text
stringlengths 32
13k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from **** | 0 | negative |
I really enjoyed watching Hell to Pay. I've been a fan of Westerns for as long as I can remember and this one reminded me of a lot of the Westerns from the 1960s (even though I was too young to have seen them in their first run). The one thing that bothered me about the movie was the constant music. It was distracting at times. One thing I did notice, and I wonder how many other fans of Gunsmoke noticed, was the name of Buck Taylor's character. It was a play on Doc Adams' name from Gunsmoke. Instead of Gaylan Adams, Buck Taylor used Adam Galen. I wonder if that was his choice or Chris McIntyre's? Anyway, I would recommend this movie to fans of Westerns. Don't expect anything too "deep". Just plain old entertainment. | 1 | positive |
Running Out of Time is probably as close to a perfect film as you're ever likely to see out of Hong Kong. All the elements click: a terrific script (by French writers Julien Carbon and Laurent Courtiaud) that even manages to subvert the odd cliché, reliably imaginative direction by Johnnie To, and excellent central performances by Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan, the latter displaying his great comic timing to wonderful effect without ever crossing the line into parody (especially in his exasperated reactions to his superior's abysmal negotiating skills). The supporting cast is fine too, with Yo Yo Mung making a strong impression in a tiny role, and even the often histrionic Waise Lee (looking remarkably, and very aptly, like a bald Andy Lau) reining it in to good effect. It's best not to know too much about the plot going in beyond the basic set-up with only a few weeks to live, Lau engages in a criminal game with Wan's cop with no easily apparent motive and just sit back and enjoy the ride: it's certainly worth the fare. It also has one of the most perfect love stories in recent movies, and played in a mere three scenes (the second bus ride is one of the most magical moments of film-making I've seen in ages). There's also a fine score by Raymond Wong as well. The most fun playing cat and mouse at the movies in years. | 1 | positive |
This is the third movie in a month I have watched that did not go the way I expected. The first two being The Black Dahlia and Hollywoodland, neither of which gave any new ideas of who committed the crimes.<br /><br />I have always had a fascination with UFOs and was so excited to see a new movie on the subject of UFO investigation that was not a comedy. But after about 30 minutes, it all went horribly wrong.<br /><br />I could have stood for the acting, the camera angles, the stereotypes if only there was a good story about chasing UFOs, but none here. I am not saying there was anything wrong with the subject matter, but Netflix pushed this movie as a UFO skeptic and a UFO believer investigating multiple sitings.<br /><br />I stopped watching about half way thru. Can't believe I wasted that much time with this one. Please don't make the same mistake I did. | 0 | negative |
I remember years ago BBC1 used to show this movie in a very cut form. I tracked it down on video a couple of years ago and viewed it again. The film although slow and slightly odd (the mountain men look very strange) the atmosphere was eerily effective. It's one of my favorite slasher films and I have no idea where an uncut version can be found. Currently deleted everywhere (except the USA where it was accidentally put on a horror compilation!). It's a shame you cannot get this movie as it was meant to be seen. Wrong turn (the recent Stan Winston produced movie) owes a great deal to Just Before Dawn. One of the better 80's slasher films and deserves to be seen by a wider audience. | 1 | positive |
One of the major successes to The Decline of Western Civilization, filmmaker Penelope Spheeris' indie breakthrough, is that it can perhaps appeal to non-punk fans as to the hardcore ones. More importantly, it captures a moment in history before the movement became completely "market-worthy", when bands would play (or, at the least, try to play in some cases) in dank, dirty clubs to an audience that had as much self-respect as they had respect for the bands. For the fan, such as myself, there are precious interviews with some of the quasi-legends of LA's punk-scum, some dead, some still living and still hard-working in the scene. <br /><br />Performances and interviews include the likes of The Circle Jerks, X, Black Flag (in the pre-Henry Rollins days), Catholic Discipline, Fear, the Alice Bag Band, and most memorable (in my opinion) being the Germs. While I knew of a few of the bands and performers in the film (The Jerks and Black Flag mostly), I had only heard rumors about lead singer (the late) Darby Crash, and from the footage in the film he seems to be one of the, if not the, epitomes of the punk movement. He doesn't take himself too seriously, he loves to drink, sometimes when he speaks it's complete gibberish, and the attitude he brings on stage is both funny and in a free-form way exhilarating. A performer like that would probably scare Steve Miller and Jackson Browne out of their skins.<br /><br />Decline of Western Civilization may not turn on every non-punk fan that seeks this film out (it's hard to find on video), but it shouldn't necessarily turn them off either. Like a kind of anthropologist that's sneaked into the party, Spheeris gets the behavior of these people down pat, their motives, their likes and hatreds, and the power that was their on and off-screen personas. A few of them almost come off as normal, some don't, but they're only offensive to those who aren't too open to things. On top of that, the film is a must-see to the kinds of kids that think they're punk fans just because they listen to Good Charlotte and Blink-182: if you want to get the real scoop on the movement and genre of rock you profess to love, give the pioneers a chance. A | 1 | positive |
What a waste of precious time! My 5-year-old daughter brought this home from my mother's house, and we watched it as a family. None of us liked it. This wretched little film, rife with glaring inconsistencies, overt Christian themes and horrible film quality, is not worth watching even on a dare. It felt a bit like a bad high-school drama class attempt at film making. How sad to see talented actors (Chris Atkins, Gary Busey, and company) flounder their way through this trite and insipid storyline. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that the dog is cute. The film can should have gone straight to the pound. Avoid this film - your time is better spent watching paint dry. | 0 | negative |
The movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's "going mad". Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.<br /><br />This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film. | 0 | negative |
Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans. | 0 | negative |
I respect Mike Hodges, and liked Get Carter immensely for it's bleak outlook, but The Croupier just seems like a particularly dull ITV drama.<br /><br />The reserved, cold acting isn't just the preserve of the lead character, it's spread to the entire cast, meaning there is nothing to contrast Owen's character with.<br /><br />None of the characters evoke any kind of feelings at all, except boredom. The ending of the film is also untidy at best.<br /><br /> The camera work etc is fairly good, but if you want to see Hodges best watch Get Carter, don't bother with this uninteresting, unimaginative trawl through emotions he covered better 20+ years ago | 0 | negative |
There was a recent documentary on making movies, that featured a long list of actors and directors talking about what its like to make movies. One common theme was you can have a great script, great cast, the best director and lots of money and still create a bad movie.<br /><br />Down Periscope is proof of the corollary to that theory. Not an original or terribly well written screenplay. A few solid actors, but mostly unknowns, and this movie just makes you laugh out loud! It would be easy to just say that Kelsey Grammar carried this movie, but that isn't truly the case. Other character actors, like Rob Schneider, and the hilarious Harland Williams, added significantly to the enjoyability of the film.<br /><br />Cast dynamics, or that mysterious "movie magic" are really what happened here, creating a film that flows smoothly, has incredibly well executed transitions and line after line of well written and well performed dialog.<br /><br />A preposterous premise, lots and lots of technical inaccuracies and just plan silly things that could not happen in the real world, or the real navy, but you just don't care. As a merchant marine myself, I found that the overall feel of the movie, while not plausible, was also not too far off the mark as far as life at sea goes.<br /><br />This is a VERY funny movie, a good family film, and, particularly if your a fan, lots of Kelsey Grammar wit, sarcasm and just damn funniness. | 1 | positive |
It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.<br /><br />Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap. | 0 | negative |
I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing. | 1 | positive |
I thought this movie was amazing. I was a bit skeptical since I really had no idea what it was about, but it was beautiful story. I cried a lot and I also laughed out loud.<br /><br />I think it is very important that there are movies being created that are about the Holocaust and how it affects people (It only happened 60 years ago!) I have been to Germany and Eastern Europe and I have studied the Holocaust, so this film meant a lot to me. I think this film did an amazing job capturing this story (I wont go into detail, I do not want to spoil it) But I definitely recommend it for anyone looking for a movie that, I know this may sound cliché', but will change your mindset on things. | 1 | positive |
They actually make a big deal out of a scene in which Steven hurdles a 3 foot fence. The plot is...barely there, the acting (so to speak) is distressing and the action is catastrophically lame. This is the worst Seagal film ever, and that is saying something. | 0 | negative |
Oh, I'm mostly not the kind of person to give a movie less than 5 points. Mostly, just because of the effort from actors and directors.<br /><br />3/10 for Keyman from me. If anyone thinks the main character (or whoever) deserves an Oscar, I deserve the Nobelprize for peace.<br /><br />Seriously. I can't believe this movie made it to Europe. The acting was horrible, the plot was awful and what about the '70's horror-music. Give me a break.<br /><br />"Popeye" eg. What about him? Why is he there, he has nothing to do with the movie.<br /><br />And what about the Keyman's talking. One time he can't say a decent word, the next time he's getting all talky-talk. He also nearly dies when he wakes up and some sunlight shines thru his bunker. But when he's walking down the street, the sunlight doesn't seem to do anything.<br /><br />Watch this movie only of you're on the edge of dying of boredom. I regret myself for not watching my roses grow, which are in anyway more entertaining than this piece of... | 0 | negative |
I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons "The Magnificent Seven" was such a hit was the very popular cast.<br /><br />This is hardly the "magnificent seven," when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in "The Magnificent Seven." With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.<br /><br />Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the "seven;" in here, we couldn't care less. | 0 | negative |
I just recently discovered this fantastic series and I just can't seem to get enough of Garner's laid back PI. The shows continually display excellent level of writing and suspenseful episodes.<br /><br />This episode, Sleight of Hand, is a little different. Forsaking humor in favor of a more serious turn for Rockford as he searches for his missing girlfriend.<br /><br />The mystery is great and it's unraveling is convincing enough. It's based on a book (can't remember the name) and it could easily have been stretched to a feature length episode. Garner excels here as Rockford gets tough and really means business. This has a "noir" feel to it all the way, the dark lighting and overall mood echo the great dark thrillers of the 40's and 50's.<br /><br />Really good episode in a Class A series. Easily deserves a 10. | 1 | positive |
Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background. | 0 | negative |
"How can a name, not even a real name, break your heart?" Here's how. There have been few film versions of a celebrated novel that have done better justice to their source material than Anthony Minghella's movie of Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain. If you've read the book you will be able to feel most of the major scenes soul shakingly recreated. I personally cried numerous times while reading the novel and spent much of the evening watching the film through tears. <br /><br />Astounding scope, beautiful words, great acting and great music. In the interview on the DVD accompanying the film Minghella talks about the multiple layers of the story. All of them work. One of the best films I've seen and an invitation to one of the greatest novels of the last ten years. | 1 | positive |
Dreamland started out moderately interesting but never went anywhere except Tedium city. A low rent affair with no name actors and laughable effects, not recommended for any reason. The best thing that could be said is it looks like they really filmed it on location in the Nevada desert. That's it, I can't think of one thing good besides that about this stinker. The finale is supposed to be some kind of revelation but falls flat like the rest. Oh, I thought of one other good point about this cheese, it clocks in at just over an hour although it still wears out its welcome long before then. When the girl starts walking around in the desert at night it seems to last forever and just keeps getting worse from there. The attempts at horror aren't effective in the least. The story is an attempt at a twilight zone style feel but fails badly. Check out "Retroactive" for a good science fiction B-movie. | 0 | negative |
"The Beguiled" is one of my favorite Clint Eastwood films, and a departure from his typical early roles. Directed by Don Siegel, with whom Eastwood collaborated on several films, it was made a year before Eastwood's directorial debut with "Play Misty For Me". An alternate title considered for the film was "Pussy-Footing Down At The Old Plantation", which thankfully was not used, otherwise I am sure raunchy jokes about the fact that it takes place at a girls' school would be difficult to avoid. I first saw this movie in one of my college film classes in the mid-1970's, and was immediately taken with it. I only had an old battered VHS tape of it until I recently purchased the widescreen DVD, which also includes the hilarious, awful trailer that makes the film come across as a "Peyton Place" soap opera, and conveys none of the creepiness of the film.<br /><br />Interesting notes: Eastwood and Siegel had to battle with Universal Pictures to keep the original ending, and they won out; and, the film was billed as a standard Eastwood western, which it certainly is not. It is a Gothic tale of deception and horror set in the time of the Civil War, with an underlying tone of eroticism and sexual tension running throughout.<br /><br />I'm not putting any spoilers in this review, and if you want to see the film as it should be seen, then be careful of looking it up on the internet, as spoiler reviews of it do abound.<br /><br />Clint Eastwood portrays John McBurney, a Union soldier who is shot on Confederate ground and discovered by a young girl from a nearby girls' school. She rescues him and takes him back to the school, but instead of notifying the local patrol of his presence so that he will be taken to prison, the headmistress, Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), her assistant Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), their black servant Hallie (Mae Mercer), and the mostly teenage girls take him in, heal him, and fall under his spell. The film sets its tone of creepiness and Gothic horror right from the titles, as it shows real battleground shots from the war, while Eastwood's voice is heard quietly singing a funereal song of the time.<br /><br />The opening scene of his encounter with the little girl who saves him sets the tone of his character, and the tone of the entire movie. To say any more than that would spoil the surprises in that first scene. To say much more about the film itself might ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it...if you are into creepy, Gothic tales, find it and rent it. Eastwood is excellent in the film, and it is interesting to see him in an early role, or any role, where he portrays a character that is for the most part very unsympathetic.<br /><br />Geraldine Page had a plum role in the film as the headmistress, and I cannot imagine another actress of the time being as good in the role; a long shot could have been Piper Laurie, but I don't think Laurie could have embodied the role in the same manner as Geraldine Page.<br /><br />Elizabeth Hartman (whose wonderful performance in the film "A Patch of Blue" as a blind girl who falls in love with Sidney Poiter's character is another high point in her short career) is at her prime here, delicate and masterful at the same time. Unfortunately, her delicacy on film was also a part of her real life; she committed suicide at age 45.<br /><br />I end this review with this observation: one manipulative, lying Yankee man is no match for a houseful of deceptive and libidinous Southern belles. | 1 | positive |
With the plethora of repetitive and derivative sitcoms jamming fall, summer, winter and spring line-ups, it's nice to see a show that sets itself from the lot in more than one area. <br /><br />'Earl' takes an unusual approach. It's not about the "daily musings of an eccentric family" (zzzz..) nor about the other boring stuff you see everywhere in sitcoms. The show is about this small-time white trash thief (Earl) who scratches off a lottery card and scores big time. Right at that moment, 'Karma' took it away from him. Overtime, he learns that that unusual incident was probably because of all the bad things he's been doing, so he sets off on a mission to right every wrong he ever did and he's got all his deeds on a paper.<br /><br />This is a brilliant premise for a sitcom. Thankfully, it landed in the right hands. The execution of the show produces extremely satisfactory results: you get an innovative comedy that is genuinely funny and really touching at many times. You can't help but fall in love with Earl's sincerity and steadfastness, Randy's simple mind, good heart and observations on life, Joy's wild, flamboyant personality and Darnell's mellow, chillin' demeanor that really endears him to you very easily.<br /><br />When you combine the show's innovation with its genuine humor, good heart, interesting characters and well-written dialogue, you really have a keeper. With shows like this (and the incomparable "The Office"), NBC is obviously on to something. Did they finally free a cubicle or two for quality assurance? Let's hope so. And let's hope for more quality shows like these will occupy the line-ups; shows that'll make both us TV viewers and NBC executives stop crying over the long gone days of NBC's golden days (Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends) | 0 | negative |
This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.<br /><br />I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.<br /><br />It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!<br /><br />one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ... | 0 | negative |
I'm sorry but i don't understand how the studio get's away with this. The movie is just not worth it. Maybe as a theater-play but certainly not as a movie! And why do they call it a thriller??? Offcource the acting is good but i did'n't expect anything less from these perfect actors. Robert Redford plays very well and Willem Dafoe is convincing enough as the softy "bad guy". Helen Mirren can play almost any role and always (still) looks beautiful to me ;). I'm also a fan of her British detectives. Still they just can't save this ow so boring movie, i'm sorry. I hope we don't get to many movies anymore from this director "Pieter Jan Brugge" cause he obviously doesn't now the meaning of the words "suspence and thriller". | 0 | negative |
My parents may enjoy this show, but I fail to find the humor in it. What is so funny about a dentist husband impregnating his hygienist assistant and the oldest daughter getting impregnated by the captain of the high school football team? Absolutely nothing! It's a shock to me sometimes what people think constitutes humor nowadays. Blame that on shows like "The Dating Game" and "The Newlywed Game" bringing the issue of sex to the forefront in the mid-1960s. Sure, the series has its touching moments, still that's no excuse for the content that otherwise went into this series. This is nothing like the family-oriented days of "I Love Lucy" some five decades before. <br /><br />An answer I would have to why this series plays on the Lifetime cable channel is because that channel's brass think women can relate to Reba's character! I absolutely dislike the character of Reba Hart's daughter, Kyra. She is best described as a ditsy and bitter teenager! Funny, I wonder if the actress who played Kyra; Scarlett Pomers, is like that in real life away from acting. Who plays the blockhead ex-husband dentist, Christopher Rich, is not much better. Barbara Jean, played by Melissa Peterman, is ditsy in herself! The characters of Van and Cheyenne are also very annoying.<br /><br />Something else that baffles me is why the dingbat-of-a-series creator, Allison M. Gibson, decided to set the series in where I live 25 miles away from; Houston, Texas! Reba McEntire isn't even from this state, she's an Oklahoman! Why is it during one season or more they decided to make the incidental music sound like a pig snorting? What I mean by that is where we hear this baritone saxophone being played with drums accompanying it, but the melodies are basically tuneless! | 0 | negative |
That is what this movie is. Good God the special effects suck in this movie. It is difficult for anything to suck more than this movie's plot, but the special effects manage to pull it off. Let me try to explain just how bad this movie is.<br /><br />First, there is the plot. There are four punk-ass teenage dirt bikers who are riding around in a forest in Duluth, MN. One of them is a dumb-ass and tries a ridiculous jump and breaks his leg. A paramedic comes to help him, but gets stranded with them when the helicopter breaks. Then all five realize that there is a forest fire, which we see is started by some guy dumping tons of gas all over the forest. All they show us is his boots, and they show scene after scene of this guys boots walking around dumping gas and starting fires. Meanwhile, the teenagers try to escape the fire, only to find that boot man has somehow managed to get ahead of them (while they were speeding through the forest on dirt bikes!), dump gas all over the area they were riding through, and start more fires. He does this several times, and the paramedic finally catches him and starts him on fire. I won't spoil the ending, but this guy's resilience will have you shouting "WHAT THE BLOODY HELL?!?!" at the screen. Anyway, they are now surrounded by fire, and their only escape is through a mine which is filled with methane gas. Yes, methane gas. I'm not even going to try to describe the ending, because it is too ridiculous, and you'll enjoy it more if you don't see it coming. Which you won't, because you can't possibly expect what happens. This is because of the second major problem with this movie: consistency.<br /><br />Is some semblance of consistence too much to ask for? Apparently so. I cannot even count the number of broken limbs in this movie (they keep breaking arms and legs while crashing their bikes). I think each character breaks at least one limb, and several more than one. They then limp around until the scene ends, and then forget that they're supposed to have broken limbs. There is one scene where three of them who are supposed to have broken legs start dancing. But then their injuries suddenly return when the plot needs them to.<br /><br />Finally, the CGI. If there is a hell, it consists of watching the fire in this movie. All they did for the forest fires is line the dirt paths with CGI fire. You can clearly see that the only CGI fire is along the paths, and all of the trees more than two feet from the path are left untouched. And then they zoom out and show the whole forest being engulfed in flames. It's hard to describe in words how ridiculous it looks, but I assure you that the ridiculousness is quite impressive.<br /><br />This movie is one of those so-bad-its-good types. There are some occasions where it descends into the painful-bad category, but for the most part it stays above the line and is laughably inept. I can't wait to check out the other Nature Unleashed movies that came in the four-pack with this one. | 0 | negative |
I've watched the movie actually several times. And what i want to say about it is the only thing that made this movie high rank was the Burak Altay's incredible performance, absolutely nothing but that. Not even those silly model named Deniz Akkaya and some of these popular names at times in the movie... Burak is definitely very talented i've seen a few jobs he made and been through. Even though this is kind of horror movie, he's doing really good job in comedy movies and also in dramas too. I bet most of you all saw Asmali Konak the movie and TV series, those two would go for an example... All i'm gonna say is you better watch out for the new works coming out from Burak then you'll see.. Keep the good work bro, much love.. | 1 | positive |
"Don't Change Your Husband" is another soap opera comedy from Producer/Director Cecil B. De Mille. It is notable as the first of several films he made starring Gloria Swanson. I guess you could also call it a sequel of sorts to his "Old Wives For New" (1918).<br /><br />James (Elliot Dexter) and Leila (Swanson) Porter are a forty-ish couple where James has gone to seed and become slovenly and lazy. he has a penchant for smelly cigars and eating raw onions. He takes his wife for granted. Leila tries to get him to straighten out to no avail.<br /><br />One night at a dinner party at the Porters, Leila meets the dashing Schyler Van Sutphen (now there's a moniker), the playboy nephew of socialite Mrs. Huckney (Sylvia Ashton). She invites Leila to her home for the weekend to make James "miss her". Once there Schyler begins to put the moves on her, promising her pleasure, wealth and love, if she will leave her husband and go with him. The sequences involving Leila's imagining this promised new life are lavishly staged and forecast De Mille's epic costume drams later in his career.<br /><br />Leila, bored with her marriage and her disinterested husband, divorces James and marries the playboy. James ultimately realizes that he has lost the only thing that mattered to him and begins to mend his ways. He shaves off his mustache, works out, shuns onions and re-acquires some manners.<br /><br />Meanwhile, all is not rosy with Leila's new marriage. Schyler it seems likes to gamble and has taken up with the gold digging Nanette (aka Tootsie, or some such name) (Julia Faye). Schyler loses all of his money and steals Leila's diamond ring to cover his losses.<br /><br />One fateful day, Leila meets the "new" James and is taken by the changes in him. James drives her home and becomes aware of her situation and.................................................<br /><br />This film marked the beginning of Gloria Swanson's rise to super stardom in a career that would rival that of Mary Pickford. Barely 20 years of age, she had begun her career in Mack Sennett two reel comedies as a teen ager. Elliot Dexter was almost 50 at this time but he and Swanson make a good team, although it's hard to imagine anyone tiring of the lovely Miss Swanson as is the case in this film.<br /><br />Dexter and Sylvia Ashton had appeared in the similar "Old Wives For New" where the wife had gone to seed and the husband was wronged.<br /><br />Also in the cast are De Mille regulars Theodore Roberts as a bishop and Raymond Hatton as a gambler. | 1 | positive |
I endured this film just to satisfy my curiosity. It has to be one of the worst films I have ever sat through. I am amazed that this film currently has a 7.5 star rating. The acting is awful, script is non existent and the characters are so predictable and hollow. For a funny film I cannot remember even snickering once and fail to see how it could be defined as a comedy. Do yourself a favour and stay well away from this dross and check out some more worthy alternatives that would give you far greater pleasure. Check out films like the holiday or 27 dresses, these movies would offer a far more satisfying cinema experience. I sincerely hope more educated film goers vote negatively for this film, in the manner it genuinely deserves there bye giving it a more realistic rating that other film buffs could base their judgement upon. Come on folks let's be fair to everyone concerned and give those involved with this film a true reflection on what it is they have produced - an extremely mediocre picture that deserves to be forgotten very quickly. | 0 | negative |
This documentary focuses on the happenings in Gothenburg 2001. In swedish media the demonstrators where pictured as criminals that stood for anarchy and violence. This movie shows that there not, actually they are intelligent, articulate people that has something to say - And says it by the force of bricks. They believe in a better world, a world where people can think and say what they want - without being aimed at. But are their beliefs of having the possibility of changing the society realistic? I think not.<br /><br />This documentary gives us enlightenment in the issues of greed, capitalism and the future it might bring. It is a great documentary that is not propaganda, because it is not shown as what they say is right. Everything it shows is what some individuals think and it is up to the viewer to decide if what they do and stand for is right or wrong.<br /><br />I have heard many people that labels this a propaganda and therefor chooses not to view it, I think they are making a bad decision because even if you sympathize with the police or the demonstrators belief, all you get is more facts to rely on, for example the kid that got shoot says that he thinks that it is good to throw a brick through a McDonalds window because it is the step between thinking and acting as you think.<br /><br />Overall this movie freaked me out because you cannot really dismiss the facts that the few policemen, that fought violence with violence, did not get convicted or even detained in custody even however the proof of them throwing bricks at the demonstration march (and in some cases beating people with truncheon, even though they are lying on the street without making resistance) where as good as it gets.<br /><br />Rating: 8/10 - Very good, but not best! | 1 | positive |
i was glad that this movie did without all the supposed depth of all too many pseudo-serious interracial movies. race was one issue, yes, but so was class...and loyalty...and honesty, etc.<br /><br />i also loved the idea that the love affair wasn't couched solely in the 'decorative' aspects of either character's appearance. aren't our divorce courts (on both sides of the Atlantic, i daresay!) filled now with enough couples who thought 'looking good. together.' is all it takes to make a solid marriage? in any case, the tenderness and sensuality of both characters was thick enough to cut in love scenes that would have brought a rainbow to any dreary day! in other words, a light-hearted movie that's by no means a light-weight! | 1 | positive |
This is a very well done film showing the life of international students during their "Erasmus year" in Barcelona which by the way is one of the most beautiful towns in Europe and is an ideal location. <br /><br />The idea itself with all the different languages is great and gives the film an original atmosphere. There are some clichés about the countries but most of them are true! The characters could not better represent their different countries.<br /><br />Having experienced "Erasmus" on myself during my exchang semester in Italy I can say that is movie is incredibly authentic. I had many experiences which were similar to the characters (except I didn't get laid as often). The movie is also quite funny yet not like all those stupid American college movies.<br /><br />Finally the movie touches also some important issues like the change from student to work life.<br /><br />9/10 (I may not be very objective though) | 1 | positive |
Nothing is sacred. Just ask Ernie Fosselius. These days, everybody has a video camera, and a movie is hardly out before the spoofs start flying, quickly written and shot, and often posted directly to the internet. Spoofs are hot these days, and we go out of our way to make sure filmmakers don't get off on their own self-importance. 25 years ago, when the first Star Wars was made, it was a different world. Filmmaking was the playground of a select few and spoofs were very rare. Then God gave us Hardware Wars. It was shot to look cheap (or was it just cheap?) and the audio was obviously recorded after the fact. Does that take away from the experience? HECK NO! That's what makes it so great! It was raw and unpolished, and hit relentlessly on some of the more pretentious moments of the original movie. From Fluke Starbucker waving around a flashlight instead of a lightsaber (I did that when I was young!) to Chewchilla the Wookie Monster, to Auggie Ben Doggie's "nah, just a little headache" remark, this film short is as much a part of the phenomenon as any of the actual Star Wars films. Rent it. Buy it. Borrow it from a friend. And may the Farce be with you. Always. | 1 | positive |
The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie! | 0 | negative |
"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.<br /><br />One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.<br /><br />What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere. | 0 | negative |
Some describe CALIGULIA as "the" most controversial film of its era. While this is debatable, it is certainly one of the most embarrassing: virtually every big name associated with the film made an effort to distance themselves from it. Author Gore Vidal actually sued (with mixed results) to have his name removed from the film, and when the stars saw the film their reactions varied from loudly voiced disgust to strategic silence. What they wanted, of course, was for it to go away.<br /><br />For a while it looked like it might. CALIGULA was a major box-office and critical flop (producer Guccione had to rent theatres in order to get it screened at all), and although the film was released on VHS to the home market so many censorship issues were raised that it was re-edited, and the edited version was the only one widely available for more than a decade. But now CALIGULIA is on DVD, available in both edited "R" and original "Unrated" versions. And no doubt John Gielgud is glad he didn't live to see it happen.<br /><br />The only way to describe CALIGULIA is to say it is something like DEEP THROAT meets David Lynch's DUNE by way of Fellini having an off day. Vidal's script fell into the hands of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, who used Vidal's reputation to bankroll the project and lure the big name stars--and then threw out most of Vidal's script and brought in soft-porn director Tinto Brass. Then, when Guccione felt Brass' work wasn't explicit enough, he and Giancarlo Lui photographed hardcore material on the sly.<br /><br />Viewers watching the edited version may wonder what all the fuss is about, but those viewing the original cut will quickly realize that it leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. There is a tremendous amount of nudity, and that remains in the edited version, but the original comes complete with XXX scenes: there is very explicit gay, lesbian, and straight sex, kinky sex, and a grand orgy complete with dancing Roman guards thrown in for good measure. The film is also incredibly violent and bloody, with rape, torture, and mutilation the order of the day. In one particularly disturbing scene, a man is slowly stabbed to death, a woman urinates on his corpse, and his genitals are cut off and thrown to the dogs.<br /><br />In a documentary that accompanies the DVD release, Guccione states he wanted the film to reflect the reality of pagan Rome. If so, he missed the mark. We know very little about Caligula--and what little we know is questionable at best. That aside, orgies and casual sex were not a commonplace of Roman society, where adultery was an offense punishable by death. And certainly ancient Rome NEVER looked like the strange, slightly Oriental, oddly space-age sets and costumes offered by the designers.<br /><br />On the plus side, those sets and costumes are often fantastically beautiful, and although the cinematography is commonplace it at least does them justice; the score is also very, very good. The most successful member of the cast is Helen Mirren, who manages to engage our interests and sympathies as the Empress Caesonia; Gielgud and O'Toole also escape in reasonably good form. The same cannot be said for McDowell, but in justice to him he doesn't have much to work with.<br /><br />The movie does possess a dark fascination, but ultimately it is an oddity, more interesting for its design and flat-out weirdness than for content. Some of the bodies on display (including McDowell's and Mirren's) are extremely beautiful, and some of the sex scenes work very well as pornography... but then again, some of them are so distasteful they might drive you to abstinence, and the bloody and grotesque nature of the film undercuts its eroticism. If you're up to it, it is worth seeing once, but once is likely to be enough.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 0 | negative |
This movie was horrible and corny. James Agee is rolling in his grave.This movie was nothing at all like the book and made a mockery of it. No one should see this movie unless they want to gag. | 0 | negative |
Just watched it on the Hallmark Channel. I was surprised to John Denver! This movie was full of clichés, but that is to be expected (a made for TV Christmas movie- come on!) The acting is as good as any other '80's made for TV movie. The story is, as I said before, predictable and cliché, but still good. If you are looking for a campy Christmas movie, it will certainly scratch your itch.<br /><br />I was also pleased when I learned that it took place in Georgetown, Colorado. It is a real mountain town west of Denver. Very cool as this is my home region.<br /><br />I was never a big John Denver fan (I always found him to be pretty foney) but he was a decent actor. He is very good as the good old boy like he played in this film.<br /><br />If you get the chance to watch it, than do. I'm sure it will be on again in 2007. | 1 | positive |
George Scott gave the performance of a lifetime in Paddy Chayefsky's THE HOSPITAL, a very dark drama about an aging big city hospital and a middle-aged physician on the verge of suicide. Along comes Diana Rigg as a free spirit determined to save him from himself. Their dialog crackles, and it is clear they are made for each other from the outset. But will she save him? Their one sex scene is both graphic and memorable for its passion and fury. Meanwhile, the hospital is under siege by a group of agitators who don't want it to turn a condemned building into a cancer center. And a serial killer is loose in the hospital, specializing in doctors and nurses. A good part of the movie, though, is squarely focused on Scott. As it should be. What a difference a few years made back when this movie was made. 1962 had given us THE INTERNS, a hokey, old-fashioned reworking of DR. KILDARE with terrible acting and a cardboard script. Along came 1971 and THE HOSPITAL. Less than 10 years later. Hollywood did something right for a change. Watching THE HOSPITAL today is a reminder of how much medical shows like ST. ELSEWHERE and SCRUBS owe to this enduring classic. And if THE HOSPITAL reminds you of NETWORK, it should. Same scripter. | 1 | positive |
This was the third time I tried to watch this film. The previous two times, I found the beginning so sickeningly sweet and "schmaltzy" that I just stopped watching. However, now that I am a little older and more compulsive, I forced myself to watch all the film and I was very surprised to see that I actually liked it quite a bit. So, I look at the movie much the same way I would look at swimming in the ocean when the water temperature is 70 degrees (that's about 21-22 degrees Centigrade for all those metric-lovers out there). Sure, the water is terribly cold and shocking at first, but if you FORCE yourself to stay in the water, you'll get used to it--so resist that urge to jump out right away!! <br /><br />The film begins with a lengthy exchange between Flynn and his daughter, played by a lispy Patti Brady. Some may find there conversations very cute and endearing, though others may find them a bit hard to take since these moments are so gosh-darn sweet! In a way, it was some amazing acting by Flynn because it's hard to imagine him in real life having kids or acting domestic especially that he wanted to be faithful to one woman in this film--now THAT'S ACTING!! NEVER SAY GOODBYE concerns the divorced couple, Flynn and Parker, and their mutual desire to remarry. Since they both love each other as well as their lispy kid, it seems like a foregone conclusion that they will once again tie the knot. However, there are some serious problems standing in their way: Lucille Watson (who plays her usual over-bearing and controlling mother-in-law character), Flynn's girlfriend (after all, he is Errol Flynn and he is divorced, so you gotta expect him to have a girl SOMEWHERE) and a marine (played by Forrest Tucker).<br /><br />Not unexpectedly, all this does get worked out by the end and everyone lives happily ever after. However, despite it being formulaic and predictable, the film is a winner because it is so much fun to watch. Flynn, despite his reputation as an action-adventure hero, is very good with comedy-romance and it's just a lot of fun to watch him. Also, the film has the ever-scene chewing Cuddles Sakall--he's just so gosh-darn cute and sweet that he is perfect in this type of film. And, despite the sweetness, the film is pretty well-written. The bottom line is the film is FUN.<br /><br />So my recommendation is that you DO watch this film and force yourself not to retch at the sickeningly sweet aspects of the film. Once you've gotten over this, the rest of the film is a picture that is well worth your time. | 1 | positive |
Every episode I saw when I was an innocent child was stupid. There were some funny looking puppets called "The Mitts" who would always discuss childhood things. They would play this song before "The Mitts" part of the show that goes like this "Let's join the Mitts..." There was a Groucho Marx puppet that told jokes. Before the session, this man would sing "Hot Fudge! Right On!" There was a green puppet with teeth that was called Seymore. We would always see more Seymore. He would crack jokes and sing every episode. There was always a moral in every episode. One episode, a man sang "Liars are losers!" Another episode he was singing about sharing and caring. Seymore said tell me about those two little girls "Sharon and Karen." The Hot Fudge Holey Moley part has this man doing weird stuff and they played weird music. | 1 | positive |
It's what you expect. It induces laughter, cringing, and dry-heaving, not necessarily in that order. It's over-the-top. You will see things that you may never be able to erase from your mind's eye. " Jackass Number Two" is better than the first; the actors definitely took more risks while filming this movie. There are many stunts which could have killed the actors, especially Johnny Knoxville. The treatment of animals was suspect, but other than that, the movie achieved what is was made to achieve. If you like the preview, see the movie. If you don't, steer clear! <br /><br />8 out of 10 | 1 | positive |
I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.<br /><br />At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this "film" belongs.<br /><br />What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do! | 0 | negative |
I saw this film on the same night I saw 6 other shorts. This one was leaps and bounds ahead of the others in terms of quality of acting, directing, filming and originality of story. It comes together with a professionalism often lacking in short films.<br /><br />This is a great short film for the following reasons: <br /><br />1. Amazing performances. The 2 actresses are both compelling and believable instantly. Their chemistry is palpable; the depth of their relationship is conveyed, even though the film is 10 mins long. The acting and directing are very powerful.<br /><br />2. Beautifully shot. The lighting, framing and general filming are striking. The 35mm film sets this movie apart from other shorts. And what a difference it makes. The filming is worthy of this film stock.<br /><br />3. Strong story. Often short films try to do too little or too much with the time. Or they are trying to tell a predictable story. This is a good balance of telling you an interesting story, without drawing it out too long or leaving you unsatisfied. You wonder what will happen next, while at the same time, feeling you saw something happen.<br /><br />Nice score, too. Compliments without overpowering.<br /><br />If you can find this at a festival, make an effort to see it. | 1 | positive |
That's how Burt Reynolds describes this film, which happens to be his best ever. He plays Tom Sharky, a vice detective who's on the trail of an international mobster (Vittorio Gassman) and the man he's financing to be the next governor of Georgia (Earl Holliman). In the novel by William Diehl, the story is more complex because the guy's running for president. This is a very long movie that feels more like three hours instead of two. The filming in downtown Atlanta and the Peachtree Plaza hotel sets the mood just right for the story. Reynolds doesn't do much laughing in this one compared to his comedy films. He's very serious here, especially in the beginning of the movie because he gets demoted for a dope bust that goes wrong. At times though, the movie plays more like a voyeuristic drama than a crime film with Burt trying to get close to the mobster's woman. Only towards the end of the film does the violence get cranked up that leads to the bang bang climax. Just like the great jazz score in DIRTY HARRY by Lalo Schifrin, Sharky's Machine features an excellent urban jazz soundtrack with many guest stars including Chet Baker, Julie London, Flora Purim & Buddy De Franco, The Manhattan Transfer, Doc Severinson, Sarah Vaughan and Joe Williams. Al Capps handles the score with magic. This movie has become one of the best crime dramas ever. Check it out.<br /><br />Score, 8 out of 10 Stars | 1 | positive |
There's something strange about the antisocial sentiment you can find in some Cheech And Chong material. One of the songs in Up In Smoke, well, I often wish more songs these days began that way. But in this excuse for a video, the stoner duo are showing us the videos for four songs from their album of the moment, also titled Get Out Of My Room. You hear a voice-over during the opening credits in which some anonymous producer describes the record as being a novelty recording that will just take up room on the charts. Unfortunately, this opening voice-over hits the nail right on the head.<br /><br />Most music recordings endorsed by the RIAA seem to keep to a rule of putting the best material early in the album. Often, when one gets past that first song, the discerning listener notices that the recording has little, if anything, to hold their attention. Bands that defied mainstream convention, on the other hand, often saved their best material for last, or at least spread it evenly throughout the disc. In this case, Cheech And Chong appear to have decided to hedge their bets. The opening piece, Get Out Of My Room, is a hilariously-themed song with an incredibly bad video. Many a viewer of a 1980s music video will find the sloppy direction somewhat nostalgic. Cheech's conception of British punk is also incredibly funny.<br /><br />Where it all goes downhill is the second number, I'm Not Home Right Now. Nothing kills interest in a song quite like repetition, and it's tough to get more repetitive than this aural turd. Honestly, one feels the urge to slap Cheech in the face and tell him that we get the idea, he isn't home right now, so please move on. The next song, along the theme of love being a strange thing, is the absolute rock bottom not only for this collection, but for Cheech And Chong in general. It's almost as if this song was made for the sole reason of padding out the album's running time.<br /><br />Fortunately, the stoner duo saved the best for last, but it is also curious to note that Chong is completely absent from this cut. Born In East L.A. is a simple number based upon the old Bruce Springsteen number that mocks Reagan's view of multiculturalism. As one is regaled by Cheech's tale, one has to wonder how many poor schleps who couldn't speak a word of Spanish were deported to Mexico simply because their skin wasn't bedsheet-white. Racism was an integral part of America's culture in 1985, and it remains so today. If anything, it has gotten worse, so one has to wonder what Born In East L.A. would be like if it were written in the current era.<br /><br />Unfortunately, two cuts does not an album make, especially when there is so much boring filler between them. The interviews before Get Out Of My Room, for example, are quite funny. Not side-splitting like much of Up In Smoke, but funny enough to justify their existence. Unfortunately, the two middle songs are reflected in their making-of footage. Boring song makes boring filler. If you cut out the middle half-hour of material from this video, you'd have something substantially better.<br /><br />I gave Get Out Of My Room a three out of ten. They are earned by the first and last video. I'm pretty certain that the stars look at material like this today and wonder what they were thinking. | 0 | negative |
Firstly this has nothing to do with the much better 18 weapons of Kung Fu starring Gordon Liu. I mention this as my Kung Fu Theater presents DVD has a totally misleading picture on the cover, the wrong plot on the back and goes on to mention (no idea why) The Young Hero starring Hwang Jang Lee. Apart from an introduction to the history of the 18 weapons style told by a monk to some children during the opening and the usual mysterious manual that everyone is after, the weapons never really appear again and the fights are all boxing style. The hero is Lee Shao Hwa who I have never heard of before or any of the other actors. The film mentions another director Wu Yuen Ling as well as the one IMDb lists. The other actors are Wang Fu Quen, Wang Wing San, Chen Fei Fei, Wang Ki San, Suen King Kai and Hwa Yue Suen who seem to have sunk without trace after this film. The fights are reasonable and frequent but not great and the 'star' doesn't have much charisma. The twist at the end is just stupid and the film seems to end abruptly as though they got bored with it. The scenery and the training sequences in the river are a little different from usual. Unfortunately the pretty sister gets drowned not the very irritating (though acrobatic) young boy. | 0 | negative |
Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.<br /><br />For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.<br /><br />In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.<br /><br />Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.<br /><br />The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clichéd lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care. | 0 | negative |
Alistair Simms is a wonder in this. He makes such a good headmistress. The role given here for George Cole was made for him. Hence, the casting job on this film was perfect. I think it was one of those rare occasions where everything clicked. the story line was good, the comic dialogue a scream and the older prefect girls a delight!! Each character you are endeared to, even the villains. Why can't we make films like this any more. Basically, this is a very English comedy with good movement and fluidity. | 1 | positive |
If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.<br /><br />If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009. | 1 | positive |
Pure crap, decent cinematography... I liked some of colors. Other than that, this was one of the worst movies I ever saw. Boring, lifeless, not once did I find myself interested in any of the characters. I kept waiting for a real plot to form and the movie to pick up the pace. Nothing ever happened! I think they spent too much time working on hair and wardrobe that they forgot there was a movie being made at the time. | 0 | negative |
I'm warning you -- this movie is not scary. If you're a horror movie fan, especially a Child's Play fan, you'll think it's incredibly funny, but you won't be scared. It's not a bad movie, but it's not scary. | 1 | positive |
If this film won the Lumiere Award for Best French-Language Film, then what kind of garbage is coming out of France these days??<br /><br />The subject matter is an important one -- how the African economies are kept as economic hostages by the international organizations that are supposed to be helping them, namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. About 40% of the governmental budgets of several African nations go to payment of Western debt, while their people suffer from disease, dehydration and illiteracy.<br /><br />... but the subject matter was treated in the most dry manner that could be conceived by man -- dryer than the Sahara that surrounds the country of Mali in which this film takes place. More monotone and action-lacking than any documentary I've ever seen (and I'm a fan of the genre), one "witness" after another comes forward in this "trial" that is "captured" on film that condemns the World Bank & IMF. Some critics may site the colorful visual asides within the film, but they were out of place and had no complementary soundtrack when they were on the screen. They belonged better in a coffee table book than in this film.<br /><br />Even the characters in the film say something like "This trial is boring" and "When will it be over?" Everyone in the theater laughed. Were those people on the screen reading our minds??<br /><br />Danny Glover had a brief appearance in this film. It is a televised movie within "Bamako" and it was set within Morocco or Mali. It was also more ridiculous than any spaghetti-Western I've ever tried to avoid. The only redeeming part of these five wasted minutes was where a Caucasian bad guy accidentally shoots an African woman carrying a baby and shows no remorse whatsoever. Perhaps it was to symbolize the insensitivity of the World Bank and how it is unintentionally killing Africans.<br /><br />And one last technical parting shot, the subtitles were difficult to read with so much light colors on the screen and not enough black outline to the subtitles themselves.<br /><br />I've already summarized the movie for you. Don't be fooled by the hype. No need to see this film. You'll never get these two hours back in your life. | 0 | negative |
Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit<br /><br />space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's "ancient" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't. | 0 | negative |
It's really too bad that nobody knows about this movie. I think if it were just spruced up a little and if it weren't so low-budget, I think one of the major film companies might have wanted to take it. I first saw this movie when I was 11, and I thought it was so powerful with the many great, yet illegal lengths that Mitchell goes to just to keep his family together. It inspired me then and it amazes me now. If you're lucky enough to find a copy of this movie, don't miss it! | 1 | positive |
I won't bore you with story and plot lines, as they have been presented many times already on this page, so
It's been along time coming since I have seen such a film. Beautiful, elegant and restrained, with a narrative pace to match. A film with sensitivity and understated qualities that is rare in these times of clichéd plots. The beautifully subdued photography, saturated in rich luxurious colors, and for lack of better words, each frame is filled with an air of tension. The settings and locations are used repeatedly but the film manages to breath new life into them each time they featured, there always seems to be a key prop, light fixture, or set piece to slightly clue the audience as to where we are in the characters world.<br /><br />The acting reminds me of the "The Bicycle Thief", not the style, but the fact that you forget that you are watching two actors engaged in their craft. There is meaning behind every gesture and almost every movement has assigned significance to explain the inside world of the characters, the relationship, the feelings, and situation of the two lovers. The dialogue is sparse but like the rest of the movie, is imbued with meaning. Speaking of meaning, the soundtrack is infectious. Used here it becomes a story telling device. And although the film is of Chinese origins, even a song sung in Spanish by Nat King Cole imparts the film with subtle meaning. The orchestrated soundtrack is repetitive, but the repetition is what makes it comfortable. It is used in conjunction with the story, and not just a means to put music to action, or to cue the audience to feel a certain way at a certain plot point.<br /><br />I would not recommend this film to anybody, I fear most people would be jaded by the calm flow of the story, but I would recommend it to someone who is looking for an alternative to the romantic schlock that fills the multiplexes on our side of the world. I must say that I was completely taken by this film, and continued to watch it night after night. The story takes time to present itself and bears repeated viewings as very few films in this genre are open to such a broad interpretation. A very beautiful movie. | 1 | positive |
I am not sure who is having more fun, the people that wrote the reviews or the director of the movie. I could not go any longer reading this comments or watching this movie, I had to say something.<br /><br />I can see a low budget western film that is done with passion and interest on the detail, but using a garage with art deco lettering, pastel colors, actors that seem to be falling sleep because the script is so boring and the boom getting on the way of the camera every two scenes, that is definitely not my definition of "one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium".<br /><br />Please if any of you guys had friends in the movie just say it! | 0 | negative |
I honestly don't know where to begin when reviewing a movie as pathetic as Ernest Goes to Africa. Aside from two or three good laughs dispersed throughout the film, there is nothing positive about this hour-and-a-half waste of time and life. It is incredible that someone was able to round up a group of people willing to act, film, and edit this piece of trash, and even more incredible that this is the eighth installment in the Ernest series.<br /><br />During the opening credits of the movie, we see Ernest posing next to various African objects, such as wooden masks and the heads of African animals, making faces and gestures that would probably make most 3rd graders laugh. This opening scene gives the viewer a taste of Ernest's frequent attempts at humor, and demonstrates how his comedy falls flat 95% of the time.<br /><br />The first thing that really hit me about this movie is how bad the acting is. Everyone in the film is a typical C-movie actor, but Linda Kash stands out as especially terrible. She is the epitome of overacting; all of her lines are delivered with shockingly inhuman enthusiasm that you'd find only in a middle school play. Most high school theater students probably could have replaced these actors and delivered a more powerful performance. Jim Varney at least displays some comedic ability every now and then, but for the majority of the movie he just acts like a complete retard, trying to be humorous by making stupid faces and speaking in different voices.<br /><br />Ernest Goes to Africa begins in Africa, where an archaeologist has stolen two priceless gems from an African tribe. The gems then make their way back to the United States, where an unidentified man is seen running from several henchmen through a flea market. He hides them in a bucket of "two for a dollar" items, and then runs from the scene. Ernest is looking for a gift to buy for Rene, a waitress he likes, so he goes to the flea market and of course buys the priceless gems. He later takes them back to his house, paints them, and glues them together to make a yo-yo. He gives the yo-yo to Rene and she explains that they can never be together because he is just an average shmoe, and she wants a man of adventure. Rene and Ernest are tracked down by the henchmen, and are then brought to Africa to be kept as prisoners.<br /><br />Most of the movie really doesn't make sense. Once Ernest is in Africa, he falls out of the truck that they are carrying him in and lands in a river. In the next scene, we see him as a Hindu servant named "Hey You." His skin is dark and he is wearing a loin cloth. At first, I thought Jim Varney was playing another role in the film in addition to Ernest, but I immediately recognized Ernest's idiocy once Hey You began to speak.<br /><br />Another scene that sticks out in my mind as being completely ridiculous is the car chase scene in the African wilderness. Rene and Ernest have taken an ostrich farmer's truck and are being chased by the henchmen. Driving at about twenty miles per hour on a fairly straight road, both henchmen are shooting at Ernest, who is in the back of the ostrich farmer's truck. Ernest, on the other hand, is throwing ostrich eggs at the henchmen and their driver. The henchmen never hit Ernest once during the five minute chase, but Ernest is able to fend them off by hitting them and their driver in the face, making their car swerve off the road and explode in a giant column of smoke. I should also add that Ernest is slingshotting the eggs, two at a time, from a large bra.<br /><br />The set design is also incredibly poor in this movie. There is a large portion of the film in which Rene and Ernest are walking in Africa, trying to find civilization. During their hike, we see them walking through fields and jungles, which probably could have been shot anywhere in the United States. The fields are simply plain grassy fields, with no indication whatsoever of being anywhere near Africa (they could have at least digitally added some African trees in the background), and the jungles look like the woods of rural Connecticut with papier mâchè skulls, vines, and thorns hanging from trees. According to IMDb.com, the film was actually shot in South Africa, but I still wouldn't believe that at all.<br /><br />The movie goes on and on, Ernest joke after Ernest joke. The rest of the movie doesn't really make any sense either; the African tribesmen all speak English for some reason, and Ernest is later challenged to a "Battle of Truth" by the lead henchman, who is suddenly dressed in an outfit that resembles that of a ninja, yet also somewhat resembles that of a bondage submissive. The henchman has a table of axes, swords, knives, and maces before him, while Ernest has a table with a sandwich, a teddy bear, and a few other worthless items. However, Ernest wins the battle and somehow ends up saving the day.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is painful to watch. I couldn't handle it in one sitting; I had to stop halfway through and do something productive for a few hours to compensate for the brain cells lost while trying to appreciate Varney's humor. They should really put a Surgeon's General Warning on the box to let people know that they will in fact be slightly more retarded upon finishing this movie. I would have to say that out of all the movies I have ever seen, none comes close to being as pitiable as Ernest Goes to Africa. | 0 | negative |
Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.<br /><br />The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.<br /><br />Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".<br /><br />The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.<br /><br />The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time. | 0 | negative |
This is a quiet movie. It's a simple story about a writer who cannot write his story coming back to his home town to get started but instead he gets involved in a friendship with a weird older man whose life externally represents perhaps the internal state of the writer - it's a museum of unfinished ideas, outdated equipment and "useless" people.<br /><br />There are no extraordinary circumstances or any big movements in the plot. It's a movie about internal changes. Being stuck in their lives which are not developing much, the principal personages get to help each other to transform, stop leaving in dreams and achieve something or at least get a change and give their lives the desired and long-awaited new direction.<br /><br />On the film-making side I can think of only one weakness which could also be considered as a feature - we do not get much of characters description or inner world insights. It's very narrative on the side of thoughts and events and we have to guess about their true feelings which are rather hidden but still you can see them, and this is what makes your own mind work, trying to figure them out, to understand the impressions made by those people, and it's not empty underneath - the actors definitely hold well some inner states proper to their characters. It's close to the real life where you mostly never know someone well enough to understand them completely, and this turns us around and puts in front of our own feelings and choices.<br /><br />What's most important for me is that this simple almost flat story leaves you pondering afterwards, about your own life, about your own dreams and achievements, are there any or are we caught up in the routine and pleasures, leaving at 100% or only dreaming about it, could we do more and move somewhere we'd rather like to be than just leaving feed ourselves and others the tales like "I'll do this one day"- not moving one finger to make this actually happen, or "I'm fine where I am" because it's easier to go by the habits than to actually make a change? At least that's the impression it left me with and it was very timely for me, which adds to my appreciation of this far-from-famous movie. I definitely recommend it to anyone who likes the movies meant for the heart but those who need events and actions should stay away. | 1 | positive |
I am sligthly biased because I appear in this film but i loved it and I am only in about seven dispersed minutes and am not nearly the most interesting part of it. The film is an honest and intriguing account of a noble independent group of filmmakers trying to make a lovable movie. It is also an account of bloated expectations and fallen heros The interviews are well patched together in the editing. The different people are all interesting and there is never really too much of one person. Also, the interviews are shot in a pretty interesting fashion keeping the film visually satisfying. Definitely a worthwhile film. I hope it gets around. | 1 | positive |
As is frequently the case when Manga is translated into live action, there is quite a bit lost in the translation. However, this remains a highly entertaining film. The premise is unusual and it is presented in the quiet, understated style so prevalent in Japanese films (ha!). The special effects are a little 70s camp but, it adds to the comic book feel of the film. I wouldn't recommend this film to everyone but, if you are familiar with (and enjoyed) other Japanese horror films like "Evil Dead's Trap", this film will appeal to you. | 1 | positive |
This was the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of "Resident Evil 2" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the movie. | 0 | negative |
go get your camcorder, your little brother, and the disturbing neighbor next door who throws boiling water on raccoons; and you got yourself a film! well, that's what these guys thought anyway. it was so bad i can't even remember the majority of it except for flashbacks comparable to someone who toured in 'Nam. despite the really corny title, the horrible quality, the terrible actors, and the cliché writing, i think this movie isn't the worst i've ever seen. i'm saving that slot for everything with steven seagal, chuck norris and jean-claude van dam. anyhow, if you are out of options when it comes to finding new "horror" films that you haven't seen 1,000 times already, (as i was) and you are debating this one, i would still skip this. it had absolutely no redeeming qualities. this mock serial killer thriller was a weak, puny attempt at an even B film. if they're really lucky it might make the wal-mart $4.50 bin. but, i highly doubt it. | 0 | negative |
Just saw the movie, it's actually pretty good. The trailers'd left me an impression of either yet another Dujardin one-man-show-turned-film (à la _Brice de Nice_) or an expensive, stupid French comedy. Surprisingly, it's neither. Secret agent OSS 117 is stupid, but at least he sort of knows it, whereas I've always found that James Bond was stupid but acted like a smart arse. Dialogue is witty with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humour that one would expect from a British rather than a French movie. The women and the music are beautiful. A refreshing trip into the past, when the bad guys were ex-Nazis or Soviet brutes, cars were shiny, and France had colonies! | 1 | positive |
This is basically just a dumb chase story, nearly identical to zillions of other chase stories in terms of acting, suspense, plot, dialogue, characterization (or lack thereof), and pacing.<br /><br />The one area in which 'The Net' diverges from traditional chase movies is in its subject material: Computers. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters clearly didn't understand the differences between a pocket calculator and a Cray!<br /><br />Computer-newbies shouldn't watch this movie, because it will make them paranoid about computers. No matter what Hollywood tries to tell us, it's just not that easy to erase someone's identity by hacking. There's still too much paper documentation in the world, and there was even more of it in 1995.<br /><br />Computer-pros shouldn't watch this movie, either. I mean, a magical virus that can melt your entire PC when you press "Escape"? Please. And the whole virus, including the cool multimedia effects of your screen dissolving (what's THAT all about?) can fit on a single 1.44mb diskette? Yeah ... whatever. | 0 | negative |
This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good. <br /><br />The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc.. | 0 | negative |
Superb! Even the Author was laughing at the end. And what a "balcony" scene! This film has it all. Wickedly funny and yet strangely faithful to the Bard of Avon. (But NOT for the Faint of Heart!) AND... the Best Credits since Monty Python and The Holy Grail! I am "Troma"Tized! | 1 | positive |
I'd have to agree with the previous reviewer: This film has awesome animation, but has problems throughout the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Plot holes are huge, dialog barely explains the concepts of the plot--the MAIN PLOT POINTS aren't even fully explained until the last five minutes of the film. The characters state the obvious, while failing to explain the more confusing points of the film. There are characters that pop up and have importance in the storyline that are never explained--most of them have names that are only mentioned *once*, and it is exceedingly confusing to a viewer.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you are in it for a good laugh and how DUMB it is. | 0 | negative |
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Other than the mother being a complete moron on a few occasions and the youngest daughter being idiotic enough to go out at night, into woods that scared her in the daytime, this movie was pretty good. Had the director had the sense to treat us as if we had brains, maybe he'd have given us a movie where the people didn't have to behave idiotically, but still manage to get into danger. It worked for the plumber and the fellow in the trailer, but apparently the teenagers and the mother needed to be idiots, for the director to get closure in ending this film.<br /><br />Atmosphere was great, scenery was awesome and the undead kids scared the crap out of me... I live in a wooded area, so taking out the trash will creep me out for quite a while. The movie works for me accept for what I already mentioned. Raise the mom's IQ a bit and I'd give it a ten... | 1 | positive |
<br /><br />I first viewed this film shortly after it was put out on video in 1995, I dismissed it offhand, saying that Julie was no Daniel, never really giving it a chance and saying it was horrid.<br /><br />But here it is, 5 years later, its on Disney and im watching it again. And I'm finding that it isnt as bad as I made it out to be. Miyagi is still Miyagi, just as kool as ever, the musical score is still there pleasant as ever. And Swank's character isnt that bad, her acting is pretty good considering the script. It beats the third installment by a wide margin. So, my original rating of 4 has been raised to 7. | 1 | positive |
This was an awful short film that tries to be funny in a dark way but wasn't funny at all. Say at a film festival in Chicago. It really is what the title says and I simply wasn't into it at all. The bad storytelling was what did it in. If you re-wrote it and re-shot it, it "might" work. This attempt fell in "the hole". Horrible filmmaking. | 0 | negative |
First off I am in my mid 40's. Been watchin horror films since I was a kid so I have seen A lot of variety. IMO,this is not as bad as the multitudes that gave this a 1 or 2. <br /><br />Yes,it is a low budget horror flick. The dialog is soso and acting tolerable,sometimes. The basis of this film plotwise is actually pretty good. For those of you old enough to remember or lucky enough to have seen them on DVD. This is very much like a 1970's movie of the week. Just add in blood and minor gore,minor T & A and swearing, without big names. That is it to a T. I would rather watch this than Jason vs Godzilla or whatever other continuois crap is out there. Tho not as good, EVIL DEAD was a LOW budget film. At least give these guys credit for trying. With acouple MIL budget this could have been a pretty good flick. My score a watchable 4. | 0 | negative |
I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences. | 1 | positive |
The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill": not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. "But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it," states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, "the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?". The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. "Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies", Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in "Dekalog 5" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like "I want to live" (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion "a crime is always a crime": according to the principle of "par condicio" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do. | 1 | positive |
Its the best movie I have seen in 2000, it has the beautiful and talented Natalie Portman in it. It has a great storyline, cast and soundtrack. I enjoyed it very much. 10 out of 10 | 1 | positive |
Why oh why did they have to try and make a sequel to one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. The movie is a train wreck on every level and should have never been made. Randy Quaid's portrayal of cousin Eddie is an over the top caricature of his previous outings as cousin Eddie. Also, the Eddie character is not interesting enough to carry an entire movie. Even "eye candy" Sung Hi Lee could not redeem this hunk of holiday crap. Please do not waste your time on this move, just watch the original again. | 0 | negative |
This movie is awful, I'm SORRY. I bought this to get Star Worms, and actually expected this to be better after how disappointed I was in Star Worms. Oh just kidding, turns out this is the worst movie I've ever seen. The acting is garbage, not that there really is any, and the main character is a big stupid box who gets attacked by like, stuff or something. I can't really tell. The special effects are so bad that you can't even see the warring dinosaurs, which by the way do not war, but just stand and kind of move their mouths, or whatever those things are. The movie is a headache. It's very obvious the director is trying to establish a universe. Hahahahahahahaha... Really, this movie is just abominable, even by Troma's standards. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's got a Lloyd Kaufman intro, as he tricks us yet again into watching something that isn't fit for consumption. | 0 | negative |
This film is the proof that a good actor is nothing without a good direction. Ed Harris is awful. How could you cast an actor built like Rambo to play the "Maestro"? He shows no credibility at all and overplays Beethoven. Most of all, long hairs doesn't look good at all on his head. The main actress is missing all the subtleties needed for its character. The camera shots are cheesy and too conventional. The lights are to close of the characters feelings. Bad casting and cheap direction. Too bad! The only scene that worth the movie is when Beeth (I hope you don't care that I call him trough his nickname?) is turning the girl's song to a joke. Any way, I hope that Harris could find his way back to true movie where he can really shows his hairless talent. | 0 | negative |
black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. | 1 | positive |
But quite dated today. Otto Preminger made this movie without the certificate of approval that was needed then. It was enormously courageous and risky as he could have lost his investment and future.<br /><br />The film is not true to the wonderful book and is unfortunately hollywoodized.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra (and I've never been a fan) playing Frankie Machine, is astonishing in his performance. One forgets it is Frank up there, the level of realism he brings to the role of a jonesing drug addict has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />Kim Novak, eternally gorgeous and talented, does not disappoint in the role of the devoted outsider, always there for Frankie.<br /><br />Supporting roles, particularly a young, handsome and talented Darrin Mc Gavin, are faultless.<br /><br />Eleanor Parker, playing Frankie's wife, is hopelessly inept. She swings from irritating to melodramatic and is far too over the top. A forgettable performance.<br /><br />The stagey, cheap settings are appalling, as if a firm gust of wind would blow the whole tacky painted cardboards over the horizon. Almost laughable at times in their tawdry cheapness.<br /><br />The music was irritating, poundingly so at times. As if each nuance of the script (example: when Louie is getting Frankie his fix out of a drawer) had to be underscored at a high decibel level.<br /><br />7 out of 10. Sinatra truly deserved his Oscar nomination. Worth seeing. | 1 | positive |
This is probably the only film I've seen where the IMDb reviews on both sides of the spectrum are 100% accurate. "The Stupids" is an atrocious, dim-witted film with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever, and is a denigration to a director like John Landis. And that's what makes it great.<br /><br />In order to appreciate "The Stupids", you have to keep in mind a little-known, but very true maxim spoken by director Abo Kyrou: "I urge you to learn to look at bad films, they are so often sublime." In order for any film to work, the film must establish and follow it's own logic, and if it does so convincingly and sincerely, then it's actually possible for the film to work. For example, when you watch "Freddy Got Fingered" as a traditional gross-out comedy, it's complete and utter garbage; when you watch it with the understanding that it's actually a neo-surrealist comedy, it's brilliant.<br /><br />It works with good movies too. If "Jaws" hadn't accepted the reality it created, the air-tank explosion ending wouldn't have worked. But, a lot of people think "Jaws" is vastly overrated for this type of reason, and they aren't wrong. But it has it's strengths, doesn't it? The point being that a movie like this makes sense if you look at it with the right perspective. Some people, like me, get it right away, while others never will no matter how often it's explained. Jim Jarmusch made a compelling defense of "Showgirls" once, and even afterwards I still can't see it from his P.O.V. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. If you have the right frame of mind when you watch this movie (and NO I DO NOT MEAN STONED, I'm gonna put that to bed right now), you can actually enjoy the movie for the dumb, cheap, pointless slapstick late-80s/early-90s-style farce that it is.<br /><br />The defenders and haters of this film are right: It's STUPID, and that's the point. The movie accepts the stupidity of the characters much in the same way "The Jerk" accepted Navin Johnson's idiocy. And because it takes that and runs with it, the movie focuses exclusively on using that to forward the plot and to define the characters. A "bad" movie would actually do this and fail to use that logic properly; bad movie are bad because they make it up as they go along, whereas movies like "The Stupids" knows where it's going, what it's doing and why from the beginning.<br /><br />I can't defend the film from an artistic standpoint, which is why I give it such a low rating. The acting is mostly bad, the jokes very superficial, and the live-action quality probably ruins what would have worked as a cartoon. But I can't deny that it IS entertaining in its own way, and that's why I defend it. I got it right away, and I pity those who don't.<br /><br />I'll admit I was drawn to this movie because of Christopher Lee's delicious cameo appearance (hearing him say "Release the drive bee!" would have been worth the rental price even if I hated this film), but was amazed to find that, aside from the TV Studio Applause Sign segment with Jenny McCarthy, I was never bored, and never disappointed. In fact, many of the jokes, because of their cartoonish context, were hilarious (in particular the airbag-cigarette explosion). They were dumb, but they were funny. And the movie doesn't pretend to be anything else: a STUPID comedy about STUPID characters and instead of apologizing for it, it enjoys itself.<br /><br />And that's exactly why it works. | 0 | negative |
Barricade finds Alice Faye without any songs as a refugee trying to flee China and without passport. She's in a heap of trouble, I won't say what exactly, and even American extraterritoriality won't help her out.<br /><br />I mention that because one of the grievances that the Chinese including the bandits who attack the American mission in this story set deep in the Chinese interior was that particular institution whereby American citizens who committed crimes were tried by American courts set up by our consulates. We were far from the only country doing that however.<br /><br />Anyway the story opens with her on a train for Shanghai trying to use a hokey Russian accent. The accent intrigues Warner Baxter who's pretty plastered.<br /><br />Bandits however interrupt the journey and the two of them seek refuge in the American consulate presided over by Charles Winninger. He's the best one in the film and I only wish that a better story was given because I liked his character. He's a widower and a proud member of the consular service, appointed in 1900 by William McKinley. He requested a transfer ten years later and that's the last he was heard from. As Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan Hale aptly put it, he's the real forgotten man.<br /><br />Baxter does all right in a role that someone like Clark Gable would have done in his sleep at MGM. The heroics would have come more natural to Gable than to Baxter as the mission is barricaded and defended against the bandits.<br /><br />Alice Faye did have one number to sing. Why Alice's song was cut out, God and Zanuck only know. One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when the mission inhabitants take final refuge in the cellar with a trap door, just who was left upstairs to pull the rug over the cellar door? <br /><br />Barricade had the potential to be a lot better than it was. But sloppy editing and lost faith in the project made 20th Century Fox release a project unfulfilled. Watching Barricade is like eating a badly cooked meal. | 0 | negative |
Ingrid Bergman, playing dentist Walter Matthau's faithful receptionist who harbors a little crush on her boss, is absolutely wonderful in this film. She handles the witty repartee in the script with aplomb and steals a terrific scene where she and Goldie Hawn talk in a record booth (Ingrid's monologue is a front, but her face tells you she believes in it with all her heart). Matthau is an odd choice for the leading man (he's too old for Goldie Hawn and too unrefined for Bergman, not to mention too unfocused to be a dentist), but I liked the way he tries hard to please Goldie and stumbles around trying to free himself from a lie. Hawn (who won a Supporting Oscar) is just as fresh and bubbly as she is today. This bedroom farce isn't terribly sophisticated (and faintly reminds one of "Any Wednesday" besides), but it's a welcome relief from the noisy, teen-oriented comedies they turn out today. "Cactus Flower" is a lovely sigh! *** from **** | 1 | positive |
Talk about a bore-snore. This 3rd rate biker film was putting me to sleep as soon as the opening credits came on the screen. The shame is that the cast included many fine actors, among them-George Kennedy, Karen Black, Leo Gordon, Richard Lynch, Lance Henriksen and William Forsythe.<br /><br />A take off of the Western classic, High Noon, this is basically the story of a former U.S. army green beret (Henriksen) trying to get someone to help him rid a one-horse town of a gang of creepy bikers.<br /><br />Everyone tries, but the script is on grade-school level. Sad to see academy award winner Kennedy in such a comedown from his out-standing performance in Cool Hand Luke. <br /><br />If you have trouble sleeping at night, this would be a perfect movie video to rent..........you'll be sleeping in no time! | 0 | negative |
The Lone Ranger & Tonto set out to bring to justice a band of hooded raiders who have killed three Indians for what appears at first to be no apparent reason..that is until the Lone Ranger discovers from a conversation with the Indian Chief Tomache that each man possessed a medallion. The five medallions given by Tomache to his friends as gifts we later learn when combined will provide the mastermind behind the hooded raiders with a map to a legendary lost city of gold. Can the Lone Ranger protect the remaining two individuals in possession of the medallions before the hooded raiders get their hands on it? Is there really a lost city of gold somewhere upon native land? <br /><br />Watching this, I kept knowing what was going to happen beforehand and everything seemed really familiar until eventually I realized I had seen this exact same movie when I was but a little kid..suddenly the memories flooded back and I remembered having quite a fun time as a child enjoying this one with a bunch of my friends. As an adult though, the plot is somewhat predictable but you know this, while not quite in the same league as the 1956 film, remains a lot of fun to watch. Clayton Moore is perfect as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverwheels as Tonto steals a lot of this movie as he's probably in more action scenes than even the Lone Ranger. There's some very familiar faces on hand here including Douglas Kennedy as Ross Brady, headman of the Hooded Raiders gang, Charles Watts as a bigoted Sheriff, and Ralph Moody as a kindly Padre. | 1 | positive |
Jud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate. | 0 | negative |
I decided to watch this ultra-low budget film from the "Poverty Row" studio, PRC, because it co-starred the exciting character actor, Lionel Atwillplus I really liked the title. Even though Atwill often played in these cheap movies, his excellent style of acting always made the films seem a lot better, as his screen persona was great (his real life is also quite interestingsort of like a bizarre soap opera). The reason I use the term "Poverty Row" is that this was a nickname given to the very cheapest and worst production companies of the era. Many of these weren't even real studios, but production companies that rented space and sets from the major studios at night! Yes, there is a good chance this was filmed after normal working hoursa common thing for such studios.<br /><br />The story begins with Lionel Atwill telling his friends a story about something that he was involved with years ago. A doctor falls in love with a lady but he's afraid to tell her about himself. That's because his job is putting people to death on Death Rownot exactly a glamor job! The Doc asks his friend (Atwill) for advice on how to break it to her, but regardless she won't have the man. Later, you realize it's because her own parents were criminals.<br /><br />Later, a man is killed and the lady is implicatedthough it's obvious to anyone with a brain that her sister was involved (and is a bit of a nut) and the evidence against the lady was poor. But, apparently the jury was filled with brainless people and she was convicted and sent to Death Row. Even more brainless is that her old boyfriend was the man who was responsible for her execution. Don't you think someone else might just be able to handle this case?! Until this fateful hour, her friend (Atwill) spends much of the film trying to prove her innocenceand prove that the flaky sister knows far more about the case than she'll admit.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is only mildly interesting and a bit silly. While it is watchable and Atwill is good (as usual), the rest of the film never really rises above the mundane and some of the acting is pretty shabby. It's sub-par and about what you'd expect from such a low-budget flickand nothing more despite the cool title. | 0 | negative |
This sickly sweet and laboriously paced 5-reeler is definitely not among Harold Lloyd's better films. Gags are sparse and mostly uninspired. Saccharine melodrama is abundant. The setup takes forever, as Lloyd, the unconventional, but impossibly kindly, country doctor makes his rounds, bringing a little sunshine into the lives of children, the elderly, and puppies. It's like a 1922 version of Patch Adams. Ugh. 4/10. | 0 | negative |
As listed and stated in many previous comments, this unique series has many excellent elements and ingredients to its credit. Indeed, more than 20 years after it was originally transmitted, it is still watched, and watched again, and has a huge global fan-following, something which must indicate that the makers of this series undeniably got something right.<br /><br />The root of the series' brilliance and remarkable appeal has however got to be that it rests on wonderfully written dialogue and timeless characters all of which are brought to life by marvellous actors. The characters are wonderful in particular because of their complexity. In contrast to many other Robin Hood adaptations, and indeed many other film and TV-productions in general, the good guys in this series often make mistakes and can be seen to have apparent flaws, while the baddies, although put forward as evil and ruthless, frequently can be understood and even on occasion seem quite sympathetic. This very much makes Robin of Sherwood into a story about multifaceted, REAL people rather than of good and bad people something which very much adds to its uniqueness and remarkable appeal. Also, although very much being an action-packed series featuring numerous amazing stunts (which are remarkable in themselves seeing as this was made long before today's computer animation, green screens, and so forth. Thus, behind every one of those endless guys falling off castle walls, horses, and catching fire, there actually is a real person who at some point DID fall off a castle wall or a horse or catch fire), there is always amazing dialogue going on between the different characters in each episode. In the final analysis, however, it is generally the series' baddies Nickolas Grace as The Sheriff of Nottingham, Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne, and Philip Jackson as The Abbot Hugo de Rainault who get the very best lines and who more than often steal the show with their arguments full of wit and cant. "It's a wedding, not a celebration!" is just one of their many timeless "pearls of wisdom" which seems to follow one through life :-).<br /><br />20 years after the fact, it is indeed hard to believe that Robin of Sherwood was originally something made for television and apparently not with a great deal of money in order to provide fleeting Saturday afternoon amusement for small children in Great Britain. Filmed in beautiful locations, with clever, amazing scripts and featuring remarkable stunts and fantastic actors many of whom give the performance of their lives in this show this in numerous ways seems to be more professionally made and have more production value than many a Hollywood film. | 1 | positive |
Head should have been a proud moment not just for its stars (The Monkees and Victor Mature), or its director/co-writer (Bob Rafelson), but also its other co-writer (and brief cameo) Jack Nicholson. As it stands, most of them seem to shun it, and to outsiders the movie is regarded, at best, as a curio.<br /><br />While the T.V. series was famously based on the antics of the Beatles' 'Help!', this film is also judged by the same accord. Yet far from the trite and painfully overrated Beatles films, and even the dated Monkees T.V. series, Head has a layer of depth. An undercurrent of man's darker nature is at work here, and while that may sound like a bizarre thing to say about a manufactured pop band, the use of certain themes and images (hitting women, laughing at cripples and real-life footage of a Vietcong POW shot dead at point-blank range) give the film an edge that many 'serious' films would not dare to aspire to.<br /><br />There are also the fun moments, which range from James Bond parodies to 'Big Victor' and my personal favourite, Mickey Dolenz under beseige by Arab soldiers on horseback. (One of them turns to Mickey and hisses 'pssst!', only for the 'pssst!' to appear in subtitles!) The group are aware of their manufactured image in the film ('I'm the dummy, Mickey
I'm always the dummy', claims Tork, neatly summing up his one-dimensional foil role of the series), meaning that their characters they play 'themselves' acting and not-acting here are opened out more, and consequently are less generic and irritating than they were in the series. This level of parody and self-awareness even takes on their fab-four origins, with subtler takes on the Maharishi and out-and-out acknowledgements with a waitress who asks: 'Well, if it isn't God's gift to the eight-year-olds
are you still paying tribute to Ringo Starr?' Also listen out for Tork whistling 'Strawberry Fields Forever' while in the bathroom.<br /><br />Then there are the songs, of course. Six of them here, slightly more psychedelic than usual, which may have alienated their fanbase, and even a Frank Zappa cameo wouldn't have turned on an adult audience to their charms at this point. Probably the best is the charming 'As We Go Along', though the first, a Carol King-penned 'Porpoise Song', interestingly talks of the desire to live while time is ticking remorselessly away and death gets ever nearer. On a lighter note, its refrain of 'the porpoise is laughing' seems to be a direct mickey-take of 'I am the Walrus'.<br /><br />Constantly inventive with direct references to silent film and drug culture, perhaps Head's finest feature is its narrative structure. Not the only but the most important reason why it improves with multiple viewings, the story goes left, right, forwards, backwards, circular and through several levels of reality. In essence a series of sketches hung loosely together, its cohesion is tightened by the space-time defying plot which hangs its internal logic together by means of flashback, dream sequence, prison of the mind and remote control channel changer.<br /><br />With a perfect beginning and end, this intelligently-written, knowing film was not what The Monkees' pre-teen audience was expecting and subsequently suffered a negative critical reception. Now those expectations have gone, this one is in dire need of serious reappraisal. | 1 | positive |
Fame is one of the best movies I've seen about The Performing Arts. The music and the acting are excellent. The screenplay and Set Design are also excellent. My favorite part is when all the students start Dancing and making music in the Canteen. I can see this movie any number of times, and never get bored. I give it 8 1/2 on 10. | 1 | positive |
The other reviewer was completely correct about this one. The writing was awful, the acting was awful, the subject was awful. The actors looked like they were not really into the movie, like they almost *had* to be there. There were some unique camera effects, but they were not really germane to the story (or what there was of a story), and they weren't produced particularly well. <br /><br />I suppose they were trying to piggyback on the success (can I say that?) of the other eschatologically influenced movies (Omega Code, Left Behind). And yes, it DOES make Christians embarrassed when these types of movies are produced. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, especially a non-Christian. | 0 | negative |
This movie was made because the concept translates well into a two sentence summary that can be used to lure investors. That is, the premise is interesting and sellable. I mean, I rented it based on the synopsis. The problem is there is nothing beyond the initial concept. There is no coherent plot, no fully fledged characters, no real comedy, no interesting scenery, no surprises, and no good performances (except Jon Herder, he does something with very little). It's as if the people who green lit this thing never read the script but only the synopsis. And if there were enough people like me, it may even have made money.<br /><br />To the prospective viewer: don't waste your time, there is nothing funny or interesting to see here. To the creators of the film: hey, you got your film made, so what if its not that great. Most people never get to see themselves or their work up on screen. | 0 | negative |
Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back. | 0 | negative |
In an earlier comment I mentioned how much I enjoyed this film - better second time around. I don't resile from that opinion. Strangely, I can't find anyone else who did like it. <br /><br />My mother was going to see it but several friends told her "No way". My sister and her family saw it and half the theatre walked out part-way through. <br /><br />My wife's suggestion is that Australians see the characters as just normal, everyday Americans and therefore it's not funny. But, hey, most Americans think all Australians are like Crocodile Dundee, so it's nice to have the boot on the other foot for a change. | 1 | positive |
A terrific, fast-paced screwball-like comic strip/drama/farce set against France's 1939 implosion. Played with wide-eyed, straight-faced intensity by a talented cast and chockablock with action, satire, social commentary and authentic period details, from slick brillantined hairdos and marcelled hairdos to a fleet of Citroen "Tractions," a rollicking soundtrack and brief but credible impersonations of Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Petain. <br /><br />It's simply some of the best entertainment recently shown on screen, devoid of presumption and "message." If movies were trains (and there is a creative recreation of a trip on a steam-driven train that works despite there being no steam locomotive --an expensive prop, no doubt) this would be a TGV. | 1 | positive |
I know the girl who did the figure skating for the lead girl. She once dated my brother and she was always really nice! I also live in Cranbrook B.C, about 15 or so minutes from fort Steele. Haha i used to go there for field trips when i was in elementary school. It was kinda weird seeing it in the movie. I also had the chance when the movie was filming to be an extra because there was a casting call for them at the mall.But i didn't feel like going to it at the time because i wasn't interested in acting. Now i totally wish i did. This was such an awesome movie that i bought it off of Ebay. It never came out here, (which is kind of weird seeing it was partially filmed here) so i was excited when it came. I really loved the story line and the poler bear was kinda cute.But if anyone has a question about Fort Steele, just ask away:) | 1 | positive |
We really don't know where to begin when talking about this movie. But we'll start with the plot. We sincerely suspect that whomever wrote/produced/directed this movie never read the book. Because they missed the entire point. SATIRICAL, not horror. Just a hint. Second, the bath scene. Enough said. Third, the added characters. The sketchy Gothic french lady and her black page who enjoys holding hands and cartwheeling. We don't understand where this came from either. And then there was the casting. All of them were really unlikeable. We were very upset that Catherine and Mr. Tilney ended up together, because they were so unlikable that no one would ever wish to see them happy. And...the music. We think that the BBC producers ran out of money, so raided their grandmother's attic. And they found some old records. Saxophone, wailing female voices, and an occasional electric guitar. *shudder*<br /><br />Plus, the best line ever: "Since you left, the white rose bush has died of grief." If anybody has any explanation, we would love to hear it. Because it makes absolutely no sense.<br /><br />We are still wondering what on earth everyone involved was thinking when they cruelly released this pathetic excuse of a movie out on the public. We think it should be considered a federal offense. Torture is illegal.<br /><br />This movie is by far the worst we have seen to date. And I've seen a lot of movies.<br /><br />Our recommendation: Give this movie to whomever you hate. They will watch it, and want to kill themselves. And we agree with a previous post, we would give this 0 stars, if at all possible. DO NOT WATCH!! And we strongly suspect that everyone who commented so far in favor of this movie were involved in its production. Or were mentally insane. These are the only reasons we have been able to come up with that would instigate giving a favorable review. | 0 | negative |
Subsets and Splits