansbury is also very good and very funny. Sara Woods is creepy and wonderful as the Beggar Woman. All in all a great video. Pick it up if you can. | 1 | positive |
So lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is "investigating" to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..<br /><br />the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on. | 0 | negative |
A man arrives in a strange, beautiful, sterile city where no-one feels any emotion and obsesses instead about interior design. The essential sameness of his days is reminiscent of 'Groundhog Day'; the strange passages in and out of this world more remind one of 'Being John Malkovich'. But truly, this is a Scandanavian movie, a piece of self-satire that is also Scandanavian in style: the tone is austere, and even the most fantastic scenes are played straight, daring you to laugh at the absurdity. To my mind, the combination isn't wholly successful: there aren't enough genuine laughs to compensate for the difficulties of taking the piece as pure drama. It certainly is original; perhaps my problem is that the world that it satirises is not one that I recognise. Perhaps I should move to Scandanavia! | 1 | positive |
Any fan of Russian cinema will have great difficulty in believing the sub-par performances phoned-in by Mashkov and Bodrov Jr., and will perhaps be utterly perplexed by Bodrov Sr.'s hackneyed and confusing script, which is coupled with uncharacteristically weak direction. Most of the characters wander through the movie as though they have no idea who they are or what they are doing. It is also sad to see that Jennifer Jason Leigh's acting skills have not advanced one iota since FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, and her screen exposure is mercifully limited. This is a terrible mafia movie; so much so that it makes the GODFATHER III look like a winner in the genre. To see the key Russians at their best, check out Bodrov Sr.'s work on PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS (which also features Jr.), Mashkov's turn in VOR (THE THIEF), and Bodrov Jr.'s new criminal in BRAT. | 0 | negative |
This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic. | 1 | positive |
So after the initial disappointment of the first Final Fantasy movie, which seemed to bare next to no resemblance to the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy: Advent Children has released itself to a warm reception and, now, a dedicated fanbase. And the reason for the films success is understandable as it has lush graphics, fast moving fight sequences and some cool as hell characters. However, if you haven't played FF7 then it is likely that you will not enjoy this film as it's storyline carries on from the game without previous explanation and your likely to get lost from the plot even if you have played the game. Secondly, there is no character development, without previous knowledge from the game your opinions on the characters are limited to 'cool' and 'not cool'. Of course, for FF7 fans the film is almost guaranteed to entertain, at least for nostalgic reasons, and it's cool seeing all the characters you grew to love from the game rendered in some pretty amazing computer animation. One last complaint, the film, at least in my opinion, attempted to cram too much into less than two hours and therefore the last half hour or so seems horribly rushed. If you played and enjoyed FF7 than it is a worthwhile watch, though nothing too special. If you have not played FF7 then it is best that you play it first before watching this film. | 0 | negative |
I completely disagree with the previous reviewer: this movie has amusing moments but hardly a laugh riot. (unless you really think sipping from a septic tank and heads exploding in a vice are a laugh riot) In fact, the only reasons I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 are because a.) two of the actors are decent b.)the soundtrack is above average with some tuneful pop songs thrown in for contrast and c.)the monster truck is pretty terrifying.<br /><br />Other than that, this is a movie with some intermittent, creepy or interesting ideas which are overwhelmed by unrelenting crassness, crudity and vileness. The former best friend character is one of the most annoying I've ever seen and the small grace that the hitchhiker character had disappears in yet another contrived twist ending that makes little to no sense at all.<br /><br />A waste of the lead actor who shows some nervous charm and the aforementioned actress portraying the hitchhiking character... | 0 | negative |
Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
Xavier,a French student moves into an apartment in Barcelona with a cast of six other characters from all over Europe. An Italian, a Danish, a German, a British, a Spanish and a Belgium.<br /><br />He wants to get a job in EU with the help of his father's friend. He says there are jobs here a lot, but if you know Spanish and Spanish market. So, he advice him to go Spain. Xavier gets an Eramus grand and fly to Barcelona by living his girlfriend and mother.<br /><br />He first learns that the house he will stay is no longer available and the small rooms in Barcelona are even more expensive than he thinks. He stays in a French couples house while he was looking for a house. He has been interviewed with the 5 people from the house and has been accepted. He had an affair with this French guys lovely wife and totally messed up everything with his problematic girlfriend.<br /><br />Do you want to hear more? Did you travel abroad for education? Watch this movie, I promise that you will have a very nice time. | 1 | positive |
Okay, so this series kind of takes the route of 'here we go again!' Week in, week out David Morse's character helps out his ride who is in a bit of a pickle - but what's wrong with that!? David Morse is one of the greatest character actors out there, and certainly the coolest, and to have him in a series created by David Koepp - a great writer - is heaven!!<br /><br />Due to the lack of love for this show by many, I can't see it going to a season series - but you never know? The amount of rubbish that has made it beyond that baffles me - let's hope something good can make it past a first series!!! | 1 | positive |
We really liked this movie. It wasn't trying to be outrageous, controversial, clever or profound. It was just entertaining and was what it said on the box a charming romantic comedy. Every other Brit film maker seems to want to change the world, nice to see one that just concentrates on telling a good yarn with elegant style. | 1 | positive |
That someone could have conceived this nonsense and then got it produced is incredible. That it actually aired on television and advertisers actually PAID TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT is mind boggling. This stomach-wrenching excuse for kid's programming is almost too vile to comment on. I've burned -- yes burned -- any Barney tapes that people have given my son. To find this awful programming in my library was an unpleasant surprise. And where, tell me where, do they get those smarmy kid actors? Have their parents no sense? Those kids will be on drugs before they're teenagers. Geez. The final insult is that I have to add this extra line to the review to get it on IMDb. | 0 | negative |
1992's "Batman Returns" was Tim Burton's second round as director and yet again he scored a hit by making this film again dark and gloomy like his 1989 one. Gotham City again is a place of darkness and gloom with crime and corruption boiling out from every street corner. It was also clever to see how Burton used politics as a subplot that tied in well and neat with the business corruption of businessman Max Shreck(Christopher Walken)and the plan to make the "Penguin"(Danny DeVito) mayor of Gotham! Anyway Keaton again returns as "Batman"/Bruce Wayne and he gives another stellar performance as a strange and torn man who just can't find love in a normal world yet he is challenged when he meets another lonely soul in Selina Kyle only Ms. Kyle has a dark secret of her own one that's very slinky and she's just a downright vamp as the sexy and mysterious yet dangerous "Catwoman"(Michelle Pfeiffer). A plan forms between both villains to destroy Gotham and most of all both want to rid themselves of the bat. Really this film even though violent and somewhat gross with many penguin scenes is clearly an exciting thrill ride from start to finish as you never find a dull moment and thumbs up to Tim again for his exploring of the characters as dark and conflicted it just made the film even more interesting. The performance from Michelle Pfeiffer was the best ever as no one could have played "The Catwoman" any better and Devito was perfect as the "Penguin" his body frame fit the character just perfect his performance even though ghoulish was fun to watch. "Batman Returns" is an entertaining thrill ride that you can't take your eyes off of as a viewer you will enjoy it many times it's that thrilling and explosive. | 1 | positive |
I gave 9 of 10 points. I was sitting in tears nearly the whole movie, because I had to laugh!<br /><br />The story of course wasn't excellent, but it also wasn't boring. Erkan & Stefan are assigned to become bodyguards for the beautiful Nina. While doing this job they come between the "front-lines" of BND and CIA. Of course the two are neither born bodyguards nor gentlemen, so they run from one disaster into another; and they do this in such a funny way, that when you watch some scenes you won't be able to stop the tears! As actors those two "dumbly grinning" characters do quite well, better than some so called professional.<br /><br />You think, the speech of the two heroes is curios or "pseudo-foreign"? Well, if you hear quite a lot Turkish-German people in Munich speaking exactly like them, you will remember Erkan & Stefan. And maybe, in 10 years it might have become the common speech of the youth. (God forbid!)<br /><br />So, if you like to laugh, watch this movie! | 1 | positive |
Feisty Dianna Jackson (a winningly spunky performance by gorgeous former "Playboy" Playmate Jeanne Bell) goes to Hong Kong to take out the evil heroin ring that murdered her brother. Dianna's assisted by friendly karate master Joe (amiable Chiquito), faces opposition from undercover narcotics agent Elaine (lovely, buxom blonde babe Pat Anderson), and romances cocky, ruthlessly ambitious Charlie (essayed with supremely arrogant aplomb by Stan Shaw) while plotting her revenge against nefarious drug kingpin Sid (an effectively slimy Ken Metcalfe). Director Cirio H. Santiago, working from a blithely trashy script co-written by none other than Dick Miller (!), crams the lively and eventful 72 minute running time with a plethora of gratuitous distaff nudity and loads of badly staged martial arts fight scenes (Bell is clearly doubled by a squat guy wearing a giant Afro wig!). The definite sleazy highlight occurs when a topless Bell singlehandedly beats up a bunch of thugs in her hotel room. Felipe Sacdalan's raw, grainy, scratched-up cinematography, the clumsy use of strenuous slow motion, the funky-groovin' score, the laughably inept fight choreography, and the surprisingly gruesome conclusion add immensely to the overall scuzzy fun of this deliciously cheesy grindhouse exploitation hoot. | 1 | positive |
To qualify my use of "realistic" in the summary, not many old folks I know go around pretending to be famous maestros, blind people, etc. -- nor have I ever been elderly. Those minor issues out of the way, the relationships between the characters in this film and the emotions expressed therein were completely realistic and genuine. In fact, though we're not yet 30, I could see many characteristics of my relationship with my wife in the interactions between the main character and his wife. For those that don't die young (there's a great line in the movie about this, when the two best friends are talking about dying young, and one of them says--and I'm paraphrasing, we missed our chance--we'll just have to stick it out), we'll all be where these characters are some day. I know many movie-goers would prefer to be swept *away* from reality as opposed to being *faced* with it, but even they might enjoy the sweet reminder of our mortality--and the importance of living life to the fullest--that this film is. | 1 | positive |
Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.<br /><br />Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp | 0 | negative |
This film is so copy-cat, cliché-ridden, clumsy, and laboured, I find it astounding that anyone could not feel cheated by the experience of sitting through it. <br /><br />Here is the range of idiotic clichés, ridiculous psychologising, and simply unfeasible storytelling in this "hard hitting" representation of high school: The tough guy jock is really a homosexual. The A-student is unhappy because his father pushes him and somehow this causes him to commit incest. A teacher is mean to a student who wets his pants in class. A girl who is going out with the above-mentioned jock is really in love with him and "just wants a family".<br /><br />Maybe the only saving grace is the student counsellor scenes which are vaguely interesting, but most of the devices in this film are so leaden that it beggars belief. <br /><br />This film shows me no insight into teenagers and I will not be surprised when it bombs, especially with teenagers. The people who like this film seem to be parents worried about their teenagers, and boy are they barking up the wrong tree if they think this film will help with "understanding" teen issues. I mean, what is the moral of this film? "Hey guys, let's all look out for each other and hug each other" GIVE ME A BREAK. Anyone who thinks you can get through to a 14 year old with that kind of message needs to think back. In the 1980s we were watching Kentucky Fried Movie, Xtro, Porky's, Evil Dead, Terminator, etc. This film will fall on deaf ears. <br /><br />2:37 is right up there with another Australian "indepedent" film, 'One Perfect Day,' which was as bad as this utter turkey of a film. Thank god no taxpayers money was spent on this boloney.<br /><br />AVOID!!!! | 0 | negative |
Dorothy Stratten is the only reason to watch this unfunny sci-fi spoof, and her appearance is a disappointment. Though she has the title role, her screentime is limited, and she only speaks a few lines of dialogue. If you're not a Stratten fan, pass this one up. | 0 | negative |
I first saw this movie when I was about 12 years old. It has been one of my favorites since... It's so perfect in all it's glory complete with awesome soundtrack, cheesy dialog, and it was both hilarious and terribly sad. The first movie I really just had a fit about at the end... I won't ruin it for you guys but boy is it a tear jerker... I just remember feeling SO sad for Gary! What a bunch of cool characters in this movie it's genius!!! They are all so great even the nerdy girl Gary doesn't like...(she had a nice little body though). I can't believe all the girls go for Rick he is such a sleaze ball with his handkerchief tied around his neck!!! ha ha ha... When watching this movie be prepared for lots of sex jokes complete with sexually transmitted diseases(almost). But a love story at heart with real problems, dealing from insecurity to life altering decisions that make you think and feel genuine sorrow for the cast. I love this movie !!! If you like Valley Girl another all time classic you will too! | 1 | positive |
Honestly, I didn't really have high expectations for this movie, but at the same time I was hopeful. Having it be directing by Albert Pyun - one of the more well known b-movie auteur's - didn't exactly raise my hopes. I mean how many Albert Pyun flicks rank that highly? Yeah, exactly ... but still the movie advertised a decent cast. Rob Lowe, Burt Reynolds (pre-reborn stardom), Ice-T and Mario Van Peebles.<br /><br />It all amounts to squat however as the movie is so boring and moves so slowly that the energy just seemed to drain right out of me the longer it went on. It runs over 90 minutes, but it's telling a story that could have been told in 30 minutes flat. I don't know what Pyun was going for here. I mean the movie drips artsy-like style, but it's a blur at times and maybe I'm an idiot for expecting more from Pyun this time around. Here he seemed to actually have a budget and a potentially great cast for the material, but it's all wasted. Crazy Six isn't much of an action film, it's not much of anything really.<br /><br />I guess what's the saddest here is the fact that I found the end credits the most entertaining part of the movie. The music score is actually half-decent with some smooth female vocals too, but the rest is a complete waste and the less said the better. Avoid. | 0 | negative |
I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead! | 1 | positive |
Crackerjack is another classic Aussie film. As so many Australian films like The Castle, The Dish and Sunday Too Far Away, it goes somewhere that hasn't been widely explored in film before, this time it is the game of Lawn Bowls and bowling clubs. Crackerjack is a much slower paced sports movie than many you will find such as Remember the Titans or Million Dollar Babybut the characters involved are athletes in their own right. This movie is a show case of a large area of Australian culture and features a sport that is popular and on the rise of popularity in Australia. Mick Molloy presents a classic, unforgettable character. It really is a must see. | 1 | positive |
Had it with the one who raised you since when you were young? You just want her gone from your life? That woman is your mother. You should respect her, you should honor her, whether she's in sick or well. But that in times, it can be aggravating. Especially when she becomes very overbearing. That's how Owen(Danny DeVito) had to deal with in "Throw Momma Fron The Train". His Momma(Anne Ramsey, 1929-88), is one of the worst. He trying his best to be a writer, and she is everything but grateful. Calls him a "clumsy poop", a "larda$$", and "fat" and "stupid". For his friend, Larry Donner(Billy Crystal) he has his own woman problems, his ex-wife. She trying to discredit him. So what did Owen do? Push her overboard. What does he do? Help return the favor, get rid of Mrs. Lift! In the kitchen scene, I liked it where Owen called Larry, "Cousin Patty". And Momma said, "You don't have a Cousin Patty!" and Owen shouts "You Lied To Me!" and El Cabongs Larry with the frying pan. Then comes the fun part when they where on the train and try to kill Momma Lift. That is thwarted, and she kicks Larry off the train. Well, everything back to normal, the ex-wife lives, but Momma kicked the bucket on her own. Maybe she should have seen the errors of her domineering ways. A fun movie it is, and the cast is great. A classic! 5 stars! | 1 | positive |
I saw 2:37 at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and was blown away by it! A scene of panic opens this film, at 2:37 pm set in an Adelaide high school. This scene is left unresolved as we revert to the beginning of the day, and are introduced to the teenagers getting ready to go to school. The audience becomes intimate with each of the main characters, and explores the day-to-day issues facing teenagers - including drugs, promiscuity, being gay, bullying and violence. Each scene is played again and again from different teens' perspectives, and is reminiscent of Gus Van Sant's Elephant. This is a remarkable film by first-time director Murali K. Thalluri. It was made with non-professional student actors, and work-shopped through an unprecedented 76 drafts of a script. It features stunning performances by a number of the student actors, particularly Teresa Palmer in the role of Melody. This coming-of-age film is both intimate and thought-provoking with a surprising and disturbing ending. | 1 | positive |
Although promoted as one of the most sincere Turkish films with an amateur cast, Ice-cream, I Scream is more like a caricature of sincerity.<br /><br />The plot opens with the dream of Ali, a traveling ice-cream salesman in a Western Anatolia town, in which he sees himself becoming successful using the same marketing methods of big ice-cream companies. He dreams of playing in his product's TV commercial with beautiful models in bikinis, dancing around him. As his dream turns into a nightmare, he wakes up with a big erection next to his gargantuan wife, who rejects to make sex with him for 6 years with no apparent reason. Is it because he is not successful in his job? Apparently, because he says he was selling better in the old days when there was no pressure from global ice-cream companies. But this is what he says; we actually don't see him suffer that much: he still sells good, traveling the neighboring villages while his apprentice stays at the shop, selling ice-cream to the people in the town. Ali blames big companies for using sweetening and coloring agents while he is using real "sahlep" (powdered roots of mountain orchids). Ali buys a motorbike with a bank loan to be a traveling vendor, and gives ads to a local TV channel which prefers to broadcast even the news bulletin in local dialect. His wife is not fond of his ways of doing business, they always quarrel, and Ali threatens her that he may do very bad things in a moment of frenzy.<br /><br />In a very successful day, his lousy bike is stolen by the misbehaving little boys of the town. In search of his stolen bike, Ali goes to the police, blames the big companies for the theft, but, of course, nobody takes him seriously. Annoyed by the nagging of his wife, Ali goes to a tavern and becomes drunk. One of his friends at his table, a wannabe socialist of the town, gives a didactic speech and criticizes globalism, and with no real connection, jumps to the subject of global freezing. Ali returns home and decides to kill himself with poison. His wife wakes up and prevents him. An old neighbor takes him to a night walk and advises him about life. According to him, Ali can even sell hot sahlep drink if the world faces with global freezing. When he returns home, suddenly we see that his wife understood his value, treating him like a hero and praising his manhood. Meanwhile, the thief boys got sick eating too much ice-cream. They confess to the doctor that they stole Ali's bike. Ali forgives them and there comes the happy end.<br /><br />Although the plot may look promising in a way, it's the story-telling which makes this film insincere and cheesy. First, the director doesn't show much of an effort to tell the story visually; everything is based on dialogs. And the dialogs never stop to show us that cinema is actually a visual art. Even Ali's troubles are not convincing because we don't see it, we just understand it from his words. The director markets his film as a righteous fight of Ali against big ice-cream companies, but there is nothing in the film about big companies. We don't see their pressure enough. The film actually ridicules Ali for believing that big companies are behind the theft. And when his motorbike is found, it solves every problem: Ali becomes a happy and powerful husband. Not a real criticism of globalism.<br /><br />Second, the film is cheesy because of the crude humor. Maybe the people of that part of Turkey is cursing so much and making so many vulgar jokes in their daily life, but vulgar language and crude humor are not enough to make a film funny. I may have accepted it if they were both vulgar and "clever" but they are not clever jokes at all, they are just cheesy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe American people may like oriental version of American Pie style humor. But American Pie never had any claim to be a nominee for the Oscars, or to have a political message! If you think that you can laugh by just seeing a man's big erection in his shorts (and we had to endure this joke twice!) or an old villager woman saying "f**k you," then you may find this film funny. | 0 | negative |
I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie. | 1 | positive |
It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.<br /><br />Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a "professional" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.<br /><br />I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The "acting" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.<br /><br />It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one. | 0 | negative |
Contains spoilers. <br /><br />The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum. <br /><br />Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.<br /><br />The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10 | 0 | negative |
Early in the movie, Cagney's Johnny Cave character tells his gumshoes in the Office of Weights and Measures that in the previous year, unscrupulous shop owners had cheated the American consumer out of more money than the aggregate National War Debt! Then he goes out and tickets a particularly greasy green grocer for short-selling him a bag of sugar that is four ounces off (oh, the horrors!!) and one skinny chicken that his butcher's scale has rather generously proclaimed to be six lbs., after which the fur--or in this case feathers--flies. Er, fly. When a racketeer in politician's clothing attempts to derail an investigation into the paltry poultry purveyor's practices, our hero becomes a lone wolf waging the war of the weights on behalf of housewives across America. After all, four cents here and a quarter there add up and before we know it we have anarchy! Word of his intransigence soon reaches both the Mayor and the Governor's offices, and Cagney becomes a marked man. If it sounds silly, it's not--the dishonest retailing practices are only a plot tool (or as Hitchcock would say, the McGuffin) and while unfamiliar, it works every bit as well here as any Treasury Agent or G-man anthology in which the fight is taken to shady crooks who are operating outside the interests of the country's common good. The production standards are decidedly Grade-B, but it is Cagney who makes this movie the delight that it is: this was his first film away from Warner Brothers after seeking release in court from his unreasonable contract, and he seems to be at ease and enjoying himself tremendously--the performance turned in here is intelligent and crackles with his unique energy and surefire charisma. Mae Clarke's presence lends a definite Warner's feel to the overall production. The supporting players turn in solid performances and the story moves along smartly after a rocky introduction that seems to begin three or four reels into the story--but sit back and enjoy it for the Cagney showcase and engaging Depression-era time capsule that it is. | 1 | positive |
I love Brian Yuzna's other work, even cruder stuff like 'Necronomicon', but 'Progeny' was too much even for me. My chief complaint is that it's needlessly exploitative of Jillian McWhirter's nudity, I'm no prude but these nude scenes just drag on and on and on... only to culminate (virtually every time) in a tawdry *wink, nudge* insinuation of sexual violence. The scene where she attempts a coat hanger abortion after several minutes of naked screaming is a prime example. Arnold Vosloo's 'performance' is utterly turgid, but even Jeffrey Coombs couldn't save this festering heap of a film. The aliens are boring, the uniformly dull lighting saps your interest, and the plot is absolutely predictable. The only highlights for me were an all-too-brief glimpse of the aliens' true form (very nice model) and the scene where Vosloo finds his wife in the closet was OK too. But you've been warned. | 0 | negative |
When one watches the animated Superman shorts of the 1940s, the similarity of the plots can become a bit boring - the adversary is most often a mad scientist in a hidden headquarter, threatening Metropolis with some evil invention - death rays, mechanical monsters, electric earthquake, magnetic telescope, what have you.<br /><br />This one is refreshingly different. The bad ones drive around in a car, shooting and bombing, but the center of action is the gold train (on which Lois Lane travels, as the only press reporter, it seems). Train movies have their own typical ingredients, from the 1903 Great Train Robbery on, and quite some are featured here: decoupling cars in motion, running on the roofs, taking the steam locomotive from the tender in the back, fighting with the engineer, a switch turned to deroute the train on a side track, the fall (of people or the whole train) from a high bridge... it's all in the few minutes of this lovely piece.<br /><br />But it wouldn't be a Superman film if he didn't do some incredible feats (involving balancing and high-precision placement) to ultimately win the day. If you're a fan of train movies, don't miss this. It's in the public domain and can be legally downloaded from archive.org. | 1 | positive |
This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. "The Cat in the Hat" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.<br /><br />You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money? | 0 | negative |
I believe I share the same psychological outlook on the world with Kieslowski. He is Polish, I am Dutch, yet we share a synthetic mind: the world is not void of the metaphysical amidst total coincidence. Hardly ruled by man or perhaps by a poet-prime minister, so that as a social and cultural 'low pressure area', Poland could play the role it did in WWII, being critical yet Christian towards the Jews but often not less critical toward oneself. There are innocence and guilt in Kieslowski's world view, as the symbols in Catholicism: the White versus the Black Madonna. In Rouge, the Black Madonna is she who the judge fell in love with when he was a young man. Flashbacks are magically-realistically intertwined with the present, although totally coincidental, such as the camera simply swinging to the other side of the street or the then young judge's red jeep passing by the now young woman's car after she accidentally hit his dog with it. That we leaped through time in those same camera moves, is what we grasp later. His love was unanswered, so that his life wasn't as he had planned it. He lost his ability to love other people and animals. Being a judge, he feels he is actually spying on other peoples' lives and when he retires, he simply continues to do so, spying on his neighbors this time. The innocence and sense of righteousness of the younger woman (literally) accidentally getting into his life, reinstalls his better judgment and it is because of her that he spontaneously confesses his spying behavior to his neighbors and the police, accepting and even holding on to the stones consequentially thrown through his windows. In the process, history repeats itself between this man and the woman he loves, although this time he is old and the woman not the same. Kieslowski may have wrestled with this bit for the old judge is his alter ego, and it is said he was infatuated by Irène Jacob. Both women play the same essential role in his psychology, of the one (!) who possesses his heart and soul and therefore can make him or break him, even as an old man! It is as if the 'powers in the air' are, or God is, bringing them together. Coincidences are *too* coincidental to just be chance or even good luck. There has to be some mystical, supernatural or theological source influencing these unfathomably deep life-decisions. The study book fell and opened at the page of the exam question is another example of this. Or the moment the old judge spoke his heart to the young woman, the wind outside the opera house suddenly slams the open doors and breaks the windows. The gigantic picture of the young woman happens to predict the one on TV, after the drowning accident on her Canal crossing trip. These moments are effectively accentuated through the human voice of liturgy or what sounds like it (Van den Budenmayer). | 1 | positive |
The only reason i didn't delete this movie after 20 min is because we already wasted 20 minutes on it...<br /><br />the only and i repeat the ONLY effect that they used is a weird kapoera (from India?) jump on a half meter wall/trash cans, i mean, effects doesn't make a movie but... sheesh.... me and my friend hoped the entire movie for some real effect (a huge wolf?! something!?>!?!) but noooooooooooooooo... all we got is a jump! on a 0.5 meter wall + they used pharmacy's ..... and they found guns?! in the pharmacy?! i mean what the hell? oh i forgot, there was another effect- contact lances as green eyes! every 10 min we shouted "the only thing that can save the movie from the disgrace is a giant wolf who kills them all!!! besides that the script was so awful that you don't know who you would like to die first. you actually pray (and i mean PRAY!) that the "good?!" guy will die, hopefully in the beginning.<br /><br />make yourself a favour and send letters to delete the movie from every archives in the world. | 0 | negative |
28 years before 9/11, there was another 9/11 which represented a key date in the history of Chile, South America and the whole world. This was the date in 1973 when a bloody coup in Chile deposed Salvador Allende the first Marxist president elected democratically anywhere in the world and put an end to the Chilean experiment of a democratic transition from capitalism to socialism. Allende committed suicide when the armed forces attacked the presidential palace.<br /><br />Unfortunately this film is too biased and too nostalgic towards the time of Allende's rule to be an objective rendition of the man and of his place in history. The times were troubled and Allende was a disputed figure in the history of his country and of the whole world. True, he was democratically elected, but his policies plunged Chile into economic crisis. He was deposed by a coup and a right-wing dictatorship followed with repression and flagrant human rights abuses, but he was also an ally of Castro who saw in his policies another way of making revolution. We'll never know if his tentative to build a socialist yet democratic society would have succeeded. The authors of the movie take a completely pro-Allende position, there is no opinion or point of view trying to explain the other side, to answer questions like why did the middle class oppose him, or how his democratic views could go together with supporting or being supported by Castro. The tone of the commentaries is nostalgic and apologetic, almost propagandistic. People who want to get a better understanding of this episode of the history need to wait for a more balanced and objective film or book in the future. | 0 | negative |
This is absolute drivel, designed to shock and titillate the 60's mindset. The acting is completely wooden, consisting mainly of ad-libbing, which results in the sub standard actors dribbling the first thing they can think of, repetitively. <br /><br />The end result is of a badly written play being read by people who have no idea and couldn't care. The one exception to this is the lead character "Joe" (played by Joe Dallesandro) who spends a lot of the film in a naked stupor (either stoned, or the only one in the piece who can act!) Please don't think I don't "get" Warhol - this is plainly and simply a Stinker that should never have made it out of a film class. | 0 | negative |
I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece. | 1 | positive |
My friends and I saw the movie last night in Austin at a showing for AGLIFF (a film festival). This movie was one of the best I've seen this year. It was a great comedy - very original and heartfelt - and FUNNY AS HELL! Everyone in the audience was laughing throughout the entire movie. Texas is a big state - with LOTS of small towns - and of course, plenty of teenagers who grew up as "fat girls." I know a lot of people will relate to this film on a personal level. Ashley Fink and Robin de Jesus were awesome - they were so great in these rolls, it was like the script was written with them in mind. And speaking of the script, it was very well written (very believable), and Ash is a great actor (his facial expressions alone made me giggle). It IS an independent film - but don't let that fool you...It's a good one! Seeing this caliber of work from someone so young is truly inspiring. | 1 | positive |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />One time heroin addict Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) gets out of prison to his bumbling jailbird partner Sparrow (Arnold Stang), needy cripple of a wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker) and bit on the side Molly (Kim Novak.) He's trying to make it big as a drummer in a band, but until his big break comes along he's stuck doing the only other thing he was any good at other than being a junkie- dealing cards in high stakes games. And try as he might, even prison hasn't cured him of his addiction to the devil's drug- causing him to lie to and deceive all those around him and driving him to desperate measures to feed his habit. His yearning to come off it is his only motivation towards a happy ending.<br /><br />When people think of Frank Sinatra they generally think of classic high pitched songs like Under My Skin, New York New York and It Had to Be You. But lest anyone forget he was actually a renowned actor too and, if his performance in the acclaimed From Here to Eternity wasn't enough, he will also be remembered for this cutting edge drama, dealing with what was at the time the ultra taboo subject of drug abuse.<br /><br />The film is often listed as one of the first to feature graphic heroin use (probably the reason behind the 15 certificate) in a time when it was a subject that was still very much pushed underground. In his portrayal of the main protagonist, Sinatra is fine, perfectly conveying the despair, desperation and sincerity of a man losing every second chance that is being given to him. His cold turkey scene is much more intense than Ewan McGregor's in Trainspotting. The first co-star to make an impression is Parker as Machine's demanding, needy cripple of a wife, using her husband's guilt and sense of duty to all the effect she can. Novak as his secret lover still manages some strong moments but is less of a star than Parker. Stang does his usual comic relief thing, as the bumbling sidekick who trails the leading man around with his waspy New York accent.<br /><br />Director Otto Preminger does allow the pace to drag a bit sometimes but this is still a powerfully absorbing film all the way, with plenty of unexpected twists and turns and which should be admired for being one of the first films to bring such a grim subject so powerfully to life. **** | 1 | positive |
I've seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations in my day, but this one tops them all! The bizarrely unattractive cast detracts from the story, which is, in itself, untrue to the book. Mr. Tilney is nothing like handsome; as for Catherine Morland, a rat-like appearance makes this heroine a difficult one to sell to a sympathetic audience. Isabella is nothing like the Aphrodite one reads about in the original text, and James Morland appears in the film far too little to leave the viewer with any understanding of his important role in the story. Also, as others have pointed out before, this novel was intended to satirize the Gothic craze prevalent in Austen's time, but it appears that this "soft horror" film was designed and meant to be taken seriously. I'm sure Jane Austen turns over in her grave each time one of her fans is disappointed by this awful interpretation of what was supposed to be a joke. | 0 | negative |
Another bad spanish picture. This is very baaaad. I only save the photography and the music of José Nieto. The rest of the film is the worst I've seen in years. Paz Vega is horrible. Don't see it. | 0 | negative |
This movie started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.<br /><br />Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.<br /><br />One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.<br /><br />Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.<br /><br />I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.<br /><br />The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.<br /><br />When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. | 0 | negative |
I really enjoy this movie. The first time it was on Turner Classic Movies. All the actors did very well but Brynner steals the show again like always ( he is so sexy!).This is one of the movie that you do see Brynner's emotions. Actually this movie this is the first I ever seen him laugh because he plays very strong, larger-than-life and serious roles in other movies. In this movie you see both a masculine, tough and sensitive side of Brynner .Brynner seems to be a "ladies'man" in this movie.That is amazing how Brynner eats the glass cup and speaks in his Russian tongue it drives me crazy in love. I don't understand when both Brynner and Kerr ( they both have very good chemistry) stars in a movie together and then Brynner always die at the end it kind of reminds you "The King and I" in a way. | 1 | positive |
This is probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are "B" films - but are there "H" films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan. | 0 | negative |
Wonderful songs, sprightly animation and authentic live action make this a classic adaptation of a classic tale. A nice British feel which sets it apart and above from the standard, saccharine sweet Disney cartoons. | 1 | positive |
I disagree with the imdb.com synopsis that this is about a bisexual guy preparing to get married. It's more about all the crap we go through - self-induced and because of our parents - that we have to "get over" when we grow up. Like the Linda McCarriston poem says, "Childhood is the barrel they throw you over the falls in." This movie is much more like a narrative poem. It's about life and the mistakes we make and hurt we inflict and experience over the years, and how in the end, it's all about love (I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive or schmoopy) and finding and being with one special person. | 1 | positive |
If you're looking for a typical war movie, this is not it, so a note to all the testosterone-pumped carnage-craving war buffs out there, don't bother. Although the film is about Russian characters in WWII, don't expect to see any Nazis, cannons, blood, gore, etc. It's not a film about people who cause a war or who fight a war. It's a film about ordinary people who war happens to and the choices they make in dealing with it.<br /><br />Acting, cinematography, writing: all perfect 10s here. You'll certainly appreciate it if you're Russian like me, but even if not, you'll probably love it. If you speak no Russian, look for the RUSCICO (Russian Cinema Council) DVD version. It's got subtitles in about 14 different languages, but the English dubbing on this one I'd say is just as good. It's of course not as good as the original Russian track (some stuff is lost in translation), but just as good as the English subtitles. So go check it out, especially if you're studying film in any aspect. | 1 | positive |
Five medical students (Kevin Bacon, David Labraccio; William Baldwin, Dr. Joe Hurley; Oliver Platt, Randy Steckle; Julia Roberts, Dr. Rachel Mannus; Kiefer Sutherland, Nelson) experiment with clandestine near death & afterlife experiences, (re)searching for medical & personal enlightenment. One by one, each medical student's heart is stopped, then revived.<br /><br />Under temporary death spells each experiences bizarre visions, including forgotten childhood memories. Their flashbacks are like children's nightmares. The revived students are disturbed by remembering regretful acts they had committed or had done against them. As they experience afterlife, they bring real life experiences back into the present. As they continue to experiment, their remembrances dramatically intensify; so much so, some are physically overcome. Thus, they probe & transcend deeper into the death-afterlife experiences attempting to find a cure.<br /><br />Even though the DVD was released in 2007, this motion picture was released in 1990. Therefore, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, Julia Roberts & Kiefer Sutherland were in the early stages of their adult acting careers. Besides the plot being extremely intriguing, the suspense building to a dramatic climax & the script being tight & convincing, all of the young actors make "Flatliners," what is now an all-star cult semi-sci-fi suspense. Who knew 17 years ago that the film careers of this young group of actors would skyrocket? I suspect that director Joel Schumacher did. | 1 | positive |
L'Appartement is, I think, a very purposeful Hitchcockian film. The plot was rife with symbolism (ie the white and red roses) and plot twists which wrapped themselves up neatly. The look was very Parisian and pulled you closer to the story. I saw it in London and very much regret that it is not out on video in the states | 1 | positive |
I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and really didn't begin to love the show until Season 4 started. This episode "Hush" was view by me alone in the dark just after Midnight with my windows open and the wind blowing through furiously by an after storm. The writers of this episode did an excellent job scaring the heck out of me. I was in awe the entire episode which I just finished 2 minutes ago. Amazing doesn't touch the surface of what this episode accomplishes with almost no dialogue. If you've never given this show much thought at least watch this episode. If this doesn't impress you then no episode probably will.<br /><br />BTW My Heart is still racing... | 1 | positive |
I don't know what some people were thinking when they said this movie was bad. It Was Great. Classic Bruce Campbell, yes it was low budget and the special effect showed this but that is not what you see a Bruce movie for you watch it for Bruce. Also Ted Rami was excellent. I found this movie hilarious and entertaining I still crack up when I recall Bruce on that pink moped. Now I will admit this movie is not for everyone if you don't like B movies you probably won't like this one if you crave big budget effects and actors steer clear. But if you like slap stick and off the wall sci-fi plots this movie is for you.<br /><br />Hail The King Baby! | 1 | positive |
Lately, I've been watching a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the present. There are some great low budget spaghetti westerns from the late 1960s and early 1970s. This movie had all the elements of a decent western: a good story with talented actors and everything else. Although, it's a spoof of this genre, and for me the way it was done just didn't work and made for a disappointing movie.<br /><br />This movie can easily be divided into two parts.<br /><br />The first part is great; it has a great opening scene and an interesting story develops of a bounty hunter (a.k.a. the stranger) going after a bandit who is going after a large bank shipment guarded, in part, by a banker. Over the course of the movie these three characters form shifting alliances in an attempt to get the money. There are subtle comic nods to the contrivances of earlier films from this genre, but the comedy doesn't disrupt the overall story.<br /><br />The second half of the film is where the comedy goes over-the-top and essentially ruins the movie. The turning point is right at the part where the barmaid causally scolds the dwarf to stop shooting the customers as she goes about waiting on other patrons seemingly oblivious to the four dead bodies laying about the place. From this point onward the movie shifts from a decent spaghetti western with comic undertones to a stupid-silly spoof.<br /><br />There are three horrible fist-fight scenes (one at the river, one in the market and one at the baths) that follow in rapid succession as if one wasn't bad enough. The fighting is so fake it's ridiculous, and since the sound is out-of-sync with the picture it makes it even worse. In the market fight scene the banker bounces about the place on hidden trampolines and twirls around on poles like he is in the circus; it's clownish. Although, the worst part of these fight scenes is the music; it's this light-hearted, sprightly mix more suited for a square dance or a cheesy episode of 'Hee-Haw'. These scenes practically derail the main story.<br /><br />Overall, this movie was disappointing because it had a lot of potential as a decent western, but the comic turns just mucked it up. If you want to see a good western spoof then see 'Blazing Saddles'. If you want to see a good spaghetti western, then avoid this movie. | 0 | negative |
A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on "Dante's Inferno," there is nothing especially clever. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.<br /><br />I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.<br /><br />The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of "Schoolhouse Rock" on the subject of lobbying and the "revolving door." It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun. | 0 | negative |
What happened to Ava Gardner in the 1940s and Marilyn Monroe in the '50s also seemed to take place for modern-day actress Michelle Pfeiffer in the '80s: Her remarkable good looks got in the way of her being taken seriously as an accomplished, superbly talented actress. Anyone looking for validation of Pfeiffer's dramatic abilities need look no further than her work in 1991's "Frankie and Johnny" or '92's "Love Field" (a personal favorite of mine); those looking to see what a splendid comedic actress she can be, when given the right part, should check out 1988's "Married to the Mob." In this one, she plays Angela Demarco, the widow of a recently "iced" Mob hit-man, who moves from her garishly tacky Long Island home to start a new life for herself and her son, while being pursued by Mob boss Dean Stockwell and FBI man Matthew Modine. While this movie has lots going for it (a very amusing script; offbeat characters; sudden sharp turns to unexpected violence, as in director Jonathan Demme's previous effort "Something Wild"; and hilarious yet menacing performances by Stockwell and Mercedes Ruehl, as his jealous wife from hell), Michelle steals the show easily. Notice how perfectly she nails Angela's undereducated, Long Island Italian accent, and the many fine mannerisms that she brings to the role to really flesh out this spunky and surprisingly bright character. Once upon a time, long ago, Oscars were handed out to actresses for comedic roles such as this one. Had this film been made 60 years ago, Michelle mighta been a contenduh... | 1 | positive |
Subsets and Splits