text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
When I went to the cinema, I expected not much. I knew nothing about this movie but it was the only movie I could see, 'cause I was in a small town then. So I saw this movie and I was fascinated! "La stelle che non c'è" is a trip through the new industrial China and it shows it honestly! You see most of the time the ugly places of China, and you see what really happens with this new industrializing. The main characters are sad but hopefully people. He's the naive Italian guy who can't believe what he see's. She's a translator from china who's missing her son. Sometimes sad, sometimes funny but every time poetic! A wonderful movie with wonderful actors! So only one star is missing! | 1 | positive |
This is truly abysmal. I just got a copy of "Disco Beaver From Outer Space" after hearing good things about it, and I have to say, this was just so incredibly unfunny and bad, it will leave you numb and mystified how this ever got made.<br /><br />I mean, what was it? Is it that this is typical late 70's humor? I don't think so. This is just so bad, and believe me, I don't mean "so bad it's good" either. This is a collection of extremely unfunny skits as if you are watching cable TV. Sure enough, this was an HBO program, and to think this may have been considered groundbreaking is scary.<br /><br />There is one somewhat pretty girl in it, and there is some old NHL footage of the NY Islanders hockey team, which is fun to see even though I am a lifelong NY Rangers fan. But they even mess that up, as they try to get some humor out of two hockey players scuffling on the ice as if they are "dancing" and, even worse, reverse the videotape of two hockey players fighting to make it look like they are having sex. Oh, how funny! In one slight bit of cleverness, there is an interview a hockey player named "Chico" who resembles NY Islander goalie Chico Resch, but they even blow this by having him wear a Rangers jersey! Well, maybe that was intentional, who knows.<br /><br />The bottom line is, "Disco Beaver" is just so blatantly horrible, so unbelievably bad, you will definitely feel cheated after watching this and wasting almost an hour of your life. You'll wonder what possibly made the makers of this garbage think they had something funny here, and you'll also wonder why these skits can't even come close to the worst Saturday Night Night slop. Incredible. Just incredible. | 0 | negative |
Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu. | 0 | negative |
During the making of this movie I once caught a statement on television about it. Something like: "Is Killinggänget now taking off Nazism?"<br /><br />So, my comprehension of this movie, was from the beginning to get a notion of Nazism. When recently seeing this movie in the TV-version I had this filter before me and it wasn't difficult to see this.<br /><br />Strangely enough I haven't met this way of interpreting the film ever since I first heard it.<br /><br />These are the things I found in "Four shades of brown". In all four of the stories the lack of empathy leads to disaster:<br /><br />1. The crematory-worker shows no realistic empathy to the dead animals or to those who had to say goodbye to them. In the crematory-room in dealing with death and fire it's almost like a cheerful game to him. The seriousness of death and fire is not emphasized by the father and his boy accordingly, in ignorance pushes a button that leads to the disaster that injures his father severely.<br /><br />Possible lesson: The importance of showing the young adequate emotions. When they grow up they need to know what behavior leads to disaster and what emotions lead to good.<br /><br />2.The magician maneuvers his wife like an invisible puppeteer. Just when she thinks she has begun to cut off the strings to the masters hand, reaching for personality, integrity and joy, he pulls hard and she is back in desolation and despair.<br /><br />Their son has tried to revolt in creating his own life with perfection and "good" taste in opposite to his parents "bad" taste. The real problem he is carrying within is far from comprehensible to him: His fathers behavior passes on when suffocating his own wife in his spotless environment.<br /><br />Possible lesson: Oppression breeds bondage.<br /><br />3.The father who was abused as a child passes on sadism to his children when he cheats them on their inheritance. He robs them of their childhood and in the end even of their inheritance.<br /><br />Possible lesson: When no love given you cannot give any.<br /><br />4.The fathers abuse of his daughter creates in her a ruthless revenger with sadistic aggression. Here the ice cold Nazi-sadism becomes very obvious in physical violence. It gives a possible background and a somewhat plausible explanation to the actions of young "scin-head"-nazists behavior when oppressing others. <br /><br />Possible lesson? : Can Nazism take birth in a pervert home?<br /><br />Can the hideous consequence of ignoring empathy in family life, in the long run, be that room is given to sadistic Nazism ?<br /><br />Very seldom does a movie contains so much. It reveals little by little as I meditate on it. I consider it brilliantly "painted" and the actors are superb. Especially the nice-seeming bloke played by Ulf Brunnberg that turns out to be the worst of all.. | 1 | positive |
Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.<br /><br />Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.<br /><br />Mind you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this case, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.<br /><br />One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.<br /><br />The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"<br /><br />The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there. <br /><br />The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?<br /><br />The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.<br /><br />How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release. | 0 | negative |
There's been a whole lot made about Carlos Mencia's (Mr. Holness, excuse me) theft of other comics' material. Heck, even before Joe Rogan had a blowup with him on stage I knew that Carlos Mensteala was swiping material from Cosby and Kinison and a host of others.<br /><br />To compound the crime of his theft, he retold these comic geniuses jokes BADLY.<br /><br />And that is a crime he continues to perpetuate on this show. I'm sure the series writers have to share some of the blame - it's got to be hard to write jokes day in and day out... but that's why people get paid so darned much to do it! These series writers need to go back to their day jobs of flipping burgers or whatever it was they were doing before they decided to embark upon a career of intellectual theft.<br /><br />Not to say that he steals all of his material. You can tell when he has devised a joke on his own when what you are watching transcends the merely awful and goes straight into the territory of horrifyingly bad.<br /><br />Because he likes to call people b***h on his show, ten year olds call him a genius. They're gonna grow up one of these days, Carlos, and when they do, you're gonna dry up and blow away. | 0 | negative |
This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film. | 1 | positive |
What makes this low budget production one of my favorite movies? Not kidding, i was watching it already 10 times or so and did not get tired. Is it the tender melancholia throughout the whole thing? Is it the similarity to classics like "Niagara"? I was thinking a long time about that. And figured it out: I guess it is: there is no hero, there are only people. Some try to be good. Some gave up trying to be good. Some are hopeless cases but carry still the spunk of being human inside. It is the story of a catastrophic night in a motel at the end of the world. One way the catastrophe is nothing but the end of a chain of coincidences. The other way this night reveals the logical consequents of this peoples lives because they are in a certain constellation cut off the rest of the world. It has something of a Dostoevsky tale. | 1 | positive |
The digital effects were done on the cheap and the action sequences lack suspense. This was essentially made for TV and it shows. David Suchet looks bored and Nigel Planer looks down right embarrassed! and as for Robert Carlyle's Dick Van Dyke London accent, no comment! If you want to pass away an hour or two when you've nothing on then it will do. If your going to buy the DVD wait a few weeks and pick it up in the bargain bin at Asda, cos thats where its heading! If the budget was bigger and Richard Doyle's book followed more closely, then it could have been something special, but as it stands its a bit poor. Watch the trailer instead! Or read the book and see what could have been. | 0 | negative |
To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint<br /><br />Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.<br /><br />As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.<br /><br />In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently) | 0 | negative |
This Royal Rumble basically had the message of wrestling these days. Gimmick and image are more popular then wrestling ability.<br /><br />HBK vs Edge. Pretty good match. A lot of heat for Edge who was just starting out as a heel again and what better way to go into a match with HBK. It kind of got a little slower at the end then usual. Overall this match gets a 6/10. Undertaker vs Hedinreich. Not a good match. Undertaker had to carry Hedinreich through this match who seemed to be really lost and screwed up his moves. It did get interesting to see Raws Gene Snitsky and a bit later Kane come into this match. Overall the fans seemed more interested when this match ended. 2/10 Kurt Angle vs JBL vs Big Show. This match was slow at first but got pretty good at the end when Angle managed to speed up the match.Kurt Angle did some really good wrestling moves and proves he is the best wrestler out of the match. JBL and Big Show put on a slow match. The ending to this match was bad. Over all this match was a 5/10 mainlly because of Kurt Angle. Randy Orton vs HHH. Good match,surprising heat for Randy Orton who was the face in this match. Randy proved he can go the limit with any top star. This match also marked the first match HHH has wrestled where someone dosn't run down and save him from a loss. Over all this match was about a 6/10.<br /><br />Royal Rumble match was OK. Some surprises. Some not so good surprises. I was kind of upset that Kurt Angle wasn't given enough time in this match. But over all this match had a guy who I never thought would be pushed so soon. I won't tell ya who wins. I give this match a 8/10 | 1 | positive |
Being quite a fan of Charlie Chaplin following good vibes after seeing first 'The Gold Rush' and then 'City Lights', I was eager to see 'The Great Dictator' as I had been told this was, arguably, his best film. I was also intrigued at the fact it was a talkie; my first one, Chaplin-wise.<br /><br />The start is typical Chaplin and blatant proof that when it comes to sound, Chaplain can cut it whilst not solely relying on music to set mood and to do the talking; it's funny, well timed and the elements of slapstick such as falling off an anti-aircraft gun are well tied in with the jokes. It was good to draw the viewer in with this 'classic Chaplin' opening and at the same time, kick start the narrative of characters getting to know one another. What was also well done was the way in which Hitler is spoofed. Any scene involving Hitler or 'Hynkel' in this film, was funny and even now; makes you think back as you know exactly who he's spoofing and does create an internal reaction of some kind. The way in which English in mixed in with the mock German during the dialogue scenes is further proof of the way Chaplin managed to adapt to the talkie era. My favourite joke was the five minute speech Hynkel gave, only for the English translator to translate it into a mere few words; making you think back to footage of Hitler you may have seen giving a speech at some point in your life and, indeed, laugh at him.<br /><br />Historically, the film got a few things right as well. Hynkel is seen getting his photograph taken with children; something Hitler did for recognition as he manipulated the media but here, Hynkel is seen to yawn and act bored; stabbing at Hitler's underhand technique of winning over the German public through sympathy (Oh, he hugs and kisses children. He must be OK!). The film is also given a fantastic premise of a Jewish civilian reinstalled into the ghetto amongst all the travesties going on but with the catch that he is oblivious. Films such as 'The Pianist' and 'Come and See' are two good examples of Nazi cruelty towards 'inferior' people which nowadays, we can all look back on and shake our heads at whereas back in the late 1930's when this was filmed, the fact he had the cruelty going on and was exploiting it makes it even more an astounding achievement. Chaplin has managed to replace guns and truncheons for tomatoes and saucepans and still pulls it off.<br /><br />What I didn't like about the film, however, was the fact it settled into an actual narrative after the opening. This slowed the film up and this is very noticeable as the foot was taken off the gas somewhat. The film started to hint at stories and sub-stories. These included the barber and the female neighbour falling in love and the supposed destruction of Hynkel's palace whereas none of these were actually developed. The 'giving a woman a shave' and the 'whoever has the coin in their pudding does the deed' gags were hinting at these plot paths but in the end, just materialised into nothing but excuses for drawn out, unfunny gags which was disappointing.<br /><br />During the final straight, The Great Dictator gets a boost from the fact the Italian dictator is introduced who adds some much needed life and excuse for comedy to the film. It works a treat as we see them argue and more underhand tactics are exploited when Hynkel attempts to 'overpower' his Italian counterpart through a series of dirty tricks (although, they are humorously foiled). Despite a few weaknesses in pacing during the middle segment and the fact I felt the message at the end was a little forced down my throat, The Great Dictator holds up for viewing today but that's only because he took the gamble of exploiting things nobody else really knew were there. | 1 | positive |
When a bomber, a patricide, a pornographer, and a mad biker, together with various other forms of social scum, have had enough of their sh** infested cell, they spot a rat and look for the hole. Escaping from the sewage the group of 9 souls, take advantage of their new found freedom and head for civilization. What soon follows is not surprising. Complete mayhem and terror follow in their wake. It seems that each has some unfinished business to take care of.<br /><br />Loosely based on The Great Escape, 9 SOULS is by far in the top 5 best films I've seen this year. Running at right around 2 hours 9 SOULS will deliver a story so powerful it'll literally leave you breathless. The beautiful, yet subtle, use of the rolling country sides adds the realism that is expected from this story. The vision of director Toshiaki Toyoda (Blue Spring, Porno Star), is completely mind boggling as he implements a sense of pity towards the characters. As quickly as each character grasps their dream, it's as quick as it's torn from them. Now, all responsibility of the success of this film should not fall solely on the shoulders of the director, yet props must go to the actors as well. This film was full of excellent acting from top to bottom. Ryuhei Matsuda (the son of Miyuki Matsuda of Audition) delivers a stellar performance, and seems to bring some of his mothers eeriness to the screen.<br /><br />I must give props to Artsmagic DVD as well. This is the 6th film of theirs I've seen now, and they seem to get better and better each DVD. The sound quality is perfect and the picture; clean and crisp. It's very annoying trying to watch a film that is too dark in transfer, so the discs from theses cats are nice.<br /><br />Bottom line is this film will soon receive masterpiece status by viewers' world wide. Keep an eye out in 2005 for 9 SOULS; it's really amazing film to watch. | 1 | positive |
*****Classic ****Excellent ***Good **Fair *Tragic<br /><br />Review:<br /><br />Oldboy is not for everyone. It's pervasive violence, its live octopus eating and it's unimaginary story.<br /><br />The film focuses around a man who's been kidnapped and is imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days. Now the story though may seem gripping to start with but once watching this bloated and un-original blood fest it develops into a mash of bitter blood and a forceful film.<br /><br />It's directing is on par of average and by no means the standards of what a South Korean thriller should be. Oldboys acting scenes are paralleled with dull humour and a poorly writtern script.<br /><br />Oldboy is occasionlly presented with thin straw performances that one could only feel shameful about.<br /><br />Verdict:<br /><br />Not for everyone but it's scope and vision isn't clear enough to see further than the grey abyss of fog.<br /><br />*Tragic | 0 | negative |
I'm surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite "Chan" (didn't they ever see "...at the Opera" or "...at Treasure Island?"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun. | 0 | negative |
gone with the wind and scarlett are two different films they were never meant to be compared obviously the original actors in gwtw are all passed away and deserved their own separate award and praise i loved gwtw and never really expected a sequel to be made or ever live up to half the praise of gwtw but to my shock scarlett was just as well written directed and acted as gwtw scarlett in its own right deserves just as much award i now can honestly say i don't know which i like better i think the script for scarlett was a- number 1 perfect' as a sequel. Bravo! writer director producer and all actors Bravo! AS sequels rarely live up to their name sake this one runs equal to its predecessor. To those who don't like it you miss the point and a great ending to phenomenal beginning | 1 | positive |
When this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of "The Fugitive" and "The Incredible Hulk" where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).<br /><br />They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.<br /><br />The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same name | 0 | negative |
In the New Year's Eve, the tuberculous sister of the Salvation Army Edit (Astrid Holm) asks her mother and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to call David Holm (Victor Sjöström) to visit her in her deathbed. Meanwhile, the alcoholic David is telling to two other drunkards in the cemetery the legend of the Phantom Coach and his coachman: in accordance with the legend, the last sinner to die in the turn of the New Year becomes the soul collector, gathering souls in his coach. When David denies to visit Edit, his friends have an argument with him, they fight and David dies. When the coachman arrives, he recognizes his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg), who died in the end of the last year. George revisits parts of David's obnoxious life and in flashbacks, he shows how mean and selfish David was.<br /><br />"Körkarlen" is an impressive and stylish silent movie, with magnificent special effects (for a 1921 movie). The characters are very well developed; however, the story is dated and there is a weird and unexplained situation, when Sister Edit tells that she loves David Holm. Why should a enlightened woman love such a despicable man that wasted his life corrupting other people? Despite being religiously dated in the present days, it gives a beautiful message of faith and redemption in the end. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Carroça Fantasma" ("The Phantom Coach") | 1 | positive |
Everything this film tried to do is done better - and superbly in "Run Lola Run". The Red Haired Hip Cutie, the critical deadline(s), The Lover in jeopardy, and the "Crime Pays-Sometimes" message. BUT, unlike "Lola", it just isn't believable or well put together. It is a labored knock off that might have worked for me if I had seen it before "Lola" - but it pales in comparison. Yes! The Falling Beetle was nice! But that was about the only surprise in the film. Do yourself a favor and see the Real McCoy - (And the REAL hip Red Head!) - in Run Lola Run! | 0 | negative |
It is very possible that I simply didn't give the movie a fair enough chance because it was so immediately unappealing to me (something similar happened with Triplets of Belleville), but I really should have caught on when I put the film on and my roommate, an exchange student from Japan, immediately started laughing at the movie, saying that it sounded dumb. Now, I don't agree that it is dumb, the animation is very simple but clearly very skilled. It's like classic animation with added layers that add another element of realism to them while remaining strictly in the realm of the surreal at the same time.<br /><br />But the subject matter is entirely unappealing to me. It has an interesting message about stinginess and greed, but it is wrapped in such an unpleasant package that it is almost not worth learning, especially because you already knew it anyway. The sound effects while the man is loudly gobbling cherries and cherry pits, for example, are indeed repulsive.<br /><br />There was a clever scene of animation as we kept diving endlessly into the hole that the man finds in his head when he pulls the sapling out of his scalp, but it goes on for so long that it seems to overshadow everything else. There is so much stock put into that one sequence that it is almost like the whole movie is about it.<br /><br />As I said about Triplets of Belleville, this would have been a great thing for a late night TV program like adult swim, or its Japanese counterpart, but an Academy Award nominated film? It gives me the impression that there is not generally a long list of animated short films for the Academy to choose from. | 0 | negative |
Sorry for any spoilers that this contains. But if you want to read on anyway: I really wonder why so many people are so high on Kevin Williamson. Let's just take a quick look at his work as a screenwriter, shall we? There's Scream 1 and 2 (plus the story for the next one), which I think are pretty funny but very overrated. Besides, by making Scream into a franchise, it ceased to become a parody of horror movies and simply became another one. Then there's I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is essentially the same movie again. He co-wrote Halloween: H20, but even he had the sense not to take credit for what he did on that monstrosity. Then comes The Faculty, which I can only say was god-awful. (Lots of fun to make fun of, though). Don't even get me started on the ridiculous, soap-operatic Dawson's Creek, I could rail about how bad that is for hours. So then we get to Teaching Mrs. Tingle. First of all, there are tons of little implausibilities in this one. For example: in most high schools that I know of, the valedictorian is NOT the only one who gets to go to college! This idea that Katie Holmes's character would never go anywhere unless she was valedictorian was absurd. Haven't you ever heard of financial assistance, damn it!? Also, I don't think you get expelled from high school or don't get into college because of cheating on one test. There are a bunch of other ones, but I'll skip to the big one now. The ending really bothered me: they committed a crime, but it was ok because the teacher was a bitch. Great. Do you know how many of my teachers I could kidnap based on that logic? I'm sure the police never took any statements to find out the whole story, either. That sure wouldn't be necessary. Helen Mirren was good, she added some nice flair to a character who (as a previous commenter noted) had NO reason for anything she did. And has anyone else noticed that Katie Holmes absolutely can't act? Her self-righteousness became incredibly annoying. "You wanted me to fail. Blah blah blah." Her last two scenes with Mrs. Tingle were the worst. The only reason I don't regret losing $8.25 on this disaster is because she got beaten up a bit. No, wait, I do regret losing the money: it wasn't real, and she survived. Mr. Williamson, if you're reading this, you've made the same movie (some violence and/or scary stuff offset by wise-ass kids who make sarcastic jokes and references to other movies) just a FEW too many times now (I count 6 so for, not including Scream 3 and whatever follows it), and I would really appreciate it if you would stop. Otherwise, I might just have to kidnap you and threaten YOU with a crossbow. Ok? :-) | 0 | negative |
I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe. | 0 | negative |
This movie is about London and it's an amazing movie. it will be released on DVD in april 2003 and I will buy it when it gets out so If you have not seen it until then BUY IT. The music in the movie is even better (saint etienne) have done the soundtrack. | 1 | positive |
Oh, man, I hated this movie. Granted, the site locations were great, but that's about the ONLY positive thing I can say about it. Now, I'm going to state right at the beginning that I am VERY critical of the way weapons, especially firearms, are both portrayed, and handled, in movies. Being a war flick, portrayal was fine, but the shoddy weapons handling in the movie would have NEVER been tolerated by a real SEAL Team. The acting was more wooden than my first sailboat, the equipment carried (or lack of it) was laughable, and the dialogue was, shall we say, lacking in ANYTHING interesting. Well, with the exception of the journalist, which was actually prescient. Watching this movie was comparable to watching "Palmetto" with Woody Harrelson, where each scene was so bad you just couldn't turn it off, because you had to see if they could get worse with the next scene. Like Palmetto, they certainly did. The scene in the water, where, after shooting the first of the enemy, they BLOW THE DAMN BOAT UP, thereby having to face possible drowning, made me laugh so hard, that for a millisecond, I almost thought it was worth waiting through the movie for. Then Charlie Sheen decided to drag the surviving enemy down to the depths of the ocean (the way it was filmed, with the many camera cuts, it looked like they went down about 80 feet. Nice continuity there....) before slashing his throat was so damn stupid, I was stunned. Then again, so was the whole damn movie. I enjoy action movies, but not this one. NOTE: The version I watched was a TV version, pan & scan. I can't imagine that made a difference, except for making the whole thing blessedly shorter! | 0 | negative |
After seeing Undisputed 2, I knew what to expect from Isaac Florentine.<br /><br />The Shepherd: Border Patrol is a decent flick (not Van Damme's best, but definitely not his worst.) There is some bad acting from VD's supporting cast, but it makes sense.<br /><br />The storyline and plot has all been done before, so it's nothing new. I mean this is Van Damme. We don't really expect much of an amazing plot do we? So lets talk about what we all want to watch this movie for anyway: the fighting.<br /><br />Without giving anything away, I thought the way the fights were filmed and shot were well done, way better than a few of VD's recent movies such as Second in Command, in which the entire end fight is HORRIBLE. With Florentine behind the camera, and if you've seen Undisputed 2, he seems to know how to photograph fights and enjoys it. A few of the fights in The Shepherd reminded me of VD's older stuff which is what we all want to see. The fights were good, and i said "hah, awesome" out loud a few times. But I was hoping for just a bit more considering how good I thought Undisputed 2 was.<br /><br />Something I found intriguing was VD's daughter in the film, I thought "wow she's kinda hot" come to find out, its Bianca Van Varenberg, JC's real life daughter. I have never seen her before so that was a nice treat.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is not half bad. Yeah the story has been done before but at least JC was attempting to make a good movie. Next time though, add more hand to hand combat! I think He still has what it takes to do another big budget movie...his acting has improved since he's been doing DTV's and he really is in great shape at 47. I don't know about you but I'm one of the ones who thinks that most of his DTV's are actually good with the exception of Derailed. All he needs to do is get back into "bloodsport" shape, and make a martial arts movie...and I think people would respond well even though he's not jet Li. This movie is definitely worth the rental. =) | 1 | positive |
We've all see the countless previews and trailers. If you enjoyed Knoxville getting flipped by the Bull you'll take great carnal pleasure in the opening "act". I must caution the masses however, I considered taking my (under-18) son with me but am relieved I did not. This compilation of obnoxious skits contains a few that albeit as hilarious as they may seem to the adult community, a few are not for the immature. These guys must get paid a great ransom to tolerate some of the devious stunts, sometimes played at their expense. In particular, Bam Margera and Ehren McGhehey are slighted by the group in a few particular stunts. Enjoy | 1 | positive |
If this film doesn't at least be selected for an oscar nominee for best foreign film I'm going to stop waking at nights watching the event. Fridrik Thor Fridriksson has proven that money isn't the key to making a good movie but originality. Out of a cold country comes a warm but thought-provoking film of a mentally ill man and his struggle against an insane world. After an insight like this, you question whether or not the man is crazy or the world he lives in. | 1 | positive |
This film flopped miserably in the UK, and it didn't deserve to. The trailer of this film is slightly misleading, and I guess it mislead critics and audiences into thinking it was "Atonement: Part 2". While the film was marketed that way to capitalise on the earlier success of Joe Wright's BAFTA-winning film, it's very different in tone. It focuses on an imagination of sorts of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas' life during the Second World War as the writer of propaganda films for the war effort, and his subsequent return to Wales. Director John Maybury quickly introduces Dylan's (Matthew Ryhs) childhood sweetheart Vera Phillips, played by Keira Knightley. She was Dylan's first love in their homeland, but the moment has passed, and singer Vera only wants it as a beautiful memory. Or does she? Vera unexpectedly strikes up a close bond with the other woman in Dylan's life, "Queen of Ireland, love of my life, mother of my child" Caitlin Thomas (Sienna Miller). The three form a sort of menage a trois in war-struck London, but Vera then falls for a dashing soldier, William Killick (Cillian Murphy). They quickly marry, with Killick leaving for War. A frightened Vera convinces the Thomas' to return witb her to Wales, but the three are faced with the realism of the birth of Vera's child, William's jealousy and shell-shock after returning home, and Caitlin realising she cannot share Dylan with her best friend.<br /><br />Filmed on a low budget, this is more of a mood piece than anything else. It works best as a realisation that some memories and feelings need to be treasured but not renewed. The performance of Sienna Miller is particularly excrellent (unfortunately the paparazzi nonsense detracts from the fact thats she's quite a talent), and Knightley and Murphy are once again very good. The let-down is Rhys as Dylan, who, while the Welsh poet himself was no bed of roses, lacks charisma and makes us wonder what these women see in Dylan. The writing is very choppy, some beautiful moments interspersed with sloppiness. It's certainly worth watching, however. | 1 | positive |
I saw Hurlyburly on Broadway and liked it a great deal. I don't know what happened with the film version, because it was dreadful. Perhaps some dialogue that works on stage just sounds incoherent on screen. Anyway, I couldn't wait for this film to be over. The acting is universally over the top. Only Kevin Spacey has it together, and he seems like he knows he's in a bad movie and can't wait to get out. | 0 | negative |
I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick. | 0 | negative |
Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The "Undead" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;) | 0 | negative |
I have read the other user comments and I am happy someone has compared it to the original by Kamal called Perumarzhakalam released in 2004.<br /><br />The original had a tight story and no loopholes as described above about the Indian Govt not having proper records, or even bad shoots and bloopers.<br /><br />The story is great and a touchy one and well described by others. But sadly Nagesh taking credit for it as his own story is a sad thing and amounts to nothing other than plagiarism.<br /><br />I guess he has been affected by Bollywood's so called "inspired" syndrome.<br /><br />He must at least give credit where it is due.<br /><br />I liked some of his older movies, but now I suspect if any of them were originals after all.<br /><br />Here is a link in IMDb for the original masterpiece. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425350/#comment I recommend everyone to see the original, even with subtitles if needed, to know what class direction and class acting is all about. | 0 | negative |
My 10/10 rating of course applies only if you're willing to get completely and utterly grossed out*. Because you know that only John Waters can do that. In "Pink Flamingos" (his directorial debut), he portrays two families locked in combat to see who can be the filthiest person alive. What Divine famously does at the end pretty much answers the question. But even aside from that, the movie is basically an excuse to shock people beyond what anyone would usually imagine. You had better have a very strong stomach to watch this movie. Even some of the lines are rather mind-blowing.<br /><br />*Otherwise, avoid this movie like you would the ebola virus! | 1 | positive |
Chokher Bali was shown at the (Washington) DC Filmfest April 15, 2005. The director, Rituparno Ghosh, was there to give a short introduction and answer questions afterwards.<br /><br />As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job. I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy, but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other ways to do it.<br /><br />I hate to use the word, but this was the most "inaccessible" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law Ashalata.<br /><br />*spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long, I think the original, longer version would have been clearer.<br /><br />The women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more modern!), and of course Binodini/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair (rejection of status of widowhood).<br /><br />The ending really threw me--all of a sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word "country" throughout Binodini's letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word) something like "self" or "independence"--she was talking about her own liberation and "finding herself"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to define/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how she buys her next meal, but that's another question.<br /><br />The red shawl (Ghosh again)she buys represents "revolution" as well as "passion." I'm not 100% sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting passion/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any more--she's going off to lead her own life.<br /><br />Finally, the Tagore quote at the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction. | 1 | positive |
The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are "Blue". The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen. <br /><br />But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was "outsourced" last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there "patriotism". Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc. <br /><br />I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there. | 1 | positive |
Following on directly from the last episode of the previous series Yes Minister.<br /><br />Jim Hacker now finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of Great Britain, instead of a Cabinet Minister and a member of the government, he is now leading Her Majesty's Government.<br /><br />All this after some scheming maneuvers by Sir Humphrey Appleby after the previous Prime Minister resigned at the end of Yes Minister. <br /><br />Sir Humphrey Appleby is now the head of the Civil Service.<br /><br />I thought that this series was better than the first series, or though it did not last as long as the first series unfortunately. | 1 | positive |
This was one of the worst movies that I have ever watched. The story was about a woman prisoner sent into space to try and save mankind but what it actually turned out to be was that the prisoner was actually put on board a space ship with a nymphomaniac lesbian commander. All the story was about was having sex over and over again. There was no need for all of this footage - only to create a soft porn film. Of course we had to see the heroin of the movie having sex for about 2 minutes. I don't know what all this had to do with the actual plot of the movie -except I assume to get men to watch it. I gave it 1 out of 10 only because there was no other rating lower. Don't waste your money or time- it has nothing to do with science fiction but rather a movie for young adolescent boys to watch to see t&a. The creature was shown only more than half way through the movie and looked like the alien in the movie with Signorney Weaver. Poor excuse for entertainment. | 0 | negative |
How bad idea was to remake an almost Oscar -worthy film?! MOSTHLY MARTHA is MUCH MORE BETTER, has deepness, finesse and so on and mainly: a wonderful and talented actress in the leading role (Martina Gedeck). It's a joke and ugliness with the handsome Aaron and the whole atmosphere... again a ridiculous effort from Hollywood. There are more and more remake and the films are full with schemes.. Isn't anybody there who can create a good and newly script? Or this is a safety solution to make remake or movies from the well-tried cartoon figures? The films are getting much less interesting nowadays. Oh yes: If you want to see a REALLY good movie watch the original one. It's definitely worth. | 0 | negative |
This show is amazing! I love each and every episode. Carrie is a spitfire and Doug is a lovable and at times a moron. Arthur, Spence, Danny, Deacon and Carrie's Boss add just a nice end touch to the show, tying up all of the funny, pee in your pants moments. In one of the seasons, Doug tries to get Carrie drunk, because she is nicer when she is drunk. Nice husband right? Carrie isn't much better, when her boss needs a IPS driver to testify in a small case at her job, Carrie hesitates, because she views Doug as a slob and doesn't want him to embarrass her, so she hires Doug's friend instead. Wife of the year. But, who i believe to be funniest is yell-at-random Arthur. He is drop-dead hilarious, and angry. Hey, you would be too if you had to live in a basement where the mold has a funny smell and makes you dizzy. This show is hilarious, and if you haven't seen it yet, then you haven't lived! | 1 | positive |
Unfortunately this is not one of those movies which at least make you laugh at their unbelievable stupidity. It has no entertainment value at all. It just plain sucks. I don't know where to start to explain how much this movie annoyed me. I think what really takes the cake is the unbearable soundtrack. It sounds as if someone took a simple beat and then, for the rest of it, let a 5 year old child run amok with a synthesizer and taped it. It's really that awful and as if that's not enough, there's not one scene in the movie without "music" (=noise). By the end of the movie, you're either deaf or already cut off your ears earlier. Which would at least keep you from falling asleep, since there is nothing happening in the movie to keep your attention. Just a lot of bad acting, a few cheap and unconvincing kills, no story at all (it just jumps from one scene to another and you as the viewer can try to make any sense of it) and in the last 30 minutes or so you can witness some of the worst "special effects" ever. It's extremely boring. Do not watch this movie! You could do something much more entertaining like staring at a wall or reading the phone-book. Did I mention how much the soundtrack sucked? | 0 | negative |
When you look at Mexico's best movies you will more than likely find that the Photography was performed by Gabriel Figueroa. He is recognized in the world as one of the best that have ever existed. His master control of the cameras gave an added asset to the movies he was part of. If added to his participation we add the direction of Luis Bunuel, you will never find such a pair of aces anywhere else in the world. This story, Nazarin, was written by Spain's greatest writer besides Miguel de Cervantes(Don Quijote de la Mancha). The story in itself is superb: Nazarin a priest that lives by his beliefs tries to live a very Christian life, but as always there are people that do not accept this. He wanders through many places preaching his Christianity but finding, most of the time, people that do not accept him. But besides the splendid story, it is always interesting to try to interpret the enigmatic messages that Bunuel sends us throughout the picture in scenes that make you shiver. | 1 | positive |
It's really rather Simple. The Name of the Movie Is Death Bed, The Bed that Eats. If you are anything like me, You already know if you are going to like this movie. I stumbled across this gem at Best Buy the other day and picked it up for Ten Bucks. I got ten bucks worth of enjoyment out of the title, and the box alone.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of B movies. This is in my opinion one of the greatest B movies i've ever seen. Now, it's not for every one.<br /><br />Granted, it's not even for most people. As a matter of fact, i suspect their are only going to be a handful of us who truly enjoy this movie.<br /><br />For those of you who like B movies though, this film is a Diamond in the rough. It has a great premise, A bed... That eat's people. It doesn't walk, it doesn't move, it doesn't have a siren call to attract people. It pretty much relies on people wandering by and sitting on it.<br /><br />I loved every inch of this movie and have already seen it three times in the scant weeks i've owned it.<br /><br />Like I said, After reading the title of the film, You already know if you'll like it. If you laughed or smiled, Then give it a go. it's worth it. | 1 | positive |
I was wrapped to see many other people also enjoyed this film. First watched it when I was in my early teens and then again several times late at night a few times after. Then sadly, no more. I'm now nearly 49 and so wish it could be made available on DVD. Why not? The best Anthony Quinn role, no one could have been more suited for the part or parts he plays - I've mentioned it to other film buffs of similar age and alas, no one I know recalls it. As the daughter of a generation that went through WWII and its aftermath (and myself deeply fascinated by what that generation endured) I guess this film at the time gave me a wonderful cinematic insight into some of the heartbreaking issues of the day. For classic final scenes this movie is a stand out. | 1 | positive |
I am a guy, so i was very hesitant to watch the movie because i know that Richard Gear likes to be in tear jerker movies. I would rather watch action/adventure/sci fi. I was right, the movie is definitely a tear jerker. Diane tended to over act a few times, as did richard, but they brought it around and made it work. The daughter was a suppressed teen with huge attitude, so you started out hating her. The movie is way too predictable, but for entertainment purposes, it was a masterpiece. Go rent it, see if you don't shed a tear.lol If you like the notebook, you will love this one. The beach scenes were immaculately shot. even though the hurricane scenes were a little off sequence, it was still a bit panicy to watch them react to it. | 1 | positive |
The tagline on the box hails, "100 TRAPPED PASSENGERS... 3,000 VENOMOUS VIPERS!" You almost have to admire that degree of "no chance in hell we're ever going to deliver on this promise" bullshit. I could admire The Asylum's hucksterism more so if they made movies that, well, you know, were good or, at the very least, worth a damn. Haha, and it's what I like about theses movies. They are garbage. You put them in a toilet and then you flush. It worth the price if you are a fan of cheesy movies. It may become a cult classic among many fans. The gore scenes are effectives, there's not much I can say, it's a Z flick that parody the new movie with Samuel L. Jackson, hell, it may be better so who knows! | 1 | positive |
At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!<br /><br />And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.<br /><br />You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye! | 1 | positive |
Much of the commentary on this board revolves around debating the validity of some comparison to R DOGS made on the DVD cover. Forget about all of that... This film-- er-- home movie is utterly horrendous. How can anyone with a shred of credibility claim this as being 10/10??? There is no plot, none. I couldn't believe that I spent money to rent this (more on that later) and that I had fooled myself into believing that this (based on box cover art and some sort of film fest award blurb) had potential. The only thing I do really remember was that, unbelievably, one of the annoying main characters was supposedly offed with a bullet to the head... and he ends up surviving the wound and making it to the final credits alive. Wow. And looky dere, Killers has a sequel. Double wow.<br /><br />True story -- I actually was in so much denial that I had wasted my money and life force on this rental that I kept the videotape for what must've been six months. I kept telling myself that it never actually happened. The video on top of the TV was an illusion - a mental symbol of my self-loathing. After someone pointed out that is was indeed real and that I needed to get a grip, I decided that I couldn't just leave it there. I thought, "How many others have I denied the suffering of sitting through the viewing of this masterpiece by hoarding Killers all to myself?" I had to do the right thing and return it back to the hell from which it came. <br /><br />So, as I imagine most of the populous of IMDb would do in a similar situation, I mustered up some major courage and drove to the video store... at 2AM. After making sure that no one was around, I got out of my car (still running of course), slipped the movie into the drop box slot, and booked the hell out of there never to return.<br /><br />I guess I expected that some goons from Hollywood Video corporate would come looking for me (the bill must've racked up to something like $1,238.67 by that time) so I moved away from the area. However, coincidently, much like the Killers storyline, nothing ever happened. | 0 | negative |
The Man with Bogart's Face sets it self up to mine the viewers nostalgia for the late 30's-late 40's film era. It fails miserably for several reasons. First, Sacchi, while looking reasonably like Bogart and even speaking like him on occassion and using his mannerisms, completely lacks any of Bogart's charisma or acting ability. This is really apparent whenever Sacchi is not clearly imitating a scene from one of Bogart's films. Second, the film does not have the first rate character actors Bogart was able to work with. There are no Peter Lorre's or Sydney Greenstreet's in this one, folks. Sure we are treated to performances by Victor Buaeno, Olivia Hussey and George Raft amongst others, but they just aren't of the same caliber (or aren't given enough screen time or are miscast). Third, the attempts at "modern" humor all fall through. All of the underwear jokes, having Marlowe almost *never* remove that damn hat and trench coat (even though Bogart would have), etc. just aren't funny and really pull down this film. Fourth, I've never heard a goofier theme song this side of Mitchell. Finally, the film's false reverence for Bogart (and other classic actors work) is truly irritating. Bogart almost *never* played a straight hero, on those occasions he was a hero. He played complicated characters. This movie makes Bogart out to be a trigger-happy, moralistic do-gooder. While this may have been true about some film characters, Bogart's characters rarely fit that bill. It's movies like this that make people unexposed to the cinema of the past think that all of it is hokey, "good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl" crap with low production values. | 0 | negative |
Some movies want to make us think, some want to excite us, some want to exhilarate us. But sometimes, a movie wants only to make us laugh, and "In & Out" certainly succeeds in this department.<br /><br />Indiana high-school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is going to be married to fellow teacher Emily Montgomery (Joan Cusack) in three days, but the whole town is more excited about the Oscar nomination of former resident Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon). But when Cameron wins an Oscar for playing a gay soldier, he thanks his gay teacher, Howard, for inspiration. What follows is Howard denying it in an hilarious set of mishaps in a truly screwball fashion.<br /><br />Kevin Kline is great, exuding gay stereotypes. Joan Cusack really has a knack for screwball antics. Debbie Reynolds is utterly hilarious as Howard's mother. And Bob Newhart is also a hoot as the homophobic principal.<br /><br />Gay screenwriter Paul Rudnick really achieves a delicate balance here. He knows the stereotypes and exploits them in a way that's mostly tolerable to conservative Midwesterners and yet mostly inoffensive to the gay audience. It's not exactly progressive, but it's funny and inoffensive, and definitely a step up from the previous year's "The Birdcage." | 1 | positive |
I have watched this show for a while, only because of my cousins, and I HATE IT! First, the girls dress in the same style clothes, and they have the same first letter in their names. (Come on, I could to better than that!) Then the villains (spare me), first we have a monkey with part of his (little) brain showing, then we have a (gay) version of the devil, a pink hillbilly, a gang green gang (whit is ironic, that's their name) a spoiled princess (once again, ironic, that's 'her' name) among others. I have also found that there is no male hero in the show. (Not that I'm sexist or anything...) I'd rather watch Sailor Moon, it's much better than this. If someone else wants to watch the show in the room that you're in, find a way to break the television. Believe me, it'll save you a half hour of torture.<br /><br />Rating: I'm giving this just what it deserves, a 1 out of 10. Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH THIS! | 0 | negative |
Be warned by the line on the back of the box that promotes a story involving "over sexed jocks". There isn't a thing redeeming about Carrie 2. The plot is absurd, the acting terrible, and the ending all too predictable.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting to be entertained. I wasn't. The only way I could rationalize watching this movie was because I was at a relative's house while waiting for my car to be fixed. Unless in the same predicament stay well away from this film. | 0 | negative |
I had the unlucky experience of stumbling upon a preview for this movie and thought it might be interesting. I am a fan of the two main actors, and I even find Meatloaf to be oddly appealing, but that couldn't compensate for the droning plot of this movie. This movie attempts to make social comments and be artfully intelligent. I am sure the audience gets the sociological message clearly, but has to suffer in the process. Personally, no matter how bad the movie is, I can't stop it in the middle. Something drives me to finish the worst of movies, but I often regret it. This is one of those... | 0 | negative |
I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.<br /><br />Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother
" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.<br /><br />The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.<br /><br />The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.<br /><br />If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts. | 0 | negative |
This was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.<br /><br />For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.<br /><br />That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit? | 0 | negative |
**Possible Spoilers** From Dreamworks and director Peter Chan, `The Love Letter' is a romantic comedy that takes place in a picturesque, New England coastal village where single mom Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a quaint, little bookstore. One day at work, Helen happens across an anonymous letter (the `love letter' of the title) that has somehow become lodged beneath the cushions of a reading couch. Upon reading the amorous prose therein, she believes it has been written to her, purposely placed in the couch for her to find, and, for reasons of her own, thinks she knows the identity of her secret admirer. Inadvertently, however, Helen leaves the letter out where her employee, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres) finds it, believes it to be for her, and, of course, thinks she knows who wrote it. Circumstances then bring it into the possession of a young man named Johnny (Tom Everett Scott), who thinks Helen has written the letter to him. And before it all gets sorted out, you can only imagine the hilarious situations into which all of those involved have been cast; and I do mean imagine, because the way this movie plays out, the audience gets little more from it than what it brings along itself. There are two specific areas in which this romantic comedy fails miserably: It simply isn't very romantic, and it's not funny; and that is a potent combination that causes this film to misfire practically from the opening credits. Once the setting and main character (Helen) have been established, it basically goes nowhere for the next ninety minutes or so. By the time you finally find out who actually wrote the letter, and to whom, you could care less. Rounding out the cast is Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Julianne Nicholson, Gloria Stuart and Geraldine McEwan. It's a shame to see such talent wasted on such claptrap as this, and looking bad in the balance. Kate Capshaw, who usually brightens up the screen just by showing up, looks tired here, while Selleck appears to have just come in off a three day bender that's lasted a week. Ellen DeGeneres actually comes away looking the best of the bunch. It is said that the journey is often a more heady experience than the destination. In the case of `The Love Letter,' however, it would have been best for all concerned if everybody had just stayed home in the first place. I rate this one 1/10. | 0 | negative |
I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance. | 0 | negative |
Actually, Son of the Mask did make me laugh a few times...mostly due to the cartoonish jokes that made Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner so funny. The CGI is very impressive and is used extensively in this movie. Garfield, for example, is no where on par for CGI, but I would give it the same vote.<br /><br />Everyone knows the story...which wasn't that bad for a KIDS movie. Yes, it is a KIDS movie...and therefore should be treated as such. Jamie Kennedy is not very good in his role. His attempts to act "crazy" are not very good and overall acting is poor.<br /><br />Everyone else is not too bad.<br /><br />Basically, my 2 and 5 year old watched the whole thing without complaining. At least I was able to sit through this.<br /><br />There is no way this movie is worst than **shudder** Class of 1999<br /><br />4/10 for the CGI and a few laughs. | 0 | negative |
I like Breillat's movies, but this one is the best I've seen at balancing animal warmth with sexual intelligence. Anne Parillaud is electric, and the script is amazing - especially considering it's supposed to take place on the set of another of Breillat's movies. You don't have to agree with her take on everything to get a lot out of this. It made me think a lot about vulnerability and power. Try to imagine a male director with Jeanne's openness - not impossible, but a little mind-bending. The unannounced sexual undercurrents that are always present when humans get together to make anything is held up to bright light here, but not a cold light. | 1 | positive |
Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His "Swimming With Sharks" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from **** | 0 | negative |
This movie fully deserves to be one of the top Hindi comedies ever made . Rajkumar Santoshi is mostly known for his gritty hard-hitting social dramas , but this is easily the most effortless movie he has made .<br /><br />The plot revolves around two small-town buffoons Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) . They want to get rich quick and so move to the big city . They hatch the same plan separately - to woo a rich heiress Raveena (Raveena Tandon) who is the daughter of a rich businessman Ramgopal Bajaj (Paresh Rawal) . Thus the one who marries Raveena gets his hands on all her wealth . but when they get to know each other's plan , there is an intense tussle of one-oneupmanship over who marries Raveena . Hilarious gags and situations ensue as the battle rages on .<br /><br />At the same time Ramgopal Bajaj's identical twin brother Shyamgopal Bajaj wants to eliminate his brother and niece and usurp the family fortune . Add to this an assortment of funny characters including a Raveena's maid Karishma (Karishma Kapoor) , a mistake-prone butler named Robert (Vijoo Khote) , a manager named Bhalla (Shehzad Khan) who mimics yesteryear's villain Ajeet and a funny gangster Gogo (Shakti Kapoor) who looks more like a pirate and a rollicking comedy awaits you .<br /><br />Do not waste your time looking for LOGIC in the movie . Leave the company of your brains and just ENJOY . The actors are so much in sync with the script that no room is left for mistakes . Dialogues (Rajkumar Santoshi , Dilip Shukla) are witty . Music (Tushar Bhatia) and lyrics (Majrooh Sultanpuri) are memorable . The picturization and choreography (Saroj Khan) of "Yeh Raat Aur Yeh Doori" , "Ae Lo Ji Sanam" and "Dil Karta Hai Tere Paas Aaoon" is fitting and will remain etched in my mind forever .<br /><br />The film starred two superstars-in-the-making , Aamir Khan and Salman Khan (they eventually became superstars) . Aamir Khan is impeccable in his first all-out comedy role . I salute his sense of comic timing . Salman pales in comparison with Aamir but is still likable . Among the supporting characters , Paresh Rawal stands out in his dual role of Ramgopal and Shyamgopal .<br /><br />The movie surprisingly failed at the box office . I fail to understand why . I recommend it to all nevertheless . | 1 | positive |
It's a puzzle to me how this turd of a film ever got distribution.<br /><br />Sure, it's horror and there's a fair share of nudity, but by god, the production value is the lowest I've ever seen, the equipment used is worse than standard home equipment, everything is overlit, giving everything an amateurish look, bringing your thought to America's worst home video's or whatever that show was called..<br /><br />Please people, is it too much to ask that you actually do an effort when you expect to waste 90 minutes of peoples lives watching this? You really should have done some short projects first cause it's obvious you're a bunch of amateurs! 1/10 | 0 | negative |
Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries? | 0 | negative |
Based to some extent on writers, David Croft and Jimmy Perry's, own experiences as Butlins Holiday Camp entertainers in the UK during the same timescale the programme follows, "Hi-De-Hi!" epitomises the 'slapstick, postcard humour" of post-war Britain. Set in the fictitious seaside town of Crimpton-on-Sea, "Hi-De-Hi" chronicles the comedic goings on within the Maplins Holiday Camp - one of many dotted along the British coast owned by the mega-rich, but never seen (on screen) Joe Maplin.<br /><br />Although the actual show began in 1980 with the pilot episode and ran until 1988 when the BBC deemed it too tame for it's cutting edge comedy department, seasons 1-5 focused on 1959 while seasons 6-9 spotlighted 1960 - a time when the old style British Holiday Camp began to fall into decline. During the first 5 seasons, Jeffrey Fairbrother (played brilliantly by the late, great Simon Cadell) was the camp's entertainment manager; a well meaning, yet slightly pensive ex-university professor breaking free of his upper class background and venturing into the "real" world to head his team of entertainment staff who were in stark contrast to his own laid-back personality. From season 6 onwards, Fairbrother was replaced by Clive Dempster (played by David Griffin when Cadell quit the show at the height of it's popularity), an ex-RAF war hero who, in many ways, was similar to Cadell's character in background, but more a scoundrel than a gentleman.<br /><br />However, the real stars of "Hi-De-Hi" throughout the nine seasons were Ted Bovis (played superbly by Paul Shane), a stereotypical working class, ale drinking, bawdy comic - someone who could never resist an opportunity to fiddle the campers; Gladys Pugh (played by Ruth Madoc who's currently experiencing a career comeback with appearances in the hit BBC Comedy, "Little Britain"), chief Yellowcoat (what the entertainment staff were called because of their bright yellow jackets) and sports organiser - but more importantly, the one person who saved Jeffrey Fairbrother and Clive Dempster from embarrassment by covering up their inexperience in running a holiday camp; Peggy Ollerenshaw (Su Pollard), the slightly dopey, yet lovable lowly chalet maid with a burning ambition to become a Yellowcoat, and Spike Dixon (Jeffrey Holland), Ted's innocent protégé learning more about 'show business' than he hoped for.<br /><br />As usual with a Croft & Perry production, the assembled cast of characters were a bunch of misfits played superbly by the actors involved. Mr. Partridge (played by the late Leslie Dwyer, who was in his 70's by the time he left the show), the alcoholic child-hating children's entertainer; Fred Quilly (Felix Bowness), a former champion jockey with a dubious past; Yvonne & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves (Dianne Holland & Barry Howard), the snobbish former ballroom dancing champions who were in the twilight of their careers; and Sylvia and Betty (Nikki Kelly and Rikki Howard), the two main girl Yellowcoats who were always looking for the type of fun Joe Maplin would never allow in one of his camps.<br /><br />"Hi-De-Hi" typified the slapstick era of the late 50s with it's saucy and, to a certain degree, vulgar "tongue-in-cheek" humour (jokes about people sitting on toilets and anecdotes about 'women with big knockers' were the order of the day). But despite it's whiff of "Carry On" funniness, it was always so innocent and became something of recommended family viewing back in the 80's. Of course, the critics of the show remarked that the show had outstayed it's welcome by a good couple of years, but I disagree. While the early seasons focused mainly on bawdiness and slapstick humour, the latter series of "Hi-De-Hi" saw more thought put into the scripts and the main characters (especially Spike Dixon & Gladys Pugh) were able to grow with more sensitive story lines. That said, there were a few criticisms of the show. Clive Dempster was no Jeffrey Fairbrother, and the former didn't quite have the on-screen chemistry with Gladys as Jeffrey did (I personally think it would've been more believable if Gladys had married Jeff); five seasons dedicated to 1959 and four to 1960 caused more than just a few continuity errors (the disappearance of old faces and introductions of new characters weren't explained properly, especially with the Yellowcoats who came and went with much regularity; and the character of Gladys Pugh, who, in the pilot episode was made out to be a free-loving man-eater that was suddenly transformed into a naive virgin like character! Also to mention quite pedantically, most of the 1959 holiday season was covered in season one, so to stretch the rest of the year out in five further series was something bordering unbelievable. Still, the show wasn't meant to be meticulously looked upon, and the comedy more than outweighed it's flaws.<br /><br />All in all, "Hi-De-Hi" was probably one of the last comedies from the BBC's golden period, and even if it never managed to rival such British comedic mainstays as "Only Fools & Horses", "Porridge" or even "Last Of The Summer Wine", "Hi De Hi" will be best remembered as a comedy the whole family could enjoy. If you haven't already checked it out for yourself, I implore you to do so. | 1 | positive |
The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. "Oh, I know this answer!", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on! | 0 | negative |
This satire is just really, really dead-on, and nobody is spared. But even though this movie has plenty of laughs within the silly story and the grotesque imitation of Hitler (here cleverly renamed as "Hynkel", and speaking in a hilarious kind of pseudo-German), the general tone is pretty sad, maybe because of the movie's place in history. And the actors aren't even exaggerating that much I suppose. One of the greatest movie moments of all time must be the Jewish barber's ending speech, if only things could have ended in that way. It's not even really the character talking anymore, it's Chaplin saying something he really wanted to say. If you ignore the technical aspects, the movie doesn't feel dated or old, it actually moves at a pretty nice pace. And the sharp humor we find everywhere in this work will never die, the only thing I don't care for is the slapstick, but that just comes with the era I suppose. This is an incredibly daring, harsh take on fascism, it's so hard-hitting still after all these years. | 1 | positive |
I saw this film at Temple University. I cannot imaging that anyone will ever see this film in a theater (projected on film). The acting is similar to Saved By The Bell (The TV Show). The plot is simple and unimaginative. The sound recordist likes the sound of wind and the DP needs a light meter. Vampires, Vampires, Vampires.<br /><br />Don't waste your money. | 0 | negative |
The Brave One is about a New York radio show host named Erica Bain (Jodie Foster). Her life is a dream living in the city she grew up in and loves. She has her great fiancé David (Naveen Andrews), whom she is planning to marry. But one night while Erica and David are out walking their dog, they are attacked and mugged by a group of degenerates, leaving David dead. Erica recovers but is heartbroken and traumatized later on, and can barely cope with real life anymore. She buys a gun off a guy on the streets for protection. But one day she's shopping in a store, and a man comes in and shoots the clerk dead. It is then that Erica shoots and kills this man, and she becomes a vigilante. Killing anyone who tries to threaten or harm her or any others. At the same time Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) is tracking down this elusive unknown killer, and in the process becomes friends with Erica. Erica begins to regain her sanity as she kills these violent people, but is unsure of whether or not what she's doing is morally right. And as her and Mercer become closer, he doesn't even realize the unknown murderous assailant is right next to him.<br /><br />Jodie Foster gives a very good performance in The Brave One. She portrays this type of violent, morally corrupted character brilliantly. Terrence Howard is also great in this movie. Both have excellent chemistry together, and strengthen the film to a certain level. The Brave One looks visually pristine, and conveys some brilliant camera work, but not all of it works to a great effect. The scenes where Erica is absolutely traumatized and afraid to walk out her front door to face the world. The camera swayed back and forth to the sides in an almost dream-like way, and really captured the moment with essence. Whereas almost every time Erica killed somebody, everything just had to go slo-mo and show her facial expressions in fine detail. The slo-mo was properly used when Erica committed her first murder. But why keep doing this effect almost every time she committed murder? The camera work creates a great atmosphere in most of the film, but there a few scenes here that are just plain overkill.<br /><br />The Brave One is very much about how these murders affect Erica emotionally. Her fiancé is killed by a group of thugs, and suddenly her love of New York City is turned upside down. She realizes that there is a dark side to the beloved city, and she says so on her radio show. I don't completely understand this though. Erica acts as if she never realized that violence can occur at night in the city, and that's pretty stupid. If she lived there all her life she must be either blind or very oblivious. Erica also seems to be a glutton for inhumane, murderous people. She really doesn't even have to go look for them, they just to come to her as if they're begging to be shot dead for their wrong-doing. The Brave One deals with the morals and proper use of violence strongly at first, and then suddenly it glorifies it. The ending is very negative, and completely immoral and inhumane. It also negates the purpose of Terrence Howard's character, which the movie spends so much time trying to evenly develop, and suddenly his morals take a U-turn. The morals in The Brave One become very fractured, and just plain shatter all over the place by the end. So violence is okay? It's a good thing to commit murder as long as it's for vengeance? I pretty much refuse to believe that. You know why? Because I have a conscience, which this film surely lacks. It is not right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad they are, or how much you hate them. Erica Bain sets out to stop these evil-doers, but in the end she is no better than the horrible people she kills.<br /><br />Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard provide a lot of strength for this movie. The Brave One contains a strong message, but that message is both immoral and wrong. This movie may look pretty, well acted, and intelligently strong. But it becomes pretty rotten by the end. I give The Brave One a 1.5 out of 4. The message is very out of line and morally incorrect, and really can't be saved by the good acting. | 0 | negative |
I recently attended Sundance as I have often done in years past and was treated to the small pleasures of the edgy little indies, the glut of dark comedies and the now predictable portraits of dysfunction. But then I saw Mark and Michael Polish's 'Northfork' and I remembered why I so fell in love with the movies in the first place. 'Northfork' sweeps across the screen with visionary daring and harkens back to the seminal early work of Terence Malick and the existential landscapes of Antonioni. It's an impossible film to easily explain which is one of its many strengths. Suffice it to say it's an adult fairy tale with many carefully layered levels of meaning. It reawakened my imagination and cast an imposing shadow over all the other films I saw this year. It is a work of meticulous craftsmanship and a sophistication of writing not seen in most American movies. I plan to revisit this film several times when it comes to my neighberhood theater. For it is a beguiling piece of magic and mystery, a haunting work where one can roam the plains of Montana in search of angels and the very nature of heaven and earth. The cast performs this luminiscent piece with striking conviction particularly James Woods and Nick Nolte who remind us of the nerve and daring displayed throughout the course of their careers. Maybe 'Northfork' will help us find a new wave of American cinema where excellence in craft and writing become more the norm than the exception. See it when it comes your way and take your friends for the questions will be many and the thoughts and feelings spurred by seeing 'Northfork' will awaken memories of great movie once seen in your past and now hopefully may be returning with the advent of the Polish Brothers. | 1 | positive |
I bought this movie for about 2,5 dollars at a local flea market. I thought that with the cast present in this movie (Ice-T, Rob Lowe & Mario Van Peebles are all OK), it would be pretty good. Boy, was I wrong. This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Almost every scene drags on too long. The scene where Rob Lowe is watching this girl singing and dancing in a bar lasts forever! It was one of the worst scenes I have ever witnessed in a movie. The rest is no picknick either. My guess is when they finished the movie, they only had 30 minutes of film, so they made everything last 3x longer.<br /><br />Conclusion: The current 1,9 rating here on imdb is right on the money. This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Go watch some paint dry for 1,5 hour instead of watching this!<br /><br />If you want to see some better movies made by this director, watch 'Mean Guns'(with Christopher Lambert & Ice-T) or 'Postmortem' (with Charlie Sheen) instead. | 0 | negative |
This is by far and away the stupidest thing I have ever seen on celluloid. I mean, we started watching it assuming it was a "skinemax T&A flick", but aside from a couple boobs, that was it. I mean, I get the point of making stupid movies in order to show some sex scenes, as they are the sole reason for a movie of that kind to be made. This movie, however, has no sex scenes, and really has no point at all. There is no linear time, the scenes travel around like a fart in the wind, people show up for no reason, then leave, and it is never explained, the plot is never advanced, and nothing happens. I have never been as flabbergasted at how bad a movie was until I saw this. Has the director even been to a film school? Has he ever seen a movie? I don't know, but from the looks of it, he seems to have made some moron proud with this piece of crap, as he is still working. I literally walked away from this movie dumber, but I still recommend watching it, as it should be shown in every film school of the country as an example in what not to do when making a film. Move over PLan 9 from Outer Space, you have a new contender for worst movie ever made. | 0 | negative |
The ABC gears up it's repertory company for another unrealistic representation of rural Australia. Yes folks, it's all there Baca Bourke (Jeremy Sims,an actor of little talent) Fire hero , Lill (Libby Tanner plays Bronwyn Craig in the bush), Fifi (Nadia Townsend) town slut, preggers by Baca's brother Joe (I think). Then there's Uncle Geoff the, Big Daddy of Lost Springs. Uncle Geoff's scenes are like Tennessee Williams on speed. Only saving grace is Russian actress Natalia Novikova as Baca's loony missus. She is great. I can't understand why John Waters took the gig as Lilly's psychologist husband. Must have needed the money I expect! Still, he won't last long as Lill and Baca will be having it off toute suit. Just watch this lemon to see how bad an Aussie show can be. Frankly, I'm ashamed. | 0 | negative |
Abbott and Costello's talents shine in the happily childish version of "Jack and the Beanstalk". The use of sepia tone and colour, the music and choreography, song and dance, the crossing over of players from one role to another, plus various other aspects of this very fine movie make it obvious that techniques and styles used for "The Wizard of Oz" are being toyed with here. And that works right well for our intrepid duo. There are certain other things involved that make this movie a treat for me ... Buddy Baer's, Max Baer Jr. of "The Beverly Hillbillies" uncle, appearance as the cop and the giant. Pat Costello, Lou's brother, having been involved in the writing of the script. These things help make this film fun. It does, however, have it's down side. I do think that the choreography is poorly done. But the cute tunes and accompanying vocals help detract from the rather sloppy dance numbers. Some of the players, the couple in love ( prince and princess ) to be precise, aren't very good at their trade. But these things are a small price to pay for an otherwise throughly enjoyable walk down the yellow brick ... er, I mean ... climb up the beanstalk. | 1 | positive |
Tycus is one of the worst films direct to video films that I see ever.<br /><br />I am not amazing that this product does not appearing at the cinema.Bad Visual effects (The start is dreadful)Bad actors (I don´t understand Why appear in this film the great Dennis Hopper)and Bad screen Without sense.My alternative:Armaggedon or Twister. SENTENCE FOR TYCUS:Do not watch this film. | 0 | negative |
This film is worthwhile despite what you may hear. The performance of Marie Dressler (I hope I am spelling it right) as a drunken old sot is reason enough to see this film. It is an amazing performance. She is in a drunken stupor in three scenes for a good long while and she never does the same thing twice. You can actually smell the alcohol when she is done. Amazing. And Greta of course speaks her first lines on film and shes great. The Eugene O'Neill story is solid and like most O'Neill stories, very deep and intense. This is not light entertainment but if you appreciate those great character actors from the 30's and 40's you will like it. Some of the film is technically fuzzy but all in all worthwhile. | 1 | positive |
Theres not much you can really say about this film except that it was crap and probably the worst film i have ever been to see!! Take my advice don't watch this film it just wastes your money and time!!<br /><br />I gave this film a 1/10 which is doesn't deserve. | 0 | negative |
This film was great! I love the way it mixes dark humor with drama. There are times when you think there is no possible way you could laugh at the situation presented, and yet you experience a surprising giggle. It is wonderfully acted, with great performances by Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, and Emile Hirsch. It is well written with a stylish, surprising ending. I'm not one to say that everyone will like it as much as I did, but give it a chance and rent it. The DVD has great special features, including full-length commentaries by director, Dan Harris and Emile Hirsch and one by Sigourney Weaver, that give you interesting information about the film. I hope my comment is helpful, and that you enjoy the movie! | 1 | positive |
This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel, and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something; they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the goodness and kindness of man! | 1 | positive |
The best bond game made of all systems. It was made of the best bond movie of all time. If you don't have the game Goldeneye you should rent it and if you don't have the movie Goldeneye you should rent it also to better understand the game. The best bond game of all!!! | 1 | positive |
First I have to say that I really love Udo Kier and have always had respect for Armand Assante but nothing could save this train wreck of a movie. Udo does not even appear till much later in the movie and the acting from Everyone is just terrible. The script is all over the place, the dialog is wooden, the "action" is laughable and the plot could be summed up on a dirty cocktail napkin. I really wanted to find something redeeming in this movie but found myself holding my hands over my eyes, shaking my head and repeating over and over to myself, "Oh Udo.....why???....Why?????..". If you are a fan of Udo or Armand, please don't watch this movie. It will only make you sad for them. | 0 | negative |
This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).<br /><br />The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.<br /><br />They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.<br /><br />The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect! | 1 | positive |
I tend to get furious when hearing about Lucio Fulci's reputation as a director. Too often he's categorized as a no-talented filmmaker, only out to shock and disgust entire audiences with images of pure gore. True, his films contain more explicit filth and sickness as your average mainstream American production, but his films always are of wide range and the plots are gruesomely morbid. Don't Torture a Duckling is yet another story! This film is a pure gem of the Italian shock cinema! I easily dare to call this film a masterpiece
it's an old-fashioned giallo that includes all brilliant aspects of genuine horror. The film shows the search for a inhuman serial murderer in a small Italian mountain-town. The bodies of 3 young boys are found, horribly mutilated. There are quite a lot of pseudo-madmen in the town but every trail leads to nowhere. Among the suspects are a greedy bum and a scary woman, obsessed by witchery and voodoo. Like a true mastermind, Fulci knows to find the right creepy tone for his film. He portrays the small town as a claustrophobic and inescapable setting of macabre happenings, supported by a giddy soundtrack. Fulci also develops himself as a genius storyteller here. The script always is one step ahead of you and the complex plot will mislead you more than once. In other words, this is a unique giallo (horror slash murder mystery). The gore isn't presented as grotesque and explicit as in Lucio's later milestones (among them are the legendary Zombie 2, The Beyond and the New York Ripper), although there still are a few nauseating and hard-to-watch shock-sequences shown. <br /><br />Don't torture a Duckling is the most compelling and effective achievement Lucio Fulci ever brought forward and it easily ranks among the greatest Italian horror movies ever made. Right next to the masterpieces made by Mario Bava and Dario Argento. The film is fascinating from start to finish, some plot aspects are alarmingly realistic and the tension is adrenalin-rushing at all times! A must see for horror fans and an absolute priority for Italian shock-lovers! | 1 | positive |
I saw this movie over 5 years ago and the subject still infuriates me, as it should. Her anger and initiative were inspiring. Not that I would takeover an army and kill people, but the scene at the well and at the rebel strong hold will never leave my mind. This is a great film but be prepared for the strong subject matter. | 1 | positive |
The always delightful Kevin Spacey makes us once again question certain truths in our lives. After driving us into believing he is a mumbling small time crook (only to expose the true power of cinematic deception) in the classic The Usual Suspect; this time around he leads us into believing he is Prot, a likable alien who assumes a human form whilst strolling around the Earth.<br /><br />Prot is a peculiar stranger who has seemingly appeared out of nowhere, only to be hospitalized in the Manhattan Psychiatric Institution. Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) soon takes extreme interest in him, and even finds himself pondering if Prot is actually a supreme being from planet K-PAX, or perhaps he is only a forgotten human being with severe psychiatric issues. While the ending can be seen and discussed in many ways, it remains a complex, enlightening journey which leaves a gr eat deal of intriguing/philosophical questions behind it. | 1 | positive |
I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers. Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and, due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing spree.<br /><br />Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights, such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one horror lover will regret watching this. <br /><br />Bloody Birthday was written and directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'. Check it out!! | 1 | positive |
A stupid movie, with a stupid plot. Feels like they threw every imaginable cliché in a blender. I especially "Liked" the part, where two teenage girls gets the french president to clean the water. Because we all know how dedicated America is to conservation of the environment. Kyoto, anyone?? And the french chef, who has apparently never seen or tasted a hamburger... This is why people think Americans have no culture. That, and the fact that we meet your kids when they come to Europe to "see the world" (i.e. eat at McDonalds in foreign capitals) They are not as dumb as the two ditsy preteens in this movie, but they have just about the same amount of cultural enlightenment and good manners. | 0 | negative |
Having seen other Bollywood flicks with Salman Khan in them, I can say this is my favorite of the more recent ones. The songs are all quite fun, especially 'O Priya O Priya' which seems to have a nice mix of Beatles, Indian music and (dare I say this) a bit of Prince. The love stories are a bit more believable than, say, Chal Mere Bhai. The occasional focus on Prem's use of alcohol is at times troubling as it doesn't really seem to make sense to me, but it's played well by Khan--although his voice does become squeaky when he's portraying drunkenness. | 1 | positive |
(A possible minor spoiler) The first "Jurassic Park" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel "The Lost World" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in "Jurassic Park III," what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.<br /><br />Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.<br /><br />This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston ("Jumanji") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the "Jurassic" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.<br /><br /> The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars. | 0 | negative |
You may have serious doubts about watching the third sequel to The Stepford Wifes, but this is an absolute classic. Much scarier in premise than the first, and very entertaining. It only got a video release here in the UK, but should be released worldwide for everyone to enjoy. | 1 | positive |
I have seen quite a few action thrillers in my life and this is clearly one of the best ever! There are very few films which I even consider watching several times and this is one of them. Everything in this movie is just right: Clint as the superb leading actor, Rene Russo as his non-stupid female partner(this is a very rare combination - sad,but true!). Of course, John Malkowich deserves a lot of praise for his excellent villain but let us not overlook Eastwood`s initial buddy, played by Dylan Mcdermott, who in my view fits the role perfectly.The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic - but sadly never released on an original soundtrack CD (shame on the producers!). The plot makes sense and there is no loss of pace, the audience is kept in constant excitement of the outcome of the duel between Eastwood and Malkowich. I give this one 10 Stars! | 1 | positive |
i think dirty dancing was a great movie, they tried to make another one havana nights which was good but it was nothing like dirty dancing. i would like to see another dirty dancing with the same people. without them i think it would be a mess. a lot of times movies are made then when they try to add on more they start to change the people an make the movies go down hill. i would love to see dirty dancing have another one to see what happened after they were able to be together. patrick an Jennifer did so well together. this movie was made in 1997 its time to make another one. but this time start where it left off an keep the same people in it. | 1 | positive |
What's the most violent movie of all time? Rambo III? Commando? Robocop? Add these three very violent together, and you still won't equal the carnage in The Stabilizer, the wildest, silliest, craziest action movie I have ever seen. For one hundred minutes things blow up and people die in dozens of strange ways. It will make you laugh and cheer, and when it's all over you'll be more than a little exhausted. This movie is a buried gem, a cult classic sadly lacking a cult.<br /><br />The Stabilizer is the nickname of our hero Peter Goldson (Peter O'Brian), a large oily man with a curly mullet. He arrives in Indonesia on the trail of the villainous and mean Greg Rainmaker. We know he is evil because he is only referred to by his full name ("I hate SCUM like Greg RAINmaker!") and utilizes a method of killing that is so horrible I can't even utter it here. Wait, yes I can. He steps on people in spiky shoes. Greg Rainmaker: Cleat Killer.<br /><br />When Greg Rainmaker isn't pouring alcohol on women for their sexual pleasure, he's kidnapping important professors and heading a huge underworld empire. It's up to Goldson (A Jewish action hero? Gevalt!) and his motley crew of sidekicks to stabilize the situation by killing everyone and blowing lots of stuff up. Maybe "stabilize" has a different meaning in Indonesia.<br /><br />And the violence, oh the violence. This is a film unwilling, nay, uncapable, of letting five minutes of screen time go by without some sort of explosion, knifing, car crash, or squib interrupting the dialogue. The violence is extreme; not graphic and bloody, just really weird. For example, The Stabilizer & company invade one of Rainmaker's warehouses (by driving through a solid concrete wall on a motorcycle, of course). When perched on the balcony, with heavy fire coming from below, The Stabilizer does the one thing he can do. He drives off the balcony into the guy's head, his front tire bouncing off it like a basketball. Astounding.<br /><br />From the overly-gratuitous love scenes (Both major female characters hop in the sack with the hero of their choice not two minutes after they speak to them alone for the first time) to the poorly dubbed dialogue ("Victor, you talented bastard!") The Stabilizer has it all. This is a film for the ages, right up there with Citizen Kane and Gymkata. It is not widely available in release. If you find it anywhere for any price, buy it and relish the insanity.<br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
Okay it is terribly, and I mean terribly, easy to pick apart this film. C'mmon what do you expect with the title, synopsis, and actors in leads such as Carol Gilley, Ralph Baker Jr., Dorothy Davis, Bill Thurman, and, my personal favourite, Roger Ready. Yes, B star John Agar is here as a sheriff out to rid the Texan landscape of a robot-like ape from a NASA experiment gone awry. The movie has dreadful performances, dreadful scenery, dreadful special effects, and dreadful lighting. I really cannot find much good to say about it other than as bad films go you could do a lot worse as far as finding something dreadful to sit through. It is bearably short and has many moments of unintended humor. Missed cues, lighting faux pas, off-screen terror, an unbelievably inane score, and of course John Agar trying his level best to be the core of the film with an earnest performance amidst this muck. The beginning is the hardest part to sit through as it seems like it takes forever for these two teens to get their comeuppance for traveling in the woods down the Texas back roads where great ape soon will reek his vengeance in his own terrible way...Yeah right! Night Fright! Bah! | 0 | negative |
As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.<br /><br />The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world. <br /><br />Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.<br /><br />I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there. | 0 | negative |
This movie should have ended as soon as the joke about Bebe's Kids is told in the opening. I liked Robin Harris and most of his comedy but the really funny routines were not meant to be something the whole family could go see. Liken it to taking the point of one of Jerry Seinfeld's jokes and attempting to squeeze the joke for as long as you can in order to turn it into a movie. This movie had to be self-serving because I can not find anyone who found the settings or antics familiar. Whats most funny about this movie is the gumption of the writers and producers to pass it off as something of value. 1/10 stars because there is no half star. | 0 | negative |
drab morality tale about a high school kid who's pretty much the now-stereotypical nerd. He's smart, but has no friends, no social skills, and a lazy loser of a father who borrows money from HIM. A pretty girl hits on him(he should've known she wanted something-he's supposed to be smart, right?). She manipulates the poor desperate fool into writing her term paper on Shakespeare, which the teacher immediately knows she couldn't have written. He loses the girl(not that he ever really had her) the confidence of his teacher, and his college scholarship, all in one fell blow.<br /><br />Marv is so silly and desperate for love that he decides to rob some heroin dealers who are running the stuff through the warehouse he works at. Then maybe the trashy little slut will be impressed and want to marry him. Sad, really sad. Marv is such a pathetic dope(and pretty brainless, for a supposedly smart guy. I mean, trying to rob drug dealers? Has this kid got a screw loose?) that you stop feeling sorry for him and get the dreadful urge to kick him in the butt, instead.<br /><br />The girl, of course, tells her boyfriend about the robbery Marv boasted of to her, and talks him and his cronies into stealing the money from Marv and company. They try to do so, and in the process manage to shoot several people. The cops show up at the same time, and the idiot Marv is dragged away, a total disgrace forever. I know this thing was geared towards making teens behave themselves by showing them the consequences of bad behavior, but all it really illustrated was the consequences of stupid behavior. Which is the premature end of your film career, of course. Goodbye, Marv, we never really knew ya. And thank goodness for that. | 0 | negative |
Badland is one of the worst movies I ever seen. Most of the time this is fine and I can go on with my life, but I feel the need to warn others in this case. As a veteran of the Iraq war I feel it necessary to say that the story, plot, acting and depiction of what soldiers go through upon returning home was pure garbage. It was as if the director/writer/whoever latched on to whatever cliché about returning soldiers and ran with it and ran with it and ran with it..Not to mention I would imagine there was absolutely no research put into this film. The "Marine" uniform looked like it was fresh off a surplus store shelf and was a pattern not used since the first Iraq war. I won't go on forever, this is a horrible movie. If you are interested in the stories of returning soldiers there are much better alternatives. I recommend going to your local library. | 0 | negative |
This movie was included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book. <br /><br />Above all this movie just leaves me asking "WHY?" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, "The Real World: Tudor England"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general? <br /><br />Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.<br /><br />Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says "Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick..." It's just bad.<br /><br />Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad. | 0 | negative |
I don't think I've ever gave something a 1/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.<br /><br />I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.<br /><br />Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, "get me the hell away from this freak!" I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting. | 0 | negative |
This is a disaster-movie, in both meanings of the word. Every character, every role, every conversation, every twist, everything in this movie stinks big time. It's a shame to see Dennis Hopper's talent wasted in this dreadful movie. I can give you 100's of examples but see for yourself.<br /><br />Or rather : don't. | 0 | negative |
I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely. | 0 | negative |
Subsets and Splits