text
stringlengths 32
13k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Maybe it's unfair to dislike a movie for what it isn't, rather than what it is, but I approached this hoping that finally a filmmaker would make a movie about small-town rural gay men and women. Instead, the focus is primarily on the outrageous bigotry (big news!) of the locals (and those in outlying areas) and the really gruesome torture/murder of a young gay man.<br /><br />So much time devoted to stupid people squawking about AIDS, sin, hellfire, and perverts. So much time devoted to the ghoulish preacher ranting about the Bible and gay people getting what they deserve.<br /><br />I wanted to see more of the people that came to the "small town gay bar", not those who opposed it. In addition, the young man who was murdered isn't even from this town.<br /><br />The whole movie works as a warning rather than a celebration, and it's very suspect. | 0 | negative |
The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration. | 0 | negative |
This movie probably isn't the funniest I've ever seen, and it CERTAINLY doesn't have much redeeming value. In fact, it is really nothing more than a collection of vignettes tied together by a loose plot. However, this "make-it-up-as-I-go-along" attitude actually works to the film's advantage. "Tommy Boy" succeeds as a comedy for the same reasons that the SNL skits Farley and Spade starred in succeeded: their well-timed extemporaneous silliness and mayhem makes them humorous despite their immaturity. | 1 | positive |
Almost 20 years before Frank Marshall brought tears to your eyes with his mesmerizing epic "Alive", there already was the legendary Mexican exploitation director René Cardona who used the same drama as an outline for his ambitious film "Supervivientes de los Andes". The unforgettable fatal flight of Fairchild 571 that crashed in the Argentinian Andes on October 13, 1972. This terrible accident cost the lives of many passengers, most of them members of a professional rugby team. But 16 people of them were eventually rescued thanks to their strong will to survive and because they fed on the mortal remains of their unfortunate fellow-passengers. Of course you can't claim that this cheaply made and roughly edited film is better than the famous 90's version but I definitely appreciate and respect this film more. After all, an exploitation film demands a lot more input from both cast and crew while the big-budgeted Marshall film, although intense, feels more like routine money-making. The sets and special effects naturally can't compete with "Alive", but "Supervivientes..." delivers an equally impressive sentiment of hopelessness and creates an even more nightmarish hell of snow. Cardona's film is ambitious, surprisingly compelling and easily one of the most remarkable Mexican productions ever. I am really astonished that Cardona's take on this story isn't more exploitative and explicit. The scenes where the deceased passengers are cut open and consumed are nevertheless hard to digest, but they only serve to increase the credibility of the catastrophe and to stress the inhuman conditions of the survivors. Rather praiseworthy for a vicious director who gained fame with his notoriously bad films like "Night of the Bloody Apes" and the Santo-series. The unknown young Mexican actors do a great job and the musical score is endearing. The story is well-known, of course, so the screenplay doesn't offer any unexpected shocks. Either by history or previously having seen "Alive", you know which kind of dramas these people still have to endure before being rescued and you can only await them. Still, this is a good film that shouldn't be bashed like too often is the case. | 1 | positive |
The premise of this movie, of a comedian talk show host running for president as an independent just to shake things up, is funny, entertaining, brilliant and even a bit inspiring. (thought about the west wing debate when Tom Dobbs leaves his podium, thought about Steven Colbert announcing his candidacy, good times) The first 15 - 20 minutes of this movie are therefore very very entertaining, the debate especially. When he eventually get's elected, it's a pity that is because of a computer glitch, you'd want him to win fair (although that is unrealistic).<br /><br />But after that this movie goes completely downhill. I thought we'd get a great movie like 'Dave' (1993) in which we see how it would out if a comedian actually ran the country. Instead, the movie turns from comedy into a thriller, a romantic comedy and a drama and does none good. The computer glitch becomes the main storyline, which really sucks. Boy is this disappointing. I give it 3 stars just for the premise and because I actually managed to watch this movie from start to end without stopping it, which is usually a good thing with me. | 0 | negative |
Back in the cold and creepy early 90's,a show called "Family Matters" aired and became an instant classic.The trick was to buy a manual in standard family situations and their solutions and insert some attempts to sarcastic remarks in it and you had yourself a lovely little stealing-is-wrong,parents-are-right-show. So that worked out fine, so Bickley-Warren had a new ambitious plan: making the exact same show again.<br /><br />Here's the difference though: "Family Matters" had Urkel. "Step By Step" has the guy from those "Kickboxer"-sequels nobody saw. He says things like "dudette" and "the Dane-meister", and somehow the audience is still not supposed to hate him. I mean seriously, "dudette"? How can you even get that across your lips?<br /><br />The rest of the people were mostly white versions of the whole Winslow-bunch, combined with some more one-or-zero-dimensional characters, like the dumb guy (JT. Well, Eddie), the smart girl (Laura), and a pretty girl who spends her days looking pretty(in theory).The character development was just awful in this show. Grover and The Cookie Monster have more depth than the Lambert family. Everybody just milked their stereotypes for what they were worth. They weren't worth much.<br /><br />Powered by a massive laugh-and-cheer tape stolen from something funny,this show aired for a whopping 7 years,which was humiliating for the competition.Although,you'll have to note that this is the time where family sitcoms were pretty much all big hits,everybody just ignored their crappyness because well,it was the 90s,one more crappy show didn't hurt. | 0 | negative |
Dreadful! A friend of mine (who obviously thought I had an abysmal sense of humour) recommended this.<br /><br />It's bobbins. I almost switched it off. It is only my anal desire to not leave things unfinished that prevented me doing so.<br /><br />This was evidently a British attempt to make a movie with a bunch of also ran TV actors using some lame script from their mate in the business. I struggle to think of anything even approaching the paucity of this movie. Less funny than global warming.<br /><br />I'm not normally so vehement, but I watched this well over ten years ago and thought that I wasted an hour or so of my life on it is destructive.<br /><br />Puerile, plot less, useless tosh.<br /><br />I'd rather eat my feet than watch it again. | 0 | negative |
Flipper is a nice heartwarming movie for whole family. It's obviously not a great movie, Free Willy looks much better almost in every component of film making. Possibly, at times it becomes a bit naive , and the writing and the script are not the best part of the movie, but it's a entertaining film with very good cinematography (including underwater shots) and some important moral messages. Elijah Wood proves himself one more time as an incredibly talented and underrated actor. He can make bad movie watchable, okay movie - good, good - great and great movie becomes all time classic. Paul Hogan performance also was very good and he is completely fit to his role. As I already say above, whole cinematography was very good. But underwater shots definitely is the best parts. So Flipper is a perfect way if you want to see nice, sweet and entertaining movie. If you like me become sick and tired of modern Hollywood trash, filled with sex, violence, vulgarity and profanity you most likely would like this movie. <br /><br />My rating: 7,7 out of 10. Feel free for mailing me about any of my comments and posts here. <br /><br />Sorry for my bad English. | 1 | positive |
There was once someone in my family (not saying who it is because of personal reasons) who thinks that Mr Bean is always so silly in whatever he does on the comedy series. Imagine how I felt at that time. Shocked instantly.<br /><br />There are more reasons than one why I love watching Mr Bean. Being one of those earliest shows on the local television here in my country where I first grew up watching, it's just one of those things which had stuck into my head. There was even once my friends and I talked about few of the selected episodes and we just laughed together.<br /><br />It's always silly, funny and hilarious in whatever antics Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean will do in each episode. Though lately at times it may show some of the repeats here, it never failed to bring back those childhood memories of mine. In fact, I can dare say this is the very first show which introduces me about the kind of shows which come out of the UK as I was growing up.<br /><br />The comedy series...definitely really wicked, as what the Brits may be saying. | 1 | positive |
Not me.. If it came down to it, I could kick a dog's ass, and that's why this movie doesn't work for me. If it was me against the Alien, or Jason.. Or.. Hell, I dunno.. ANY OTHER HORROR MOVIE ANTAGONIST, then there'd be no contest and I'd have my ass handed to me barring divine intervention. A horror movie works because it puts people in a situation with a creature, person, being, entity, whatever, that is more powerful or resourceful or intelligent than they are, and then people think 'well what if that happened to me', and they get scared - and that's why this is a horrible idea for a story. I can't imagine myself being terrorized by a dog, so I'm not scared. | 0 | negative |
It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married. | 0 | negative |
I saw this movie when it aired on the WB and fell in love with Riley Smith immediately. I would recommend the movie to people of all ages who just feel like being entertained and not much more. I wish they'd air it again or cast Riley Smith in another movie! | 1 | positive |
My wife and I saw this in the theater when it first came out.<br /><br />There were only 3 couples there and we all walked out about the same time.<br /><br />This is the only movie I have ever walked out on.<br /><br />It was just painful to sit through.<br /><br />The theater actually stopped us on the way out and asked if we wanted a refund.<br /><br />Never had that happen before or since Pleae do not rent this You will really regret it I am really sureprised by the vote summary Perhaps personal tast has something to do with it | 0 | negative |
I saw this film knowing absolutely nothing about both it and its stars, Chris Farley and David Spade, and I have to say that this film is a comic classic. It is so stupid at times that it can only be hilarious. Farley is brilliant as the bumbling idiot who takes to the road with his dad's right hand man (the equally excellent Spade) to find the funding to save the families 'auto parts' business. Relax, put your brain on auto-pilot and soak up the fun. A great supporting cast features film favourites such as Brian Dennehy (Cocoon), Rob Lowe (Wayne's World) and Bo Derek ("10"). Highly recommended for a good laugh. | 1 | positive |
Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.<br /><br />Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.<br /><br />The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.<br /><br />It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.<br /><br />I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done. | 0 | negative |
I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers. | 0 | negative |
I have seen this movie three times. Going back to VCR's, in the 1980's, and again on The Encor channel last night (Feb.11, 2010). Based on a true story which I remember being in the news, during the early 1980's, I've decided that I find it too disturbing to watch ever again. Yet it's hard to look away from a car accident. The creepiest character is Joshua John Miller, who plays Keeanu Reeves little brother. <br /><br />(The story this movie was based on can be found anywhere on the Internet -- just Google it. It's about Anthony Jacques Broussard who murdered Marcy Conrad in Milpitas, California, in 1981.) The characters portray Generation X pre-grunge, borderline sociopaths, with the exception of Keeanu Reeves, who grows a conscience.<br /><br />Old hippies did a great job raising that generation.<br /><br />For such a young kid, I thought Joshua Miller was excellent, as the serial killer in the making character. In actuality, he went to Yale, and has written screenplays as well as directed. His acting capabilities in this film were amazing. Just the way he treats his little sister by drowning her doll, and tearing up her dolls grave, gave me the shivers. It gave me nightmares. Even with whats happening in our world today, in 2010, it still is the most degenerate film I've seen to date. <br /><br />The apathy, and dysfunction, of these families, is enough to make one puke. This thrill kill almost makes the Manson murders pale in comparison. <br /><br />Crispon Glover got a little too much into character. He wound up on David Lettermen to discuss his role, and almost kicked the host in the head. Apparrently Glover had to seek psychiatric help after portraying his character. <br /><br />Also, fight the good fight to the great Dennis Hopper. You're one of the best! | 1 | positive |
I just wanted to say that. I love Gheorghe Muresan, so I automatically loved this movie. Everything else about it was so-so... Billy Crystal is a good actor, even if he is annoying. But the thing that made this movie was- at least, for a basketball fan- seeing Gheorghe Muresan act. | 1 | positive |
The omission of Jazzy Jeff, the creator of the chirp and transformer scratch, raised a few eyebrows, but it's good to see he made it to the extras of the DVD after all. With SCRATCH, Doug Pray, who previously chronicled the grunge phenomenon of the '90s in HYPE (1996), made an excellent documentary about the world of the hip-hop DJ and the evolution of turntablism. His latest documentary, INFAMY (2005), explores contemporary American graffiti culture. After a couple of viewings four years ago, my DVD had been gathering dust ever since, but recently I watched it again and besides the subject material, I was surprised how well-shot and edited this documentary actually is. An immensely enjoyable soundtrack as well and not just talking heads, but lots of music, old school footage, parties, break dancing, you name it. One of the best things about the film, is that it mainly examines where the art of turntablism is today (in 2001 that is), without disregarding the pioneers of course. Good stuff.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 8/10 | 1 | positive |
Without question, film is a powerful medium, more so now than ever before, due to the accessibility of DVD/video, which gives the filmmaker the added assurance that his story or message is going to be seen by possibly millions of people. Use of this medium, therefore, attaches an innate responsibility to the artist, inasmuch as film can be educational, as well as entertaining, which dictates that certain subjects should be approached accordingly and with a corresponding sensitivity and sensibility. A film like Spielberg's `Schindler's List,' for example, is important, in that it keeps alive the memory of that which must not be forgotten, and as history tends to repeat itself, Spielberg's film can be viewed as a valuable tool in preventing a recurrence of that tragedy. In that same vein, this film, `Focus,' directed by Neal Slavin, is important, in it illuminates the problematic reality of anti-Semitism, which for years beyond number has affected millions of people, is still unimaginably prevalent today, and like any manifestation of bigotry, will perpetuate itself if left unchecked or ignored. Born of a xenophobic strain, it's a disease infecting society which, unabated, could be terminal; and with it's penetrating insights into the condition, this film is an effective vaccine that just may at the very least help stem the proliferation of it, and hopefully may act as a step toward eradicating it altogether.<br /><br />Lawrence Newman (William H. Macy) served his country in the Great War, and has since lived a quiet, conventional life in New York. He's had the same job as a personnel director for some twenty years, and owns the house, located in an average, middle-class neighborhood, in which he lives with his mother (Kay Hawtrey). Lawrence is the kind of guy who gets by just fine by minding his own business and refusing to involve himself with matters that are not (he feels) his concern.<br /><br />All of that is about to change, however, as with the advent of World War 2, Lawrence, along with the owner of the corner market, Mr. Finkelstein (David Paymer), inexplicably finds himself a target of the neighborhood xenophobes, who have aligned themselves with the `Union Crusaders,' a national organization currently taken to channeling their fears and hatred upon Jews, or anyone who even `looks' like a Jew. And suddenly Lawrence finds that he can no longer just stand on the sidelines and watch the game being played; because now, he IS the game, whether he wants to be or not.<br /><br />Working from an intelligent, well written screenplay by Kendrew Lascelles, which he adapted from Arthur Miller's novel, Slavin presents a chilling scenario that incisively examines the effects of bigotry upon those against whom it is leveled; and when one considers the fact that this is not merely a hypothetical situation, but a depiction of reality, it becomes all the more disquieting, even unnerving. And what makes the film so effective is Slavin's obvious grasp of his subject, and his studied presentation, which is thought-provoking in it's subtlety. In the opening scene, Slavin establishes Lawrence's `character,' and very soon afterward reaffirms it in another scene, which affords the audience the opportunity to observe and assimilate how Lawrence's mind actually works; the thought processes that direct his life. With that in place, then, Slavin is able to take his audience along with Lawrence as his problems gradually begin to unfold. By so doing, he effectively illustrates how the problem evolves, rather than merely stating the problem and addressing it head on, which heightens the viewers emotional involvement, and ultimately enhances the impact of the film. <br /><br />Slavin makes an important statement with this film, which is not only an indictment of bigotry, but carries a cautionary message about apathy, as well. And to his credit, he never hits you over the head with it or engages in subjective finger-pointing to make his case; instead, he proceeds carefully, taking great pains to be as objective as possible with all that he is submitting for your consideration. His approach is that of a cinematic diplomat; and it's an approach that serves Slavin-- and his film-- quite well.<br /><br />As Lawrence, William H. Macy-- one of the best character actors in the business-- gives an amazing performance, establishing the credibility and believability of his character with a sensitive, honest and introspective portrayal. He never attempts to circumvent the personal flaws of Lawrence's nature, but uses them, instead, to create a character that is decidedly three-dimensional, which not only makes him convincing, but serves to reaffirm the integrity of the portrayal. What makes it so compelling is Macy's ability to convey the process by which he examines his own conscience, which successfully enables the viewer to share in the experience of his personal epiphany. In the final analysis, it's the strength of Macy's performance, more than anything else, that makes this film so significantly distinct. <br /><br />Another of the film's strengths is the performance turned in by Laura Dern, as Gertrude Hart, a portrayal that effectively complements Macy's work, as well as that of Slavin. Dern lends tremendous substance to her character, capturing her physically as well as emotionally, and her colorful zeal crates a striking contrast to Lawrence's reserve that works extremely well, for her character as well as the film itself.<br /><br />And just as Sean Combs recently (in `Monster's Ball') made a good case against dismissing out-of-hand the acting endeavors of an established `rock star,' Meat Loaf Aday gives a powerful performance here, as Fred, Lawrence's next-door neighbor. It demonstrates, too, that a true artist will produce, regardless of the kind of canvas he's given to work with.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Michael Copeman (Carlson), Kenneth Welsh (Father Crighton), Joseph Ziegler (Gargan) and Arlene Meadows (Mrs. Dewitt). The kind of film that makes a filmmaker proud of his craft, `Focus,' offers a memorable experience that hopefully will prove to be enlightening, as well, to those unaware that such conditions have existed, and still do-- even in this, the land of the free. 10/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
Okay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film. | 0 | negative |
One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an `in-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to be similar to the first one.<br /><br />There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different. Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack (Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!) Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one. When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far apart. | 1 | positive |
Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it. | 0 | negative |
As much as I hate to disagree with the original poster, I found Asterix and the Vikings quite good, and a HUGE step above previous attempts at animating everyone's favorite Gaul.<br /><br />For someone not familiar with the famous comic series, the show would be hard to follow, but for those of us in the know, it's a pleasure to watch.<br /><br />First and foremost, the animation is far superior to earlier comic adaptations. You can tell they took the time and effort to really recapture the look and feel of the comics this time around.<br /><br />As mentioned, there are elements of other Asterix titles in the movie and I can see how fans of those titles might feel confused or a bit let down, but I was so caught up in actually seeing one of my favorite childhood comics faithfully represented on the screen, any qualms I had were minor by comparison. Minor spoilers follow...<br /><br />Asterix and his faithful friend Obelix travel north to rescue the nephew of their village chief, who has been captured by the Vikings. The Vikings think that by the boy teaching them about fear, they will be able to fly, thanks to some poorly worded advice from their village druid. In the process, the boy meets the Viking Chief's daughter Abba and they fall in love, etc etc etc... If my explanation sounds convoluted, don't worry.. The plot is easy to follow! Definitely a great buy.. You can purchase this DVD through Amazon France, but be warned.. Your DVD player probably won't be able to play it. I had to change the region setting on my computer to view it.. | 1 | positive |
I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!<br /><br />Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.<br /><br />Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...<br /><br />I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.<br /><br />There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.<br /><br />And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.<br /><br />And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.<br /><br />All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line. | 0 | negative |
Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"?<br /><br />I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.<br /><br />"Hero" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??<br /><br />No, thanks.<br /><br />But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!<br /><br />Viva | 0 | negative |
Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of "Tru Calling" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to this clunker. <br /><br />Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, "Tru Calling" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room. <br /><br />In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. "Tru Calling" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling. | 0 | negative |
OK, no one will confuse this with Citizen Kane but you've got to love a movie where the women are always topless. There are a few catfights and some kinky sex as well. On the other hand I hope they didn't overpay the guy who wrote the dialogue. Here's a prime example. After one of the captive girls dies: <br /><br />"This is terrible. It reminds me of the day Zenobia died" "A relative?" "No, my favorite cow." I guess they saved some money on the script and blew it on great special effects like that plastic crocodile. I will say that it took me three sittings to make it through this fine work of art, never a good sign. I guess that's what happens after a while when everything looks the same. I hope the folks waiting to rent it next didn't get too impatient. Don't worry folks, it's on it's way. | 0 | negative |
Hollywood movie industry is the laziest one in the entire world. It only needs a single hit to flood theaters with the same old crap re-invented over and over again. Take superheroes for example, for each X-Man and Spiderman, there are Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and Hulk. Japanese horror remakes are even worst. It only took The Ring, which was pitch-perfect (mostly because of Mr. Gore Verbinsky), to bring a ton of look-alike creepy-woman based horrors, e.g. The Ring 2, The Eye, Dark Water (which was fine, but pointless), and the grudges.<br /><br />The first Grudge wasn't entirely bad. It was scary most of the way, which is what one could expect from it. Plus, the plot had some brains mixing narratives. Grudge 2 is exactly like the previous; this could be a good thing, but hey, what boy Men in Black II? Was it a nice thing to xerox the entire screenplay and just change the villain? For the Grudge 2, the critic goes the same way.<br /><br />Tired scares, bad acting (except for Amber Tamblyn), and clichés all over the place. Three stories take place, on different places and time. There is Aubrey (Tamblyn) investigating what drove her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) to death; Allison (Arielle Kebbel) who is taken by colleagues to visit the house where the incident depicted in the first movie took place; and finally, an American family that witness strange stuff happening on the apartment next door. Glad to say (and I mean it) that everything is tied up at the end, but one must not rely on the end to make a good picture, when everything else is simply tiresome and dull.<br /><br />The chills are all over there, a girl alone in the lockers, someone who shouldn't enter a house, others that dig too deep. Meanwhile, ghosts keep killing and killing and killing, which seems even more deadlier than ten world wars or the Ebola epidemic. Hey, doesn't that seem just like another bad Japanese remake, something called Pulse? Yeah, day after day it's getting easier to hold a grudge... against Hollywood bullshits. | 0 | negative |
Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.<br /><br />Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.<br /><br />Incredible. | 0 | negative |
A dozen bored surfers, mostly kids in Venice, California, not only reinvent the skateboard but remake a once-forgotten-about suburban fad from the 1950s into an action sports revolution.<br /><br />Narrarated by Sean Penn, Dogtown depicts life in the more rundown "Locals Only" beach communities circa 1974, which consisted of mostly of surfing in the early morning tides and loitering. The Zephyr Team (or Z-boys as they are called) spend one summer combating the boredom by building their own boards with the help of a local who owns a surf shop. After they enter re-emerging skateboarding competitions in SoCal, they transfigure it all into their own scene; one that rouses a generation of skateboarders consisting of greats like Tony Hawk, Shaun White and the creators of the of X-Games.<br /><br />Dogtown puts chronological perspective into skateboarding, and the up-from-the-bootstraps history you never knew it had.<br /><br />from Andy Frye at MySportsComplex.blogspot.com | 1 | positive |
The trio are a pleasant, nostalgic journey to that first hint of desire--when it was still about simple exploration of the unknown--before we "grew up" and added those complexities of HIV status, emotional baggage and gotta-run-my-pager-just-went-off into the emotional mix.<br /><br />The angst portrayed is pure adolescent angst, but it rings true in all three stories. Their sweetness and positivity make you feel good that you are gay. And those kinds of films are few and far between.<br /><br />Good news! Both Boys Life and Boys Life 2 are now readily available on DVD as of September 1999. | 1 | positive |
Even with only 6,000 bucks and a cast of part-time actors, Christopher Nolan was a master. Nolan is in my opinion, the next great and our first taste of Nolan doesn't contradict that.<br /><br />None of the problems that constantly plaque and discredit the low budget independent picture haunt Nolan and crew. Our actors are inexperienced and young but they deliver and engage us in this story. In all honesty I think Following is Nolan's best screenplay because it is the one he had the most control over. It's a beautifully imagined film. It takes us into a world where we don't feel limited by the constraints of budget. The dialogue and atmosphere is bold and intelligent.<br /><br />Nolan's trademark method of telling the story out of continuity is applied for the first time here and here it is done in a way that throws the story full out at you. With Memento and The Prestige you have to think a bit to truly get a complete grasp on the genius but Nolan doesn't try to confuse people with his prototype film. We can distinguish time by the appearance of our protagonist. This method of telling a story is both creative and engaging. I am Glad that Nolan has had so much success with it because his films become more than what they could be with this method. The pay offs in the Prestige and Memento would not have been thrilling at all if the movie was told in a conventional format. This idea has been done with moderate success before but Nolan has truly made it his own.<br /><br />The script here is Nolan's finest. I had some doubts about his writing abilities, I all ways imagined that his brother Jonathon was the writing talent but he proves me wrong with Following. It is a thought provoking story which makes interesting observations of people and how they function. Cobb's assessments about burglarizing and how it can lead you to discover what makes people tick actually sounds plausible.<br /><br />My only real complaint is the camera work gets shaky at times but it doesn't take away anything from the story or the acting.<br /><br />Following is the first film of the man who will personify 21st century film-making at it's finest. | 1 | positive |
jeez, when i heard this movie was a NATIONAL LAMPOONS i thought it was going to be awesome, but i really got a say it was a rather disappointment. I have seen the most movies they've made, from Christmas vacation to van wilder, and this movie is the worst movie in their name,, really bad actors and a to much intense movie. this movie is probably good to watch if you are watching it with a crowd of worked up people and the ability to laugh at it, but if you are into good comedy's like i am, i do not suggest this movie, i would much rather watch van wilder a second or third time, than to watch this movie... you have been warned. | 0 | negative |
I am not sure who recommended Surveillance to me, but I think I have an idea: one of the "Fat Guys At the Movies." The person said they were astonished by how great it was and said it was one of the goriest/disturbing movies. (I'm paraphrasing and doing this only by memory, so forgive me if I misquoted.) At any rate, I made the decision to watch it. So I take full blame for my own miscalculation in watching one of the most horrible, predictable and STUPID movies I've ever seen. Strange, I doubt I've ever called a movie "stupid" but that was the first word that came to mind about one-third in and stayed in my mind until the end.<br /><br />Where to begin? Unbelievable premise and reactions, incredibly brain-dead characters (could blame the writing or the actors, or I'll just blame both) and enormously bad acting. I'd sooner believe Bill Pullman as President of the USA than a FBI agent here. (Of course, there's a reason for that, and I'll partially go into that.) And to top it off, if you can't figure the so-called shocking "twist" in the first 5 minutes, then you must have arrived late to the theatre or came into the room to watch it late. Don't worry, they'll tell you the "twist" every five minutes thereafter.<br /><br />There's been some serial killer(s) on the loose in the most depressing town in the county, or world. But there's more to the story! Some dumbass and corrupt cops like to blow out tires for their own amusement. Could there possibly be more? Oh, yeah, there's a family, well maybe not, but there are four humans, one boy, one girl and an adult couple. The girl says she sees things with much less conviction than Cole sees dead people in The Sixth Sense. There's gotta be more to this than what I mentioned! That's what makes a movie interesting! Adding as many subplots that may/may not be developed is the way to go! Okay, then I'll continue. We have goofy FBI agents that made me laugh. A pair of giggling druggies who's shocked at first their dealer OD's but then resorts to robbery. A gosh-tooting great-guy cop who must've been put in for comic relief who's always battling an angry/suspicious cop. And finally, (poor, poor) Michael Ironside who didn't just phone his performance in, he barely text it in.<br /><br />None of these work. They're all told in various forms of presence tense or flashbacks, and believe me, you'll lose all sense of caring after the first of many subplots begin. In addition, the reaction some of these characters are the most shocking of all. I guess I'm referring mostly to the cops, but mainly the girl who did or did not just lose her family and barely blinks.<br /><br />This stupid, stupid movie stinks. It's barely gory as the person that recommended it said it was, unless his exposure has been limited to Goosebumps stories. And what's with the title? Surveillance? Oh, I get it; it's because it was used in 1/50 subplots just to film interviews. Since that's so random, it might as well been called COP CAR, BULLET or COFFEE. Just stay away from this horrid mess. | 0 | negative |
Utterly ridiculous movie which makes fun of the college admission process. While it is true that the SAT's is not everything in evaluating a student for admission to college, what the movie talks about is utterly ridiculous and not worth repeating nor viewing.<br /><br />College admissions officials are made to look like stupid people who have an extremely narrow view of the entire process. The film is an insult to hard-working high school students who work hard and then have to suffer through a long process until they receive that letter of acceptance or rejection from the schools they have applied for. <br /><br />This movie certainly deserves rejection on all levels. | 0 | negative |
I am huge movie enthusiast and also an active rugby player who believes that rugby is the greatest game ever played. Forever Strong is a mix of Coach Carter and sloppy rugby. This movie is full of great acting, well developed characters and in action shots that will have you ducking and dodging in your seat, but with more arm tackles than pee wee football and almost every shot cuts away as soon as a player touches the ground its filmed to almost seem like football. If you want to bring your kids to see a movie that will build character from within and could inspire a blind man to see again I can easily give it 9 out of 10, if you want to see a great rugby movie that truly shows the sport your going to have to wait for the next one because Forever Strong is mostly practice, running, and a one ruck film, for this I give it a 7.75 out of 10. | 1 | positive |
This is one of the best episodes from the entire X-Files series, creepy beyond words. The tension and suspense in this episode is very well executed, in its entire 45 minutes it managed to be almost as scary as an entire movie. This episode joins the ranks of best episodes with such greats as "Home", "Humbug" "Bad Blood" and "Milagro" for being the best in their respective season.<br /><br />Mulder and Scully's growing relationship is put to the test in this episode: Can they really trust each other? This episode also contains a tiny scene that will leave romantic viewers smiling.<br /><br />Mulder: "Bring your mittens" | 1 | positive |
There was a lot about Little Vera that was strange to me. All in all I did enjoy this movie, but a lot of the way the characters behaved was not what I was used to. For example the environment that Vera's family lived in was very tense. Almost every time the family was together they were either drinking, fighting or yelling and frequently it was a combination of the three. After I had viewed the film I felt tense because of all the confrontation that took place during it. I was however very interested in watching the story if this middle class Russian family. Throughout the entire film we are reminded of the industrialized state of Russia because of the repeated shots of a train passing by the screen. It gave the viewer a sense of a mechanically lived life. The characters seemed to be focused on living their lives through work and drinking after work. There was not a feeling of happiness throughout the film. The only time a character was not yelling was when Vera first fell in love with her fiancé Sergei. This was very short lived because the viewer later discovers (after Sergei locks Vera's father in a bathroom and Vera lets him out after which the father proceeds to stab Sergei) that he is abusive. Another time Vera is told that the only reason she was born was so the family could get a larger apartment. It is very interesting watching how both Vera and the family were able to cope with each other's behavior. The film was definitely worth watching because of its depiction of how life could be in areas of Russia. | 1 | positive |
The only time I ever actually laugh while watching this show is when I'm making fun of it. Jamie Lynn Spears only got the acting job because of her big sister, and I don't think anyone could argue with me on that. There is no expression in her face EVER (even when she smiles) - just watch the show and you'll see what I mean. Now let's talk about the show. Zoey 101 is one of the most unrealistic shows I've ever seen! As a lot of people have already said, Zoey Brooks is absolutely perfect: everyone loves her, she's a straight A student, and all the boys think that she's "hot." PCA is a boarding school full of rich kids that gives all their students flat-screen TVs and laptop computers, serving kids sushi from the sushi bar. In one of the newest episodes, Zoey is completely clueless and thinks that Chase is not in love with her, and acts as if she doesn't even want Chase to love her. Then, when she barges into Chase's dorm room to prove her friends wrong, she finds Chase kissing this girl named Rebecca. Zoey, of course, freaks out, probably because she likes the attention from Chase. Anyway, only watch this show if you have nothing else to do and the only thing on television is Zoey 101. You can at least have fun laughing at how unrealistic it is! | 0 | negative |
Kudos to Baxley's DP for making this look like a real movie, the first time that's happened in this series (with the notable exception of the F/X scenes). In moving closer to movie production values, however, it lost most of the entertainment value of the first two. They were very much in the 'so bad they're good' category of horrendous film entertainment. Can an argument be made though that the 'believers' were simply trying to make a generic action film with praying in it? There are so many times in the film where they discard their own belief system as to be annoying. If everything that happens is according to God's will and they are simply his instruments, than the people who are infected with the virus have that happen as a part of his plan, right? Apply that to every situation where someone of faith doesn't submit to God's will, and you get a fairly hypocritical little movie from the director of 'Action Jackson'. | 0 | negative |
I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is "Upset the head
and you're dead!" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head. | 0 | negative |
This is a little-seen anti-war film that has been ignored for too long. The time is Thanksgiving of 1972. The place is a typical suburban home somewhere in Texas. The oldest son has just comeback from Vietnam and he is having a hell of time readjusting to the life he had left behind. And the family does not know how to handle the problem. I honestly don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is one the most heart-wrenching war films I've seen. The funny thing is that there are only a handful of combat sequences in the entire movie. Most of the story takes place inside a house over a period of a couple of days. But the kind of war that takes place in this home is as intense as any real battlefield action. The film does something that is difficult to accomplish; somehow, Estevez and his team have created a film that embodies the entire Vietnam experience. And considering the similarities between Vietnam and the current invasion of Iraq, the film is surprisingly relevant. Estevez does a magnificent job with material. He gets a lot of help from a hand-picked cast. Martin Sheen and Kathy Bates in particular are superb as the parents. A truly moving film. Highly recommended | 1 | positive |
I've watched this film about thirty years ago and it stuck in my mind until now. When I came across it on DVD, I didn't hesitate too long, even more, because I have a predilection for early Belmondo flicks. But what a bad surprise! Some movies should be allowed to resign from public exposure, to preserve a certain memory, and not to shock audiences.<br /><br />Widely hailed as one of Chabrol's rare cynic works, the only lasting impression I got from re- watching it is... boredom. Some movies really do not age in style. But what about movies which didn't have any sense of style at all?<br /><br />The flaws in the script, uninspired acting - presumably due to the lack of direction -, a sort of production design, which doesn't deserve its name, less than mediocre photography and, last but not least, the worst editing job I've seen in ages, make this one truly hard to stand.<br /><br />My impression was, that there was a bunch of people with too much money and equipment but obviously, no idea or any skills at all. It really comes as a surprise, that this one didn't abruptly end Chabrol's career. Don't blame it on the overall bad taste of the 70s, this one is crap in its own right and a worthy contender for the most useless waste of celluloid ever. | 0 | negative |
Makes "Invasion USA" look like "Apocalypse Now". This one can only be recommended to US skinheads, John Birch supporters or militia members. The message is very simple : let's shoot them all - gooks, commies, latinos, everything that isn't American.<br /><br />Besides, this is badly acted, badly scripted, badly interpreted, incredibly stupid but no fun at all. This movie could be used as a toorture device by CIA torturers. oops, sorry, there can't be any US torturers because they are the GOOD | 0 | negative |
Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and Jo McKenna (Doris Day) travel to Morocco for a holiday where they meet a mysterious man named Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) on a bus.The next day this man is murdered, but before he dies he tells Ben a secret; an assassination will take place in London.The crooks kidnap the couple's son Hank (Christopher Olsen) making sure Ben won't reveal their plan to anybody.Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a very intense thriller.The acting is superb as it always is in Hitchcok's films.James Stewart is marvelous.Doris Day is a delightful person and actress and she gets to show her singing talents as well.The song Que Sera, Sera has an important part in the movie.This movie is a movie of many classic scenes.In the final scenes at the Albert Hall, done without dialogue, you can barely blink your eyes.This movie is fifty years old now.Time hasn't decreased its power in any way. | 1 | positive |
Yes, it's true that it was Jessica Alba who leads me to this movie, because without her, I should have never pick it.<br /><br />But, I find it long, dull and above all, unoriginal. All along, I thought that the story was full of clichés and the directing very boring. So it was a surprise to see that the director and writer are the one and same person. I take notice to remember to avoid all his next movies.<br /><br />It's a pity because all good things were at hand: Malaysia is a beautiful jungle, it was the British Empire and the cast is wonderful: Jessica knows how to open her soul and for one time, she has found an appropriate movie for this. Bob Hoskins shows a great experience and he should have won an award for this role.<br /><br />The only positive thing is that it makes me open a world-map to locate this island because if you guess it happens in south Asia, you don't know where exactly! Ah, the little plane flight with red lines in the Indiana Jones movie!!! | 0 | negative |
i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist/song name at [email protected] thanks a lot in advance!! =) ---------------------repeating----------------------------- i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist/song name at [email protected] thanks a lot in advance!! =) | 1 | positive |
In Victorian times a father is separated from his family when he is falsely accused of treason and they are sent to live in the country. The children adapt to their new situation, make friends, and enlist the help of a kind old man they wave to on the train to help reunite their family.<br /><br />Actors who direct movies are often not very good at it. Jeffries however, the great veteran actor of dozens of British comedy classics, is one of the few exceptions. His brilliant conception (he also wrote the script, from the novel by E. Nesbit) of a classic British children's story is what raises this film to art. Whilst the story may be highly idealised, the wonderful performances and the fabulously evocative Yorkshire dales settings combine to make a truly memorable movie. The photography by Arthur Ibbetson is the definition of good movie-making - not a shot is wasted in telling the story but at the same time the images combine to create a fabulously romantic atmosphere. Agutter is simply perfect as the kind-hearted Bobbie (okay, I fell in love with her at an early age, but I defy anyone to disagree) and Cribbins, whose comic acting pedigree is on a par with Jeffries, is unforgettable as Perks the humble-yet-proud railway porter. This is a film out of time; romantic, charming, hugely enjoyable and with a beautifully naive sense of good-hearted kindness towards all. | 1 | positive |
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. They said this was the man's answer to Waiting to Exhale...All I'm going to say is that we really didn't respond at all. I couldn't believe that it was actually made. The director should choose another profession, because he can't make a movie. The script wasn't good. It made no sense and was very messy. Bet movies are much better than this was, and I was horribly disappointed to see the talented actor Terrence in this bad excuse of a movie. If I could turn back the hands of time I wouldn't go back to Media Play to never buy the movie, I would just keep it wrapped sitting on the shelf, instead of wasting my time watching it. | 0 | negative |
Note, I only saw approximately the last half of this movie, so feel free to take my review with whatever grain of salt you deem appropriate, that being said, seeing what I saw was more than enough to make me quite convinced that a one-star rating for this is enough.<br /><br />In short, it's a dismal-plot slaughter of the wonderful precursor (NL Christmas Vacation) with Chevy Chase, only it doesn't have Chevy Chase in it, and it takes place in a generic tropical island, essentially with no connection to Christmas at all.<br /><br />Ol' Chevy probably didn't want in because the plot is that devoid of actual fun, instead they got the screwy Cousin Eddie, who, again, was great in the original, but in this he is just over the top, and an extremely poor basis for any movie considering the plot and acting. The attempts at humor are generic to a degree where even contemporary television comedy trumps it, and considering that this is supposed to be comedy, I doubt I need to say more.<br /><br />This is not to be seen for its qualities, for it has none, but for it's failings and again, how Hollywood is spilling it's life's blood of the past in the pursuit of a quick buck.<br /><br />I think I'll watch the original before the upcoming Christmas season just to try to regain my childhood innocence, from a lost time when motion pictures were more than just high-budget, but mindless, garbage. | 0 | negative |
What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop. | 0 | negative |
This was just an awful movie. I've watched it once when I was roughly 12, I am now 19 and I don't think I will ever forget this movie.<br /><br />I still feel sick whenever I think about it, it was just everything horrible that could possibly fit in one movie. I really don't understand what kind of person would enjoy this utter rubbish. It's not enough to simply turn off your mind to enjoy this movie, I can enjoy the dumbest made-for-TV Disney movies as much as the next person, but this is something else completely.<br /><br />Usually I don't like to judge a movie until I have seen it myself, but believe me I am doing you a favour. Do not watch this movie. | 0 | negative |
A wonderful film ahead of its time,<br /><br />I think so, In the eighty's it was all about winning, Greed is Good ? Remember that one ? I have seen this film more that 20 times, To me this is a real desert island film, I keep watching because there is always something more to learn about these flawed characters that I just love, Jessica Tandy, and Hume Cronin, are simply wonderful,Also Beverly D'angelo, Beau Bridges come in at a close second, don't get me wrong there are many more great performance's in this film, and it is also the way it is written that made it for me, and I hope you, a film that you will want to see over and over, I think TV shows like "Northen Exposure", and now "Earl" owe a lot to this film. but remember it is not a Tom Cruise film. | 1 | positive |
almost 4 years after the events of 911, if asked what comes to mind about that day, most people would probably comment on things such as the sight of planes crashing into and the collapse of the twin towers, the scores of people being killed, acts of terrorism and heroism mixed together, etc. everyone who was alive at the time will never forget that day. yet for most of us the memories, although moving, are not on a personal level. now comes an extraordinary film which gives everyone who did not lose a friend or a family member a chance to become involved at a personal level in just what we lost on 911. this is a film that needs to be seen. | 1 | positive |
The Golden Door is the story of a Sicilian family's journey from the Old World (Italy) to the New World (America). Salvatore, a middle-aged man who hopes for a more fruitful life, persuades his family to leave their homeland behind in Sicily, take the arduous journey across the raging seas, and inhabit a land whose rivers supposedly flow with milk. In short, they believe that by risking everything for the New World their dreams of prosperity will be fulfilled. The imagery of the New World is optimistic, clever and highly imaginative. Silver coins rain from heaven upon Salvatore as he anticipates how prosperous he'll be in the New World; carrots and onions twice the size of human beings are shown being harvested to suggest wealth and health, and rivers of milk are swam in and flow through the minds of those who anticipate what the New World will yield. All of this imagery is surrealistically interwoven with the characters and helps nicely compliment the gritty realism that the story unfolds to the audience. The contrast between this imagery versus the dark reality of the Sicilian people helps provide hope while they're aboard the ship to the New World.<br /><br />The voyage to the New World is shot almost in complete darkness, especially when the seas tempests roar and nearly kill the people within. The dark reality I referred to is the Old World and the journey itself to the New World. The Old World is depicted as somewhat destitute and primitive. This is shown as Salvatore scrambles together to sell what few possessions he has left (donkeys, goats and rabbits) in order to obtain the appropriate clothing he needs to enter the New World. I thought it was rather interesting that these people believed they had to conform to a certain dress code in order to be accepted in the New World; it was almost suggesting that people had to fit a particular stereotype or mold in order to be recognized as morally fit. The most powerful image in the film was when the ship is leaving their homeland and setting sail for the New World. This shot shows an overhead view of a crowd of people who slowly seem to separate from one another, depicting the separation between the Old and New Worlds. This shot also suggested that the people were being torn away from all that was once familiar, wanted to divorce from their previous dark living conditions and were desirous to enter a world that held more promise.<br /><br />As later contrasted to how the New World visually looks, the Old World seems dark and bleak as compared to the bright yet foggy New World. I thought it was particularly interesting that the Statue of Liberty is never shown through the fog at Ellis Island, but is remained hidden. I think this was an intentional directing choice that seemed to negate the purpose of what the Statue of Liberty stands for: "Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry" seemed like a joke in regards to what these people had to go through when arriving at the New World. Once they arrived in the Americas, they had to go through rather humiliating tests (i.e. delousing, mathematics, puzzles, etc.) in order to prove themselves as fit for the New World. These tests completely changed the perspectives of the Sicilian people. In particular, Salvatore's mother had the most difficult time subjecting herself to the rules and laws of the New World, feeling more violated than treated with respect. Where their dreams once provided hope and optimism for what the New World would provide, the reality of what the New World required was disparaging and rude. Salvatore doesn't change much other than his attitude towards what he felt the New World would be like versus what the New World actually was seemed disappointing to him. This attitude was shared by mostly everyone who voyaged with him. Their character arcs deal more with a cherished dream being greatly upset and a dark reality that had to be accepted.<br /><br />The film seems to make a strong commentary on preparing oneself to enter a heavenly and civilized society. Cleanliness, marriage and intelligence are prerequisites. Adhering to these rules is to prevent disease, immoral behavior and stupidity from dominating. Perhaps this is a commentary on how America has learned from the failings of other nations and so was purposefully established to secure that these plagues did not infest and destruct. Though the rules seemed rigid, they were there to protect and help the people flourish. | 1 | positive |
Great Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?<br /><br />The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so "okay" about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about "family values."<br /><br />Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor. | 0 | negative |
This is another one of Hitchcock's highest rated movies and rightfully so. This is a tale of two men who meet on a train and playfully exchange murder fantasies. One of them (Robert Walker) takes it seriously and this leads Guy Haines (Farley Granger) to trouble with the law. Another fast moving Hitchcock movie with lots of great scenes (the carousel scene and the tennis match are worthy of mentioning). Not a movie to be missed- it is a shame that no one will re-release this on DVD with loads of extras- just a cheap Warner Brothers DVD is all thats out there now. | 1 | positive |
Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) is just killing time getting a job. Her real ambition is to marry Eddie and have a baby. <br /><br />April (Diane Baker) is too innocent to stay that way for long and falls in love too easily, a dangerous combo. <br /><br />Greg (Suzy Parker) is a go-getter and wants to be an actress. <br /><br />All three are doomed for dramatics in 'The Best of Everything', a 1959 soap opera/morality play/sometimes solid movie that is aging by the second.<br /><br />Set in the cut-throat world of paperback publishing, its not as trashy as "Valley of the Dolls" but not as vanilla as "Three Coins in the Fountain."<br /><br />The men in the mix - Brian Aherne, Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan and Robert Evans - are slick, well-dressed and no good, for the most part. Aherne is the resident sexual offender - will pinch anything walking by, and makes unwanted advances right and left. His character is offensive as hell, but its not played seriously at all. Harassment hadn't been discovered yet, I guess. Boyd works there, too, although you never see him actually doing anything. He's too busy being older, wiser and drunker. Evans is abroad just so Diane Baker can suffer in style - he's a rich kid who's gotten her in 'trouble' so instead of marrying her, as promised, he's taking her to get an 'operation.' <br /><br />Jourdan is a director who mistakenly has an affair with Parker. They share a fight scene which is fairly no-holds barred, in a movie like this anyway, but the scene is ultimately ruined by Parker's histronics. She ends up nearly stalking him, and she really didn't deserve such a lousy fate, her bad acting notwithstanding.<br /><br />Joan Crawford breathes fire as Amanda Farrow, the resident 'witch' who is automatically rude and dismissive of any of her legion of secretaries. Well they are younger, aren't they? Isn't that sufficient reason to hate a person? Caroline doesn't think so, as she admirably stands up to Miss Farrow every chance she gets. Crawford only gets to let loose once, when she tells her married boyfriend 'you can your rabbit-faced wife can both go to hell' and slams down the phone. You never get to see the poor soul who dare crosses her. <br /><br />Martha Hyer's 'storyline', as it were, is extremely weak, and she is painfully over-the-top as an unmarried mother. Short of wearing a huge "W" (for 'whore') on her cardigan, she walks around like a pathetic mess for most of her screen time. Even worse, she is not given the courtesy of having it all 'tied up', one way or the other, at the end. It won't matter that much, but still..<br /><br />Its painfully obvious this all took place in a totally different world. People were nicer to one another for the most part and work was not a drag but something exciting, for a girl from outside NYC anyway.<br /><br />One unconvincing drunk scene aside, Hope Lange helps it seem reasonably real as Caroline, who at least has more than one side to her character. <br /><br />I admire that women are seen having an opinion, a chance and a choice. Not that its not wrapped in a nice bow, but it makes some points for equality. In 1959 that was probably noteworthy and possibly controversial. 7/10. | 1 | positive |
This is a good film. This is very funny. Yet after this film there were no good Ernest films! | 1 | positive |
If you thought Herbie trying to kill himself by driving off a bridge in 'The Love Bug' was daft, wait 'till you see him acting horny in this bewilderingly silly second sequel. Dean Jones is back as the driver who competes in the Paris to Monte Carlo rally; this time his sentient VW falls in love with another car in the race, a Lancia driven by Julie Sommars. By this point in the series the energy and charm is lacking even more than in 'Herbie Rides Again'; the movie is overlong and threadbare, although it's watchable thanks to the return of Jones's typically likable performance, a few funny bits, and the cast's frantic mugging. | 0 | negative |
After World War II the ungoing crime in Phenix City, Alabama, encouraged by the money from an Army base just across the river in Georgia, got even worse. Gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, and the like helped an organized crime apparatus in the city. Soon it was too bad and violent to even tolerate anymore. This movie is based on the real story of that fight.<br /><br />By the standards of the 1950's it was shockingly explicit. Although low-budget, that same small budget helped with the realism requiring location shooting. A very gritty film. Richard Kiley was marvelous as always, and John McIntire stolid.<br /><br />Why this good movie isn't on video is a real puzzle! | 1 | positive |
Jackie Chan movies are typical examples of how offer is bigger than demand.Well,to be honest,which demand?In this one Jackie Chan is whatever his name is in this one,I doubt if he even knows,and he is some kind of race car driver.Well,he drives 10 miles an hour and then the footage is sped up,that way I can do all the stunts myself as well.During the great finale,in which Jackie Chan wants to arrest the bad guy by beating him in a race,we finally get to see how shoddy this production really is.Chan's fighting,especially in the casino scene is decent,but when we're talking about special effects,dear Lord.And must everyone crash in this race?That's just stupid.And here it's really not safe for the drivers,there's not even a concrete wall in the neighborhood.And don't get me started on what kind of awful story this has,I mean,it's Hongkong,it was probably written at gun point by eight-year-olds,but still,what a mess.I like Chan as much as the next guy,perhaps more since I saw "Rush Hour",but his agent's retarded cousin really needs to pick his projects better. | 0 | negative |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***<br /><br />I saw this movie last night at a screening. I started out already liking Tim Robbins and loving sci-fi. The first third of the movie was very cool. The score was good, the cinematography was interesting, the film maker's vision of the future was realistic yet starkly interesting nonetheless. I remember thinking to myself: "this is the most intelligently done sci-fi movie I've seen in a while". Then they just couldn't keep it together.<br /><br />Although from the outset, there were a number of more "rough around the edges" issues with this film (namely the editing, and later some of the writing/plot development), these issues were forgivable. They became unforgivable once the movie sort of lost all momentum around the half way mark, and then the film just got tedious when you realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere at all. <br /><br />Robbins could not breathe life into his character, but did the best he could. His female counterpart (her name escapes me now) was good in her role.<br /><br />The main reason for the meandering of the movie seemed to be that the film makers could not decide whether or not to do a sci-fi movie or a futuristic love story. They ended up with neither.<br /><br />Good:<br /><br />Some of the cinematography: grainy, it felt like "21 days later" some times.<br /><br />Very fitting for a futuristic movie like this.<br /><br />I dug some of the location shots.<br /><br />The music was cool.<br /><br />The film makers vision of the future was realistic but still cool and interesting.<br /><br />I liked the interactions with the other minor characters in the movie.<br /><br />Some of the writing was interesting (early on). <br /><br />The girl who played Maria Gonzales (name?? can't recall), she was good.<br /><br />***SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />A few questions/comments:<br /><br />I felt that a lot of the futuristic things in this movie were convenient to fix a patchwork story. Namely VIRUSES. Obviously the virus they gave her at the end of the film that made her physically 'afraid' of him was just there so that they could stick in another sex scene and then she could uncontrollably report him for Code 46. Then they take him away and erase his memory and the movie ends. Classic 'dream sequence' cop-out ending if you ask me. ties up all the loose ends very neatly if you just make it all a dream right?<br /><br />Was Robbin's character naturally good as intuition or was it the virus?<br /><br />Why didn't they explore the myriad of issues surrounding the girl being a clone of his mom? That could have made some interesting story.<br /><br />At first I like the salutations from across the globe in everyone's speech. But it became intrusive especially since their accents were not convincing. I get it, the future will undoubtedly be racially and culturally more androgynous, but it started feeling like an AT&T Global Networking commercial by the end of it.<br /><br />If they were 'outside' how could they have gotten busted for Code 46?<br /><br />'Cover' was never well defined. Sometimes it seemed as trivial as a Visa, and other times it was as vital as life or death. Again, loose definitions allow them to use it for gluing disparate parts of the plot together.<br /><br />Okay, I'm starting to get to negative about it, so I'll stop. There were some cool scenes, and interesting things about this movie, but that only gives it a 4/10 | 0 | negative |
Although a "woman's story," I found this still fairly interesting. It is unusual in that is has three real-life sisters playing sisters in the movie! I am referring to Priscilla, Rosemary and Lola Lane.<br /><br />Why national critics loved this movie was the presence of bad-boy-rebel John Garfield. In their twisted Liberal-dominated minds, All-American characters are sickening but sour-on- life, poor-attitude types like Garfield played here are people they can identify with. Despite that, this movie still has an overall feeling of goodness, which is why I liked it. Some of the characters may have done stupid things, but they good hearts. Whose heart was bigger than "Ann's" (Priscilla Lane) in here? I agree with the IMDb user comments critic in here who says this is Priscilla's film as much as the beloved (not by me) Garfield's. <br /><br />With a director the caliber of Michael Curtiz, the film is better than it might have been under someone else. Curtiz made sure no scene, soapy or otherwise, went on too long.<br /><br />In addition to the Lane sisters and Garfield, we have Claude Rains (who adds much-needed humor to the story), Jeffrey Lynn (the main love interest of the girls), Gale Page, Dick Foran, Frank McHugh and Mae Robson.<br /><br />Apparently, this movie must have been a hit because there were several spin-offs from it, neither of them approaching this one in content and box-office success. | 1 | positive |
Diane Lane, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson & Thomas Jane.....Not a bad cast in my opinion however they were totally wasted in this movie.<br /><br />There was no real direction, there were no unusual turns, in fact the whole movie was very predictable from start to finish. Mickey Rourke had a really annoying sidekick who did nothing but irritate you from the start. Rosario Dawson was totally wasted and there was hardly any point in even having her character in the film.<br /><br />I really do believe this is one of those straight to DVD movies that everyone will forget about very quickly which is a shame as the movie could have been so much better. | 0 | negative |
Yes this movie features a gal named Jessica who says everything is evil and she causes trees to land on people too (well she only causes a tree to fall once, but she does say everything is evil). This movie is about a farm that apparently rents out rooms to people, but offers little else in the way of entertainment. Jessica can find things with a stick and she finds the head of an evil guy. Of course they don't know this until the owner of the farm's helpers open the box containing the head. The head proceeds to hypnotize everyone it can so it can get to Jessica and use her powers to find stuff to help look for his body. This movie has an interesting enough story, but it plays out very bad here. Everyone in this flick will get on your nerves at least once. | 0 | negative |
If I was British, I would be embarrassed by this portrayal of incompetence. A protection agent of the Special Branch unable to defend herself against a sick, unarmed and untrained assailant? The Home Office sends a single "Science Adviser" to investigate a possible Level Four biohazard, and that "Advisor" doesn't have the sense to wear even a mask and gloves? Totally unprotected London police officers working side by side with technicians in full biohazard suits? The "Advisor" and his bodyguard bearding the lair of a sociopathic doctor experimenting on human subjects without any backup? Puh-leeze! One wonders whether the producers could not afford to hire any technical advisers or if, for some arcane reason, they consciously decided to portray the principals as hopelessly incompetent. Even my wife, who has no background in either medicine or law enforcement, was rolling her eyes in disbelief. After the first episode, I was discouraged; now that I have seen two episodes, I give up. | 0 | negative |
I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.<br /><br />If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an "old-fashioned" type, then don't bother. | 0 | negative |
Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) can on the surface be described as a French variation on John Huston's seminal heist film, Asphalt Jungle(1950). The difference between the two films is Rififi(1955) pays a little more attention in detail to the robbery sequence. Also, the police aren't involved in the aftermath of the robbery in Rififi as much as in Asphalt Jungle. In the end Rififi(1955) is in my opinion a slightly better film than Asphalt Jungle(1950). Remarkable Noir picture that defines 1950s French Cinema.<br /><br />Spartacus(1960) may have been the one which broke down the infamous blacklist, but in my opinion Rififi(1955) was the film that began to break apart the unbreakable Hollywood blacklist. First film in five years for Jules Dassin who was victimized by the McCarthy communist hunt of the late 40s to early 50s. He got some sort of retribution when Rififi(1955) became a success around France and Europe. Thus defying the poisonious Hollywood blacklist in a major way that probably inspired others to do the same. Rififi(1955) is the most important film of Dassin's career because it not only restored his name, but also gave him a second chance at making films.<br /><br />Jules Dassin gave the filmworld and its ever growing audiences a masterpiece of influential proportions. His handling of the material is exceptional and direction of the actors is flawless. Builds up tense situations with precise craftsmanship. Dassin came full circle in the Film Noir genre by directing his best and last Noir, Rififi(1955). Marked the end of Dassin's period in filmmaking when he was involved in doing Noir pictures.<br /><br />Rififi(1955) is the number one film in an arsenal of thirty plus films for director, Jules Dassin. A masterpiece in acting, cinematography, directing, editing, and writing. Not a film to leave your seat for one minute because there is always something memorable going on. As brilliant as anything by Jean Pierre Melville who was a master of this type of film. Masterpieces such as Rififi(1955) are relatively small compared to the probably billions of films made in motion picture history.<br /><br />The one fascinating aspect of Rififi is the precise planning and careful execution of a robbery that takes up a bulk of the 118 minute duration. The main characters plan and execute the jewel heist in the same way a film director prepares for the pre-productions, production, and post-production of a film. Shows how difficult a Jewel heist like in Rififi(1955) is in committing and why very few would do something like it. The fact that the scene hardly contains a mess up like in other heist films turns this scene into something even greater. Close as one can get to having a perfect sequence in a motion picture.<br /><br />Lack of unnatural sound in the landmark thrity minute heist sequence puts it in a realm of absolute realism. Any dialogue or/and music would ruin any suspense and tension the director is trying to create. The use of natural sound makes the heist sequence a rewarding film viewing experience. Now Filmmakers and producers would use dialogue and music in a scene like this because of a lack of confidence of a mainstream filmgoer's patience. Sustains a level of consistency that never once lets down.<br /><br />Maintaining a high level of suspense is what makes the heist sequence tick to perfection. The director achieves suspense in the heist sequence that's rarely equaled in most robbery scenes from heist films. Jean Servais and the rest of the main actors contribute to the suspense with some low key acting. Getting suspense put in a scene is a task few are capable of doing. The robbery sequence of Rififi(1955) reaches a Hitchcockian level of suspense and tension.<br /><br />Many filmmakers from the years following Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) have been influenced if not inspired by it. One filmmaker influenced was Jean Pierre Melville(original choice for director of Rififi)who used variations of the heist sequence in Le Doulos(1961), and Le Cercle Rouge(1970). Another filmmaker influenced was Stanley Kubrick who made a similarly themed film in The Killing(1956). Also, Quentin Tarantino whose debut feature Reservoir Dogs(1992) was inspired by this film. Other film directors influenced are John Woo, Michael Mann, Paul Schrader, Ringo Lam, etc...<br /><br />Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes(1955) is comparable to Bob le Flambeur(1955) in many ways. One, Jules Dassin and Jean Pierre Melville directed groundbreaking films in Rififi(1955) and Bob le Flambeur(1955). Two, each film involves an aging criminal who plans and carries out a daring heist. Three, Bob le Flambeur and Rififi finishes in fatalistic fashion. Four, each film shares many motifs and situations that classify the two as film greats.<br /><br />Part of Rififi's charm are the colorful characters that surround the story such as Tony le Stephanois, Jo le Suedois, Mario Farrati, and Cesar le Milanais. Most of the violence is implicit yet effectively brutal. The main characters led by Tony le Stephanois abide by a strong outdated code of honor that is remindful of Sam Peckinpah and John Woo. Jean Servais becomes the role of Tony le Stephanois with his cynical outlook and tired looks. Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes/Rififi(1955) became a favorite of mine the moment I saw it on the big screen from beginning to end. | 1 | positive |
Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment. | 0 | negative |
The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov! | 1 | positive |
The eighties produced a lot of gory little horror flicks, most of them within the slasher sub genre - thus putting this film ahead of most of the rest of its ilk. Night of the Demons is something of a cross between the ultimate gore film, The Evil Dead; and haunted house-cum-slash flick Hell Night. Films like this usually feature a deranged/deformed madman as the lead bad guy; but here we have bloodthirsty demons, which is always more interesting than a lunatic if you ask me. There's also a lot of comedy in this film, and the first third of the movie could easily be the set up for a straight comedy film. But once the characters enter the central location; a sinister funeral home known as 'Hull House' - the film morphs into the horror film that you would expect given the title. The plot line is as simple as you'd expect it to be, and we follow a bunch of kids that decide to put on a Halloween party inside said funeral home. This turns out to be a bad idea, however, once it transpires that the house is possessed; and the demons start to inhabit the kids' bodies! Their only salvation lies on the other side of the underground stream...but finding the gate to the grounds isn't as easy as it sounds.<br /><br />The film's centrepiece is the Gothic mansion where the action takes place. This creaky old house makes for a great horror film location; the fact that it used to be a funeral home only adds to this. Director Kevin Tenney shoots the house well, and a particularly good job is done of establishing the fact that the house is in the middle of nowhere and escape is difficult. The comedy towards the start of the film is generally very funny, and I was hoping it would keep up the laughs once the horror starts. The film does have its comedy moments when the kids enter Hull House, but it's never overly funny and it's obvious that horror is the film's main aim. Not that this is a problem; but the Night of the Demons could have been a lot better had it fused these elements properly. The characters are pretty much what you'd expect from this sort of film; but the acting suits the movie well, and it's clear that the young cast had a good time making this movie and it translates well to the screen. The effects are good in that they suit the film well, and as most of the death sequences are well executed; it's a good bet that most people won't get bored watching this. This isn't a classic or must see film; but I can highly recommend it as it offers a good time and will appeal to fans of silly horror fodder. | 1 | positive |
Based on the book "Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.<br /><br /> The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.<br /><br /> Not to be over-looked. | 1 | positive |
I saw this on TCM recently and, through the IMDb I found that there were seven "Crime Doctor" movies with Warner Baxter as the psychiatrist-detective. Baxter is a bit long in the tooth compared to his stolid performance in 42nd Street a decade earlier. Not noir, and a bit campy today, the movie also has a touch of the possible supernatural. The plot, black and white cinematography and characters are far more complex than those of the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan series. There are subplots, unexpected twists and appearances by a number of B movie stalwartly we all should recognize immediately (none ever made it to the A status). It is a wonderfully unpredictable 70 minutes.<br /><br />I would love to see a boxed DVD series of these films. | 1 | positive |
In today's world of advertising and teenage horror and sensationalism it is very rare that one gets to see a movie and no nothing about it. Movies like Psycho and Blair Witch, while being great in suspense (both with great build ups) are spoiled by the fact that we know all about the best scenes and at least the plot before we see them. With Mute Witness, a rare treat, I stumbled upon this film and watched it, scared witless, in the middle of the night. I was scared by the menacing Russian ambience, the 'snuff' theme and the claustrophobic plight of the mute and the fact that the (amusing, which always leads to likeable) characters could meet the end at any second. Since this is a low budget and rare film we watch it without any expectations. It also has Fay Ripley in a rare movie role, watch and prepare to be excited, scared and thrilled in totally unexpected ways. | 1 | positive |
Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance. | 0 | negative |
I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.<br /><br />Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible. | 0 | negative |
This film reminds me very much of the later Rock Hudson film MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT--about a fishing writer who has NEVER fished and is forced into entering a fishing tournament. In this case, Barbara Stanwyck is a Martha Stewart-like writer who can't cook and doesn't really have the perfect family she describes in her articles--in fact, she has no family at all. Well, like Rock, she is maneuvered into performing--in this case, creating a huge holiday dinner while vacationing in the countryside. Since there is no family, she takes home a veteran and a few friends and tried desperately NOT to "let the cat out of the bag" that she can't do any of the things she is known for doing. A cute little comedy and a welcome film to the annual holiday film lineup. | 1 | positive |
I would like if they brought back surface. I really enjoyed the show along with my family. I felt the plot development and storyline were first rate. Like the other person said, it seems that everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator. Nothing but bland, politically correct junk survives. Just look at the internet to see how many people were watching the show. Also it is not nice to leave us hanging as to what happened the all of the characters on the show. This is the same thing that happened to the time travel show I think was called 8 days but should have been called backstep. Did the Olympics kill surface? I know the writers strike killed another one of my favorite shows years ago called greatest American hero. | 1 | positive |
For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. Not only is it a comedy that fails at being even remotely funny, but there's also just nothing to laugh *at* about the movie. It was even worse than I'd expected. I rented this sucker and still felt cheated out of time more than money. I have never seen a film that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. I have used IMDb for some time but felt obligated to register just to help prevent poor unsuspecting folks from renting or, worse, buying this stinker!! Really a waste of time and money. I must say that the plot line is awful. | 0 | negative |
I loved this movie and I watch it everyday. I think that although the acting isn't all that great, it's really just a bunch of guys having fun with a script. I had been looking all over for this movie, for almost a year, and when I found it for thirty dollars, I just had to get it. It is now, by far my favorite movie of all time. It deals with relationship failure, and at the same time making a joke of it. I loved all the parts with Don Vito, especially the one where Valo asks him for a grape when they're sitting on the porch, and He tells him to eat the one rolling down the porch. IT really portrays him as he really is. The part in the "Making Of" really touched me, when they adressed Brandon Novak's addiction to heroin, and how much his friends and family were trying to help him. A new movie that's in the making, called "Dreamseller," is in production, which is about the story of Novak's dreams, shattered by his addiction. | 1 | positive |
Romuald et Juliette is one of those French romantic comedies where they seem to break all the rules, rather like Trop Belle Pour Toi. The gorgeous Daniel Auteuil learns about true loyalty and love when his life threatens to crash around his ears. The film isn't a preachy morality tale, but a wonderful story that will keep you hooked until the last. Firmine Richard (as Juliette) is a heroine that women will cheer - her laughter is my abiding memory of this warm and witty film. The down-to-earth way she has of including all her children by their different fathers - particularly the birthdays - gives the film an edge that lifts it above your average romantic comedy. But its always the French that seem to show us how effortless this all is! | 1 | positive |
That's what I thought, when I heard about the cast of Inglorious Basterds. And I'm both from Germany and into movies.<br /><br />That guy is older than 50 and so far he almost only played in mediocre TV series - and even there he didn't play the main parts. Obviously nobody ever noticed, what he's capable of. Now, thanks to QT, he got one shot to change that - and - let's put it this way - that was a bingo! He is the living proof of what a great caster Tarrantino is.<br /><br />By the way: I think it's a great privilege to watch the movie as a German - being able to understand everything. And the German dialog is written almost as good as the English.<br /><br />Now I could repeat, what many others have written here before. I'll put it short: Finally, QT is back. | 1 | positive |
Sometimes I think that somewhere in the "Lifetime" Channel's office complex there is a room where the writer's hang-out, with a large wheel on the wall - sort of like the Big Six ones in casinos. The latter have a lot of spots where you win even money, and fewer for higher amounts, until there are perhaps a couple which pay bigger bucks.<br /><br />But I picture the channel's wheel having about six different genres on its wheel, with two of them, appearing the most, labeled "The Psychotic Neighbor," or "The Spouse with a Hidden Past or Secret or Both." "Lifetime" movies have a few repetitive story lines, and these two seem to be the most ubiquitous.<br /><br />The "Spouse..." category can have a spouse of long-standing, but some person appears, or an event occurs, exposing that the good wife was once a hooker, one of the couple was involved in some nefarious act long ago, or that something else in one of the background in different than presumed -- etc., etc., or, as in this flick, one of them has entered the marriage with the most nefarious of aims.<br /><br />One constant, in all of their genres is that the husband or other males are usually clueless, vacuous, and slow to have any idea what in the hell is going until the climax, or at best, very late in the proceedings (unless the male is the miscreant). Not the case here.<br /><br />Whether the referenced miscreant might be the "neighbor," or as in this offering, "the wife," it is always fascinating how easily, successfully and effortlessly they proceed with their dastardly deeds. They manipulate many of the others, whack them as necessary, assume various poses, and juggle more deceptions than you can count - with unfailing success until just before the end.<br /><br />The lead actor here, like many in this channel's movies, is an old hand. I noticed that another film in which he starred was titled "The Perfect Neighbor."<br /><br />Finally, the vengeful "perfect wife" in this flick dispatches those in her path with more expertise and ease than the most experienced and competent "button man" in Don Corleone's family could muster. And I couldn't help but imagine that Jack Nocholson's Melvin Udall character fro "As Good As It Gets," with his massive OCD affliction, could provide counsel to the anti-heroine to assist in dealing with he obsession which was the basis of this opus. | 0 | negative |
I had read online reviews praising this obscure outing as a combination of gory horror, quirky black comedy and borderline art-house; the film has elements of all three, to be sure, but they are at the service of such a supremely silly premise (the title immediately gives the game away) and amateurish production to boot that its long-term neglect due to a lack of proper distribution basically until Cult Epics picked it up for DVD release a full 30 years after its inception! was no great loss to cinema or even the genre(s). The bed was apparently created for the purpose of accommodating a demon's dalliance with a woman; anyway, a dying man who had made use of the four-poster and even painted it ends up trapped in the wall behind the canvas(!) and provides intermittent commentary to the 'action'. Several people (from teenagers-on-a-fling to gangsters-in-hiding) supply fodder to the perennially-hungry bed; latest on the menu are a trio of girls one of whom, however, recalls its mistress of long ago and, consequently, the bed seemingly fears her! Seeing various objects from cigars to pieces of fried chicken and people getting swallowed up (the belly of the bed is depicted as a vat of honey-colored liquid) makes the film mildly amusing at times (especially when a young man's hands are reduced to their skeletal formation, which he seems to take rather too easily in his stride!), but also awfully repetitious
so that, at even a brief 77 minutes, the whole pointless exercise feels strained and downright desperate. | 0 | negative |
"The Aristocats" is classic Disney at it's best. It's not considered as the ultimate Disney classic along side the more well-known Disney-films, but it's a well-made and fun film that certainly deserves to be a Disney classic. "Aristocats" is certainly a sure kids-pleaser, cause it has all the components for a fun kids film. I'll liked it very much as a kid. I'm not sure if this film is a sure pleaser to the adults, who could watch Disney classics for the nostalgia sake, but I still enjoy this film as an young adult.<br /><br />Storywise, "Aristocats" may not be so complex or innovative, but it doesn't matter. This film was made on that period where the filmmakers followed the motto that the characters were the story and wise versa, which "Aristocats" certainly shows. The characters make the film; they're all likable, fun, have great lines and have a great interaction with each other. The voice actors are also a part for making the characters so compelling (Eva Gabor as Duchess, Phil Harris as Thomas O'Malley and etc). A misconception could have been the dogs Napoleon and Lafayette, since they're showstoppers and haven't so much to do with the actual story, but fortunately they're fun and amusing characters and the scenes with them are pure gold.<br /><br />"Aristocats" is both entertaining and cute, but it's also a very funny cartoon. The animation style and look fits perfectly for the film's French surroundings (especially the city of Paris looks greats). The character animation and design is great. And the songs are really catchy too. My favorite is "Scale and Arpeggios", but the title song is a cute song, along with "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and the memorable show-stopper "Everybody Want's To Be A Cat". And the score by George Burns is a perfect fit for the film funny and emotional situations.<br /><br />Overall, "Aristocats" is in my opinion the best Disney cartoon from the 70's and it's a film that deserves to both be seen and remembered. So what you're waiting for? Do your self a favor and share this Disney classic with your kids. It deserves to be in their memories. | 1 | positive |
In 1967 I saw an outstanding Musical at the Wintergarden in New York City where Angela Lansbury lite the stage as Mame. But did Hollywood give her the lead ???? No Lucille Ball great as Lucy was given the role. She killed the film. What a mistake There was no chemistry as there was on the stage Bea Arthur and Angela what a twosome when they sang.. It is too bad a producer does not put these two together even today | 0 | negative |
I stumbled across this movie late at night on TV. My brother and I could not stop laughing at how God awful this movie is. The crappy sound effects whenever White Ninja or Black Ninja punch, kick, or use a weapon is hilarious. This movie is almost on the same level as the Evil Dead series, but you can only watch this movie once because of shear crappiness. I'm not sure if the director meant for it to be so crappy on purpose because he knew idiots like me would buy it. | 0 | negative |
So the Koreans are now knocking off American horror flicks. But they are doing so with style. DOLL MASTER is a close copy of PUPPETMASTER and DOLLS, and even has a little CHILD'S PLAY going for it. Several young adults are invited to attend a special event at a gallery filled with dolls, only to find they are targets of a vengeful spirit. The dolls come to life and do some pretty nasty things to the kids. The gore level is reasonably high, the photography and set design and production values are first rate, the acting isn't all that bad, and the scares are definitely there. DOLL MASTER may not be in the same league with A TALE OF TWO SISTERS or even DEAD FRIEND, but it's close. Give it a watch. You won't be disappointed. | 1 | positive |
You don't have to be a fan of the cartoon show to enjoy this film. I watched it for the first time when I was nine, having been a fan of the T.V show, and my parents laughed just as hard as I did. It is done in the classic style of Bugs Bunny cartoons from yesterday, and considering todays vulgar cartoons, I would think anybody would appreciate a cartoon movie that relies more on "wackiness" then on vulgarity, to get a few laughs. | 1 | positive |
At last. Here's a movie that does as much for the reputations of the men of Greece and Russia as "Gigli" did for the those of Mr. Affleck and Ms. Lo. FROM THE EDGE OF THE CITY details the sad and sordid lives of some young Russian émigrés who live in and around Athens and spend their time burglarizing cars, getting laid, pimping woman émigrés and prostituting themselves ("But we're not gay because we don't do, you know.... And if we do, it's only once or twice. With the same guy.") There is hardly anything here you have not seen before and better; only the Athens locale adds a little novelty--even then there's but a scene or two that's scenic. Writer/director Constantine Giannaris ("3 Steps to Heaven") offer a relatively generic 95 minutes, in which the standout moments involve how stupid, sexist and (from the looks of things) pretty much irredeemable most of these guys are. (Interestingly, the gayer the guy, the more redeemable he appears.) What really rankles is the treatment of the women. Greek and Russian males would seem to give the Italians a run for their money regarding that famous madonna/whore complex. Has life in Greece improved much for women since the time of Plato and Socrates? One has to wonder.<br /><br />If I seem to be equating Russians and Greeks in this review, I apologize, but even the non-émigrés pictured here (the cab driver, for instance) are creeps. According to another review on this site, the film (a hit on its home turf) was actually submitted by Greece for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. What this says about the state of Greek movie-making, I hesitate to ponder. | 0 | negative |
"Problem Child 2" was a complete waste of my time. The original film wasn't very good but its a classic compared to this film. The first film went over the top with its scenes of a devilish child wrecking major havoc in the lives of everyone he's around. Here, it goes even further over the top. And one scene in this movie proves that theory. That carnival ride sequence was too much for me to stomach. It's awful. This movie shouldn't have been made.<br /><br />1/2* (out of four) | 0 | negative |
Isabel has just gone out of jail. She is decided to not return again, but life is difficult for ex-convict, specially if they are homeless, as Isabel. When she finds the one that was her boyfriend Rufo, she can see a light of hope, but Rufo is now not only a junkie but also an AIDS ill. This will not make Isabel surrender, because, if there's a will there's a way and she is going to fight for her future, to have normal life, with a house and a family. A very hard and touching film that has passed unaware by most of the Spanish cinemas, actors are great and the story is very touching, maybe a better treatment of the secondary characters would have made the movie better, but it is really good. I highly recommend it to watch it, but be aware that this is not a Disney happy film, it is hard and dramatic. | 1 | positive |
Every time I watch Larry King Live, he rolls out the most softball questions for his guests. He rarely gets any useful information because he doesn't ask the hard questions. This comes from his start on radio.<br /><br />King established himself on the radio and basically has not changed one bit of the format for television except for his talking head being visible. He becomes like a puppy for his guests & the only time he really gets useful information from them is whee they volunteer it or a caller to the show actually asks a hard question.<br /><br />Larry is a nice, fatherly type of interviewer. This means he should not have a prime time show on a major news network if you consider CNN one. I don't because of the history of CNN.<br /><br />Copying (ie. Cable) New Network was started by Ted Turner as an alternative to network news in that it could broadcast news 24/7. When it first started, the only TV competition was from NBC,ABC, & CBS. Because of this, CNN Copied the format of their competition & achieved respectable ratings. <br /><br />This worked fine for CNN until they got competing networks which were innovative & provided better/ fresher news coverage. In response to the heating up of competition, CNN went into denial & panned its competitors who were eating their lunch & ratings because CNN wanted to resist change. This didn't work very long & their ratings began to plummet.<br /><br />Now the Copying News Network is trying to re mold itself by re-inventing itself by copying the leading news network format. Unfortunately, this show represents a big piece of the problem. It is 21 years old & showing it's age very badly. <br /><br />Sorry to say, King needs to be moved out of Prime Time or scrapped altogether. | 0 | negative |
this movie makes me laugh by even just thinking about it. such a smart comedy! very precise yet easy. the casting can not be any better. all actors are the best choice of their roles and they all play precisely the best, and there is no stupid laughs or shouting through out the whole movie. layers and the progress of story work perfectly together and the rhythm flow smoothly. the greatest of all is when the Village People's YMCA is cued in, it brings out the importance of the Indian's statute which was only briefly brought up previously in the movie, which makes the smartest and funniest climax among many comedies. I give it a ten especially a lot of times comedies are so underrated. | 1 | positive |
This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the "art" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a "chick flick" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either. | 0 | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />Based on another of Stephen King's lengthy novellas, this takes place in the sleepy little New England town of Castle Rock (also the name of the film's production company!), where a new antiques store, the titular Needful Things, has opened. The owner and proprietor, Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) hides, you might say, a devilish secret. There's an item in his store that everyone in the little town wants-a small cash price upfront is first required, before a far more sinister price is asked for. As suspicion, hate and madness tear the town apart, it falls to police chief Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) to restore order and save the town from a terrifying end...<br /><br />I read the novel of Needful Things earlier this year, and was eager to watch the movie adaptation again to compare them (like that was going to be any contest!) But it had been deleted on video and DVD and I couldn't find anywhere to rent it from. So I was happy when I finally found it in a flea market whilst on a shopping trip...<br /><br />It's one of the cruelest ironies that King novels are generally the best to read but when they get adapted to screen nine times out of ten they are complete junk, as is the case here. The material that makes his books great simply doesn't translate into a movie script very well, for some reason. And I suppose there's always the question: why bother watching this when I could be reading the book again instead? <br /><br />I appreciate that some are simply too lengthy (i.e. It, The Stand) to be made into a complete screen work with all the situations and characters included, but there's no reason this one couldn't have included all the material from the book. As a result, a lot of key characters from the book (i.e. Ace Merrill) are not included at all and we have some terrible character development that means we don't care about the characters that are involved since they are so stripped of depth and motivation- for example we have one character from the book, Danforth Keaton, who murders his wife toward the end yet we were shown no build-up to hint at any reason that he didn't get along with or hated her and so it has no impact when it happens, unlike in the book where there was a lot of depth invested and it really involved you to find out what happened to the characters involved. All the material in the script to fill in the cracks, if you like, is really stupid and corny and the typically goofy stuff that gets included in King adaptations like this.<br /><br />Most of the film's problems are that it deviates so far away from the book but there's also some terrible acting from a cast that obviously can't feel for the daft material they're being asked to perform. In the 90s, a lot of King's work started skipping the cinema and just being made into made-for-TV/video territory. Rubbish like this must surely hint at why. ** | 0 | negative |
(This review is based on the English language version)<br /><br />Orson Welles' legendary unfinished epic was just that - unfinished. It should have been left as such, not thrown together in this clumsy, boring compilation of whatever material was available.<br /><br />While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the filmmakers have not only failed to do justice to Welles' vision, they've also managed to discredit it by inflicting this version upon audiences.<br /><br />The first thing that strikes the viewer is the amateurish quality of the audio. Not only are the newly dubbed voices rather poor performances, they're also inconsistent - Welles' original recordings (using his own voice, as he often did) have been retained in a handful of scenes, & they don't match at all. There hasn't been the slightest attempt at consistency. Add to that an extremely empty sound mix which has only a bare minimum of sound effects & atmos - a long sequence during a huge festival (including the running of the bulls) sounds like it was recorded in a deserted suburban street with about three people making the sound of a crowd that's meant to be in the thousands.<br /><br />However, the real problem is the unavoidable fact that 'Don Quixote' was incomplete, & it's glaringly obvious from watching this. The film consists of a handful of scenes strung together & dragged out to ridiculous lengths just to make up the running time. Case in point - the sequence where Sancho searches for Don Quixote in the city goes on forever. It's just Sancho approaching people in the crowd, asking them the same questions over & over again - there is no way that Welles could ever have intended using every single take in its entirety, but that's what appears here. It lasts over twelve minutes, when, in fact, it would most likely have lasted about two minutes absolute maximum in a proper finished version of the film. <br /><br />While the start of the film is relatively complete & rather well done, the rest has massive holes which simply can't be filled with endless overlay of Spanish countryside & still more shots of Don Quixote & Sancho going back & forth. There's also no ending. No resolution, no conclusion, no punchline, no point.<br /><br />Although there is material in private collections that was unavailable to the filmmakers, that couldn't possibly account for what would be required to make this into a complete, coherent work. Welles simply didn't complete shooting, largely due to the fact that his lead actor died before they could finish.<br /><br />However, putting aside the fact that it wasn't complete, & never could be, one would think that just seeing a collection of footage from this masterpiece that might have been would be enough. Unfortunately, by putting it all together in such a slipshod manner, one is left with a very negative impression of the film overall. In particular, what was clearly a terrific performance from Akim Tamiroff as Sancho is utterly ruined with the new voice & with long, drawn out scenes that eventually cause him to be simply irritating.<br /><br />Orson Welles' vision for this film was something far more ambitious & complex than a simple retelling of the story of Don Quixote, but that's what has been attempted here, & as such, the point is lost. The only person who could have assembled all the material into anything worthwhile would have been Welles himself, & he didn't.<br /><br />The footage could have been put to far better use in a documentary chronicling the whole saga of Welles trying to make the film. Welles himself even came up with the perfect title for such a doco: "When Are You Going To Finish Don Quixote?" | 0 | negative |
I saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a "true believer" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure. | 0 | negative |
Subsets and Splits