text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Alright, how someone can actually think this movie is awesome, is so beyond me... I can't even comprehend how someone can find this movie remotely funny, the only character it has going for it, is the evil super nerd game designer, and that gets old after a while. This movie is so predictable, the punchlines are not funny they're forced, you see better acting at the red light district, and the story sucks it's so predictable, you know EXACTLY what's going to happen. Even the characters do not react like they should, try going to the hot chick that is your boss at work and telling her that you're banging 2 crazy chicks that you live with at the same time, her response wouldn't be (smile) "ok let's get back to work". I didn't laugh once during this movie, and I wish I had never seen it or spent 3$ to rent it because that's not even worth it. Adam Sandler produced this movie, I have lost all respect for him. All his movies are the same, his comedy style got old ever since The Waterboy came out, if I knew Adam Sandler had produced this before I rented it...there's no way I would have wasted my time on it. This movie is as bad as it can possibly get from every aspect... ace ventura wasn't a smart comedy movie, it didn't have a killer plot...but it was original and it was hilarious. I'm not knocking the movie because it has 'low-level' humor, i'm knocking it because it sucks, it's a piece of Hollywood crap. If this movie was presented to a production company and din't have "ADAM SANDLER" behind it, it would be thrown in the garbage quicker than a used condom. If you want a good movie about pot-culture watch Cheech and Chong, or Whitecastle. If you rent this movie all you will get is a generic comedy that targets 14-17 year olds, with loud rock music at every possible cut, acting that will make your eyes squint and your stomach turn, and comedy that is equivalent to watching your stoned friend eating mcdonalds for an hour and a half. Don't do it.... for the love of God...this movie sucks, treat it for what it is and look past all the Hollywood glory behind it.....Hercules in New York used to be the worst movie I had ever seen, but it's actually so bad it's good. This instead was a very expensive movie that sucked just as much, if not more. | 0 | negative |
From 1936-1939, Peter Lorre made a string of highly successful Mr. Moto films. While technically B-films, they were much better made than typical films of the genre. However, Lorre tired of making these highly repetitive films and told friends he wanted out of the series. When it was canceled in 1939, Lorre was thrilled but his plans of getting more complicated and satisfying roles did not materialize when he moved to Columbia Pictures. ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN is one of these films and it's pretty obvious the studio isn't putting much effort into the movie, as I think the plot was written by penguins. Talented penguins, perhaps...but still the movie made little sense at all.<br /><br />It begins with a guy agreeing to be an undercover agent for the government. He is to infiltrate an island in the US where something strange is amiss. Now they easily could have just got a search warrant to do this. But, given that penguins were writing the film, the agent takes the rap for a murder he didn't commit and spends a year in prison for this. He apparently hopes that he'll be paroled to this island, as many parolees are sent there when they finish the term.<br /><br />There are some more serious problems with this idea. First, they only have him serve a year before getting paroled--but he was convicted of MURDER and he refused to divulge who he really was. They would never parole anyone in a case like this. Second, what if he wasn't paroled to the island? He would have spent an entire year in jail for nothing! Third, why not just have scuba divers or paratroopers or cops in boats come to the island?! Talk about a contrived plot! <br /><br />Once on the island, the agent discovers that evil Peter Lorre has set up his own private prison and staffed it with guys on parole as slave labor. What about the men having to report to their parole officers? This was never explained, but Lorre was using them to mine for diamonds and they were treated abominably. Now, another question I had was that if Lorre was discovering huge diamonds there, he was a very wealthy man. So, why not just PAY people to mine for the diamonds?! Why set up your own version of Devil's Island and savagely beat and kill the men?! <br /><br />Eventually, Lorre gets what's his and the island's slaves are released. Unfortunately, by then, I really didn't care. Overall, watchable but rather dumb. Lorre's career only took a turn for the better when he moved the following year to Warner Brothers. With films like ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN, I could see why his stay at Columbia was short. | 0 | negative |
This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's "Ikiru(Live)" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,"It is a good film, isn't it?". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,"Letyat zhuravli" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as "City light","Ikiru" and "La Strada". | 1 | positive |
Eddy Murphy and Robert De Niro should be a combination that results in a great comedy. Great expectationa often lead to dissapointment, and this proves to be the case.<br /><br />When Eddy as a police officer spoils a drug deal being done by Detective Robert, they botch it so badly that they end up doing a live action reality TV cop show. Logic is not a great component of this movie. The super-gun that they spend the second half of the movie chasing down confirms it. A twelve guage machine gun that leaves large holes in sheetmetal and three will destroy a house in about a minute (without reloading) is as more a fantasy than science fiction. A five pound gun, firing hundreds of shots per minute without any recoil, is certainly the weapon of the future using the technology of the past.<br /><br />It is clear this movie was designed for neither adults nor children, so if you are somewhere in between, this is the movie for you. | 0 | negative |
Let's see, cardboard characters like Muslim terrorists have forced a cardboard scientist to perform some exotic drug tests on some cardboard people who have been drugged and kidnapped. You'll be sure to laugh when these pathetic excuses for humanoids get their just deserts! Turns out the drug experiments have given them the ability to sense another world....the world of religious fantasy!--complete with cardboard demons who look like they are made of Papier Mache. Everybody gets dragged off to Hell except for one poor chap who goes to Heaven where he can presumably spend Eternity with the blockheads that created this Masterpiece of the Absurd. I think I'd opt for Hellfire myself. Go see something else, unless you are stoned, in which case, you might actually like it! Couldn't hurt! | 0 | negative |
My teacher did this movie. It's a new beginning. Watch it, and you won't notice that it is a Romanian movie. The old boring style has gone. Now it's something else. A post-revolutionary movie. It is using the latest imaging technology and mostly unknown artists. They are unique. You won't even know that you're watching, you will be simply transferred beyond the screen and you'll feel every frame. Don't miss it, pay attention to the plot but don't ignore the details. They make the difference between this movie and the others Romanian movies. You will hear some music at some point. It's representative for a part of us, but it does not represent us. Please, just keep your head straight and leave your body free. | 1 | positive |
Every great once in a while, you stumble upon a movie that exceeds even your wildest expectations. Given the IMDb rating of 4.0, I wasn't really expecting much with The Brotherhood of Satan. I hoped that at a minimum it might be cheesy fun like The Devil's Rain or any of the other early 70s similarly themed Satanic horror films. I couldn't' have been more wrong. What I got instead was an ambitious and intelligent film with a cast I really enjoyed. Speaking in broad terms to avoid giving anything away, the film's style and structure are much more experimental than the straightforward storytelling so prominent in the early 70s. The Brotherhood of Satan doesn't beat you over the head with plot points and explanations. A lot is left to the viewer to fill in the blanks. As a viewer, you know something is amiss, but for the longest period you're just not sure what it is. The unknown helps make for a far creepier atmosphere than most similar films. The ending is effective with its surreal imagery. I sat in amazement as the final credits began to roll. Those wanting a big slam-bang finale will be disappointed with the ending's simplicity. A lesser film would have tried to pull out all the stops and would, most likely, have failed miserably.<br /><br />There are moments in the film where it's easy to forget the director, Bernard McEveety, had primarily worked in television before The Brotherhood of Satan. There are a few scenes that are so well set-up, lit, and shot that even the most accomplished of directors could learn a thing or two. For example, I've seen enough films over the years to realize that directors can sometimes seem to have trouble shooting widescreen shots indoors. Not here. The scene where the men are discussing their plan of action in the sheriff's office is amazing. We see all five men at once each doing their own thing as in real life. In a lesser film, we might see all the men at once, but each would be motionless, quietly waiting their turn to deliver their dialogue. It's a small scene, but it looks so natural and is so beautifully shot that it's one of my favorite moments of The Brotherhood of Satan.<br /><br />Finally, I mentioned the acting in my opening, so without going into a long-winded speech, I'll just say that The Brotherhood of Satan features Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones. Any film with these two guys is almost an automatic winner with me. | 1 | positive |
The consequences of love: There is really something special about this film but it's very hard to put your finger on. It is a love story of sorts but not really one i've seen before. It has several love themes running throughout the film. One mans love for a younger woman, a younger mans love for his older brother, the mafias love of money at all costs these are just some that intertwine in a story that has you guessing or rather not knowing where and how it will end. The cast are all superb from Sophia the teasing barmaid to the straight faced-ness of titta the films central character. With simple yet affective camera work bounced off an ever-changing soundtrack that mixes low-fi trip hop with lush orchestral pieces. The style of the film changes beautifully using several styles without ever getting cluttered. Love has never looked so diverse and powerful as the tales we are told rumble towards various conclusions. The director has married old and new into a rich Italian classic. | 1 | positive |
I really like the movie's opening, when Col. Ted Masters realizes on his fighter radar that four enemy aircraft were approaching from about 10 o'clock. The good news is that the movie does not mention at the very beginning that the colonel, along with a wingman fighter who was a lieutenant, was trying to do a "freedom of navigation" exercise along the eastern Meditteranean Sea, but went a little too past the restricted air space zone reserved for a rogue Middle eastern nation as they accidentially fly past it.<br /><br />I also like all of the intercutting on the colonel's fighter radar readouts and computer displays as the enemy aircraft aggressively picks the two American fighter pilots into an engagement for violating their airspace. That first dogfight immediately reminds me of the famous fighter pilot movie, "Top Gun." From the waxing of the enemy bandits to the enemy aircraft's thirty-milimeter rounds that struck the colonel's jet engines and forcing the plane down, forcing him to eject, all of this reminds us of one thing...dogfight fighter techniques can keep you alive...but one false move can cause you to be shot down.<br /><br />The only problem in the movie was the "snake sequence" scene. It was a little bit too long. Yes, the movie's opening was great when you see the conflict...which was the dogfight engagement. Only when one boy tells Doug Masters that his father was shot down after the Cessna planes landed in the "snake" race, forces us back to the time the conflict already started. I guess the snake sequence in the middle should be interrupted a little bit by Col. Masters being dragged in handcuffs in the middle of the Bilyad desert on his way to the detention center...while the music sequence for the "snake" continues. The film does not do it...if it were, the conflict's details would have been smoother at that point. Still good otherwise.<br /><br />When word found out that Col. Ted Masters trial for high treason (violating territorial air sovereignty) was over and he was condemned to be hung on the gallows in three days, Doug Masters decides to go into action. With the Air Force having futile attempts to save the man, Doug decides to pull his friends and Col. Sinclair (played by Louis Gossett Jr.) for a plan to rescue Masters. Risking a high chance of facing a court martial and spending more than a year in a military stockade, he goes against Air Force policy and makes a plan to rescue Masters without consent of the U.S. government.<br /><br />Doug and his friends sneak into several classified areas of the base to get plenty of stuff on the area where Masters is held for the upcoming hanging, and the surrounding area around Bilyad (which turns out to be a fake Middle Eastern country for the movie). One plan included shooting off firecrackers outside the Air Force darkroom area as a diversion to get classified photos and maintenance stuff on the fighter aircraft, fighter base, intelligence, and all of the other military stuff around Bilyad. <br /><br />When all was said and done, and Sinclair studied all of the intelligence, he almost rebuffed at that plan because Doug was way too cocky. Not until they get the two F-16 planes and tried a dry run across a firing range that I realized what they were going to do overseas. I realized that Doug's fighter shooting and bomb dropping is not good until he hears rock music. I can remember when he dropped one Mach 82 bomb on a horizontal target and the bomb missed by 20 feet....I realized that Doug is unusual. He likes music when he fires the fighter ammunition.<br /><br />The last part of the conflict, the final dogfight action in "Iron Eagle" was better than Top Gun's climax of the hostile dogfight sequences. I liked the way the final conflict unfolded, especially when Doug Masters faces off with an Middle-Eastern ace fighter pilot who actually ran the trial against Ted Masters. Short but sweet when Doug took the enemy fighter out after a second try by a side-winder missile. Looks like this Bilyad colonel was akin to "Darth Vader" in Star Wars....in the air, he can be very evil, because if you have seen Star Wars, Darth Vader was actually Anakin Skywalker, who was an ace pilot in space. Unusual connotation for this but still works! | 1 | positive |
Okay , so this wasnt what I was expecting. I rented this film just to see how it would be since I want to see the first one anyway. But , this film had B-movie all over it. But when I watched it I realized that it was very funny. For the first 30 minutes It was just how the snowman was kiiling people and one man losing his sanity. But , those first few minutes had some funny one liners in it. When He throws up the first of his little minions I knew this would be very very funny. They all act like the gremlins in the ninteen eighty four hit gremlins that it made it look like it was spoofing it and made me forget it was a B-movie. So if you like to laugh rent this one. | 1 | positive |
I happened to see a promo for this movie on Spike channel last night, it was grouped with a Patrick swazy rerun of another movie he made and thought swazy was in this sequel.....boy was I wrong....I see the screen writer also starred in it, and I'm thinking the budget was a bit tight. I am surprised to see Will Patton in the film he has far better credits to his name to be playing in a "c" movie like this. Bussey jr was trying so hard to portray the image of his father(one of the best bad guy actors ever) that failed miserably the only redeeming qualities in the movie was the chicks,,,,,good looking and with lots of T&A just not worth the time or your hard earned dollar to rent it | 0 | negative |
What a frustrating movie. A small Southern town is overflowing with possibilities for exploring the complexities of interpersonal relationships and dark underbellies hidden beneath placid surfaces, as anyone who has read anything by Carson McCullers already knows. This does none of that. Instead, the writers settled for cutesy twinkles, cheap warm fuzzies and banal melodrama. The thing looks like a made-for-TV movie, and was directed with no particular distinction, but it's hard to imagine what anyone could have done to make this material interesting.<br /><br />The most frustrating aspect, though, is the fact that there are a lot of extremely competent and appealing actors in this cast, all trying gamely to make the best of things and do what they can with this--well, there's no other word for it--drivel. A tragic waste of talent, in particular that of the great Stockard Channing. | 0 | negative |
I saw this one on the late, late, late, late show back when MST3K was just a twinkle in Joel Hodgson's eye. I had the privilege of seeing it without knowing exactly how bad it would be. I didn't know that a woman with an arrow in her chest could run "to the ends of the earth" in about an hour and a half (thank God her father gave such specific directions) and then take days to make it back to the castle with help. I didn't know that a sword wielding barbarian-type could run into the forest and create a hanglider and flash powder bombs in under 30 seconds. I had no idea how disjointed a movie could be.<br /><br />It's a bad thing children, a very bad thing. If you enjoy bad movies, go for it. | 0 | negative |
This ultra-low budget kitchen-sink yawn is the kind of film that can only be made in the UK in that, anywhere else in the world the fact the a market would need to exist before a green-light would be given. Most probably self funded this is clearly an attempt to redress important issues but ultimately undermines its point of existence in that the question needs to be begged, who would ever put money into distributing this and secondly if a market audience doesn't exist to watch, buy or rent this film, why would anyone bother in the first place? My opinions may sound unfairly harsh on a first time director but, this is the kind of film that only goes to undermine the commercial viability and quality standards which have only just kept a British film industry in existence. Reviewed in Edinburgh. 2 out of 10. | 0 | negative |
"The Foreigner" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around "The Glimmer Man" or "Fire Down Below" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and "The Foreigner" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-) | 0 | negative |
I watched the first 10 minutes of this show I think I'm gonna barf now! One worst shows on TV. It's not even funny. It's so lame it's disgusting. I gave it a second and third change couldn't even make it through five minutes. Don't waste the time. This is one of the many shows that need to go bye bye. Speaking of regular night time shows that need to go. All the shows on CBS. All the Shows on ABC. All the Shows on FOX and Joe Buck. All the shows on the new CW network. All the shows on NBC.(Accept The Law and Order series). All the Morning and Afternoon talk shows. All the Court TV shows. And every reality show out there!! Every stupid game show. period the end! All the Home improvement shows! And all the Media News. all it is.Is a 24 hour loop of bad news. Yes,I do have Favorites Monk,The law & Orders thats it for me. | 0 | negative |
CHE! is a bad movie and deserves it reputation as an unintentionally funny film. It takes a serious subject and presents it like the Cliff Notes version or Classic Comics because there isn't much emotion or a proper narrative--just episodic segments stitched together with mostly stupid "true stories" relayed by a variety of yutzes.<br /><br />This is a deservedly derided film, as it is poorly written and acted. However, what I have found most interesting about the film is its apparent gay subtext. Instead of Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro working towards a Communist Cuba, they seem to be more of a gay couple--with Che behaving coy and aloof and Fidel as the ardent suitor! Again and again, the film abounds with great lines such as when Fidel implores Che "Cuba needs you....I NEED YOU!!". I am not sure if the studio intended this homosexual undercurrent, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize it! I am very surprised that the other reviewers didn't point this out. However, if you remember this when you watch the film, it makes viewing much more exciting and even funnier.<br /><br />A final note. In recent years, Che has been very chic--even a fashion statement with hoards of brain-dead teens, who have no idea who he was, wearing shirts emblazoned with his face. Considering he was a cold-blooded killer and nihilist (an odd combination for a doctor), this new reverence for the man is gross. What will they do next, put Hitler or Dr. Mengele on T-shirts and posters?!!? Even Communists with consciences should be appalled by the bloodshed Guevara was responsible for and I find it ironic that people with computers are championing a man who might likely have killed them given half a chance! <br /><br />Considering how stupid and unintentionally funny this movie was, it does nothing to further the message that Guevara was no hero. I would love to see a realistic film done of his life--with the good and the bad but also with dialog and a plot that weren't apparently created by chimps! | 0 | negative |
I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format??? | 0 | negative |
Ted Danson was a great choice to play Gulliver. Even though his background was mostly comedy, he shows here that he can do drama just as well or perhaps even better (though there is a lot of humour in this). Hard to turn a blind eye to his American accent especially since his character is supposed to be English but that's just a minor thing.<br /><br />All the villains are equally well cast: James Fox, Edward Fox, Peter O'Toole, Warwick Davis, John Standing, etc. Despite the fact that most of them are either tiny people or giants, they are 100% believable in everything they do and their motivations are very clear e.g. the Lilliputians' unremitting suspicion of Gulliver, Grildrig the (giant) dwarf's hatred of him for usurping his position as court jester, Dr. Bates' attempt to have Gulliver proved insane so he can marry Mary.<br /><br />Mary Steenburgen is great as Mary Gulliver (another 17th Century English character with an American accent but never mind). She is a deeply tormented character because she has been waiting nine years for her husband to return home and when he finally does, he is talking about tiny people, giants, a flying island and talking horses! Mary, despite the strong fantasy element in the story, is a very believable character.<br /><br />The special effects are breathtaking especially when you consider that it was filmed on a television scale at a time when CGI was in its infancy. It looks very realistic when we see a 6 foot tall man walking through a city filled with people who are 6 inches tall.<br /><br />The cameos are great as well: Omar Sharif, Richard Wilson, Sir John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ned Beatty. All great actors who create a strong supporting cast that complement Danson's superb acting ability.<br /><br />The Houynhnhms and the Yahoos are probably the most effective element of the story on the satire side of things: a society of talking horses who do not possess any of the vices that humans have while the Yahoos are primitive, disgusting humans who mate forcefully and appoint their leader depending on how disgusting he is. Gulliver and Mistress' study of them is also very well done and displays the differences and similarities between humans and Yahoos.<br /><br />The best version of "Gulliver's Travels" by far and one of the best mini-series ever. | 1 | positive |
I had to watch this movie with my 5-year-old. He didn't laugh once during the entire movie...and he loves dogs and will laugh at nearly anything! This movie was horrible from all aspects: poor script (even accounting for a children's G-rated movie), poor production (the jittery camera shots made me feel nauseous for the first ten minutes), poor acting (perhaps they were "directed" to act cartoonish), and even poor sound quality (there are parts where the audio level seems fine, then you can't hear what the next actor is saying). I'm willing to put up with quite a lot when it comes to watching a child's movie, but this was worse than having a stick in my eye. I also didn't like being battered over the head with the god-heaven-belief thing. In all, it was the biggest waste of 90 minutes in my life...and I've done some serious time-wasting in my day! | 0 | negative |
The movie was good. Really the only reason I watched it was Alan Rickman. Which he didn't pull off the southern accent,but he did pretty well with it.Know Emma Thompson did really good she definitely pulled off the southern accent. I like all the character in my opinion not one of them did bad,another thing I have notice. I have read all these comment and not one person has comment on Alan 5 0'clock shadow. Which made him look even better and he pretty much had one through the whole movie. I would give the movie a 9 out of 10. Another one of my opinions is the movie would been better if there wasn't any sex. Still it was alright. Love the scene were he says "Aw sh*t" when he is setting in his car and see them in his mirror. | 1 | positive |
I of course saw the previews for this at the beginning of some other Lion's Gate extravaganza, so of course it was only the best parts and therefore looked intriguing. And it is, to a point. A young college student (Sarah)is finding riddles all over the place and is becoming obsessed with answering them, and in doing so she's unwittingly becoming involved in some game. Now that's fairly intriguing right there but unfortunately it all gets rather muddled and becomes so complicated that the viewer (like myself) will most likely become frustrated. Characters appear with little introduction and you're not really sure who they are or why Sarah knows them or is hanging out with them. All of this has something to do with this woman who tried to drown a young boy years ago and her reason for that was that it's "all part of the design". In reality, it's all part of the "very sketchy script" and when the film is over you'll find yourself feeling that you've lost about an hour and a half of your life that you want back for more productive uses of your time, like cleaning the bathroom, for instance. 4 out of 10. | 0 | negative |
This movie and several other movies from the 1950s with a religious overtone, such as The Robe, Quo Vadis, and Samson and Delilah, unfortunately depict all pagans or anybody who isn't a Jew or Christian as morally depraved and decadent. The focus is only on biblical-related stories that ignore the world outside the Bible. As far as they are concerned, nothing good came from pagan Egypt, Greece or Rome.<br /><br />Any movie that preaches about the "one true god" gives a short shift to freedom of religion. The movies ignore the fact that ancient Judea's lack of religious freedom made it a fertile ground for religious extremism. Most 1950s religious movies also overlook the loss of freedom the occurred after Christians assumed political power in the 4th century. | 0 | negative |
David Morse and Andre Braugher are very talented actors, which is why I'm trying so hard to support this program. Unfortunately, an irrational plot, and very poor writing is making it difficult for me. I'm hoping that the show gets a serious overhaul, or that the actors find new projects that are worthy of them. | 1 | positive |
This movie had an interesting enough plot about clones and organ usage, but it fails as the lead actor is so annoying and whiny you want him dead. Not that anyone else is very good in it either, but when you hate the character that is supposed to be garnering your sympathy the movie just fails to work. Funny enough, it looks like a movie is coming out in the near future that has a plot that mirrors this one with more action and a better cast, still though I won't be able to think of anything else, but this film if I were to watch it. This movie has a super dumb clone that is somehow smart enough to figure something is wrong with his camp where people bicycle at one mile per hour and wrestle for no reason. The counselors tell them that when they are ready they go to America, but our "hero" has his doubts so he snoops around and learns the awful truth which sends him on the run from the bad guys who shoot and hit the guy repeatedly. He goes on the look out for the man he was cloned from. Peter Graves is in it and so is Dick Seargent, but they add nothing to this movie which looks like something that was made for television. On the plus side though when "The Island" comes out the makers of this film can proudly say "we thought of it first". | 0 | negative |
The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better). <br /><br />As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness. <br /><br />The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do. <br /><br />Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***<br /><br />So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema. | 0 | negative |
As a "cusp-pre-baby-boomer"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his "Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important "first films" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in "re-release," several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle "multi-plots"...intentionally NOT "surrounding," "mini" or "sub" plots...in all their "colors and shades of intensity"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of "reason" and "rational explanation" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a "new" and "different" angle when looking at this classic film.) | 1 | positive |
One of the many speculations about Y2K was that the world was going to end at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999. In `The Book Of Life,' writer/director Hal Hartley takes a look at the possible ramifications of a new millennium Armageddon, beginning with the return of Jesus to Earth on New Year's Eve, 99. The story examines the task of the Son of God, who must open the remaining three of the seven seals contained in the Book of Life (now contained in a Mac laptop computer), in which there is also the names of the one-hundred and forty-four thousand good souls who will be spared on the last day. Jesus (Martin Donovan), along with Magdalena (P.J Harvey), arrives in New York City to make the preparations necessary for carrying out his Father's will, but he begins to have second thoughts; must he judge the living and the dead? Do they deserve what must befall them? It is a cup He would prefer not to embrace at this particular moment, which gives encouragement to Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan) who fears that the fruit of all his hard labor is about to be washed away at midnight, for he can only continue his work so long as there are people around who cling to their pitiful hopes and dreams. An artistically rendered, high concept film, Hartley presents the story in an intelligent, thought provoking manner, taking great care in dealing with the sensitive subject matter so as to make it inoffensive even to the most ardent fundamentalist. The dialogue between Jesus and Satan is intriguing and stimulating, as is the effect of their presence upon those they encounter during their corporeal stay in the city. It's an engrossing meditation on the spiritual side of Man's fragile existence and a contemplation of that which has been prophesied in the Revelations of St. John in the Apocalypse, the last Book of the New Testament. And there is logic in Hartley's approach to the Second Coming; he maintains the aesthetic of the contemporary setting while employing altered film speeds which visually give the film an ethereal quality. Christ inconspicuously wears a suit and tie, effectively blending in with the populace, while Satan's attire is a bit more casual, his appearance somewhat scruffy; he sports a bruise above his left eye. Donovan is well cast as Jesus, lending a benevolent mien and a sense of restrained urgency to his character that is very effective. It is, of course, a unique portrayal of The Saviour, and possibly the best since Max von Sydow's in `The Greatest Story Ever Told.' He successfully conveys a feeling of inner peace and tranquility, of serenity, that is the essence at the very core of the character. And Ryan is thoroughly engaging in his role of the Prince of Darkness; he has a distinct manner of speech and a resonant quality to his voice that make him absolutely mesmerizing to watch. His eyes are darkly penetrating, a trait he uses effectively with furtive glances and captivating stares. He's the guy who could sell you anything in exchange for your soul before you ever knew what hit you. It's a memorable performance that contrasts so well with Donovan's portrayal of Jesus. The supporting cast includes Martin Pfeffercorn (Martyr), Miho Nikaido (Edie), Dave Simonds (Dave), D.J. Mendel (Lawyer), James Urbaniak (True Believer), Katreen Hardt (Lawyer's Assistant) and Anna Kohler (Hotel Clerk). In his own, inimitable style, with `The Book Of Life,' Hartley has crafted a perspective of the last days that is interesting, entertaining and truly unique. He has a way of capturing life as it is just off center, a method which works especially well with a film like this. Comparatively short for a feature film (running time of 63 minutes), it nevertheless is one of Hartley's best, and more than worth the price of admission. It's a film that will stay with you and perhaps make you think about some things you may have tucked away in a corner of your mind for later. And that is part of the attraction of this film; it makes you realize that `later' most likely is now. I rate this one 9/10. | 1 | positive |
Ok, so there's always people out there that seem to make it a point not to like movies because they're good, but instead choose to like movies based on how depressing or boring they can be, or whether they're from a foreign country. All that aside, One Crazy Summer is the perfect example of what a great American teen comedy should be. The jokes are a good mix of slapstick (a la Bobcat Goldthwait), surreal (Bobcat under the inspired direction of Steve Holland), and dry (John Cusack, one of the most morosely dry and funny actors in American cinema), and there is no character in this movie who does not deliver at least one funny line (ok, except Demi Moore).<br /><br />Yes, it's immature, yes, it's screw-ball, yes, Bobcat dresses up like Godzilla and trashes a scale-model of a seafood restaurant. It's also funny as hell. Watch it. | 1 | positive |
I can think of no movie that better captures the concept of grace, in a theological sense. The well-intentioned religiosity of a small congregation, gone awry after the death of their leader, robs from them the very thing they preach: grace. The costly gift of a humbled Parisian culinary genius returns them to their calling to love one another, and humbles an aging general concerned that he's wasted his life. CHOICES is a central theme, as well as grace. At the same time, artistic gifting is recognized as having a powerful, transcendent role to play in everyday life, and the life to come. Impossible to improve or ignore. This is a life-changing film for those who hear its message. | 1 | positive |
Yes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.<br /><br />I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school/pot-flicks.<br /><br />If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.<br /><br />I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!<br /><br />And by the way: in Norway it's called "Dude, Where's My Pot"! | 0 | negative |
I have always loved old movies but this is one of my top ten favorites...it has all the charm, 1940's quaintness, and good old fashioned romance and it's hilarious, to boot! Barbara Stanwick plays an independent single woman who writes cooking\home life articles for a famous magazine...under the premise that she is a married homemaker. Even the president of the magazine is under this delusion. Enter a handsome GI, (played by the talented Dennis Morgan)just rescued off of a raft along with his buddy. His simple wish is to stay at the homey Inn the she writes so eloquently about and relax with her famous home-cooked meals. She now has to frantically find a way to save her job and reputation...add to this that her fiancé is in a hurry to tie the knot doesn't help. The humor is superb and the chemistry between the leading characters a lot of fun. Throw in the character-actor nicknamed "Cuddles" (who fits this name completely) it becomes even more adorable. This has become my must-see movie that I snuggle in with a cup of cocoa each Christmas season. A wonderful, enjoyable movie to enjoy at Christmastime or anytime! | 1 | positive |
Shemp finds out that he stands to inherit a million dollars IF he is married within 24 hours. Considering how hideous he looks and his personality, it isn't surprising that he can't get a taker--that is until an article appears in the paper explaining his predicament--at which point five crazed women appear from no where to claim their new hubby (plus the money, of course).<br /><br />While I don't hate the Three Stooges and like to watch their shorts on occasion, they never, even on their best day, came close to the brilliant comedy of Buster Keaton. That's why I disliked this film, as it was a ripoff of the plot from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES. With the Stooges it wasn't uncommon for Columbia Pictures to steal old comedy plots or just recycle older Stooge shorts. So, from the outset, this film is a pale imitation of an original. It's also obvious that this film lacks the charm and subtlety of the original and the gags generally seem very forced (paricularly the phone booth scene). The cousin Basil bit, however, was pretty cute and funny--though far from subtle! However, the worst aspect of the film was the not particularly funny conclusion. In the Keaton version, hundreds of women appeared to marry him and the action became very fast and furious--here, it all stayed in one small room and lacked comedic punch--ending in a fizzle.<br /><br />Overall, a dull retread. Also, before marking this review "not helpful", be sure to FIRST see SEVEN CHANCES to see what I am talking about--then you decide. | 0 | negative |
From the late teens to the 1920s, Stan Laurel was a solo act in films. During this time period, Laurel was definitely NOT among the upper echelons of talent and his humor isn't nearly as good as contemporaries such as Lloyd or Keaton. However, for second-tier short comedies, he did create a decent niche. As far as the quality of the films go, they varied wildly. Some, such as DR. PYCKLE AND MR. PRYDE, were terrific, whereas most were of average to below average in quality.<br /><br />FROZEN HEARTS is an odd film. Like many of the films he made for Hal Roach and distributed by Pathé during this period, the costumes were absolutely first-rate and the film looked very nice. However, despite this and having support from the likes of James Finlayson, one thing they forgot to include in this film was humor. None of the jokes seem to work and the film looks almost like a drama, not a comedy. Only the really silly intertitle cards betray the type film it's supposed to be.<br /><br />My advice is try to see all his Laurel and Hardy films and then see the solo films. In addition to DR. PYCKLE, try seeing THE SOILERS and MUD AND SAND--two of his more tolerable solo shorts. | 0 | negative |
This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.<br /><br />Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.<br /><br />Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.<br /><br />Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.<br /><br />The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.<br /><br />Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive! | 1 | positive |
I think it was a pretty good film. It shows how someone grew up in an environment that created a rich and powerful man but unfortunately because of his ambition and the people around him it led to his destruction. It shows that you can't trust anyone especially in a world that deals with a lot of money and envy.The character that I mostly liked was Sebeva. She was another ambitious, powerful and ruthless woman in a man's world who loved and respected Kilo. She also knew that business was business and a dangerous one. Everything she did was risky but got the job done. She helped Kilo become rich with her connections. Overall, I really liked this film and have it in my collection and waiting for El Padrino 2. | 1 | positive |
Ladies and gentlemen, we've really got ourselves a winner here. Actually we don't, but boy is this film an often hilarious and always entertaining horrible hoot of a stinker. Poor Alma (fetching Julia Ruiz) is suffering from an ancient Mayan curse that causes lethal poisonous snakes to grow inside of her body. Alma and her deranged shaman husband Brujo (Alby Castro, who feverishly overacts with delicious eye-rolling intensity) stowaway on a train that's bound for Los Angeles. Naturally, a bunch of deadly vipers get lose so they can terrorize the motley assortment of passengers. The Mallachi Brothers, working from an absurd script by Eric Fosberg, treat the ridiculous premise straight, thereby creating a wonderfully wretched piece of deliriously campy cheese. The cruddy CGI effects, the pathetically unfrightening common variety Gardner snakes (there's would-be scary rattlesnake noises added to the soundtrack to imbue them with a faint sense of otherwise nonexistent menace), the plodding pace, the total dearth of any tension or momentum, the obvious rickety stage-bound train set, and especially the simply astonishing "you gotta be kiddin' me!" over-the-top preposterous ending are all downright awesome in their very jaw-dropping awfulness. Better still, we also got game (if lame) acting from a no-name cast, a nice smidgen of tasty gratuitous female nudity, a funky hum'n'shiver score, and plenty of extremely gross and grotesque make-up f/x. Bonus points for the fact that the token irritatingly cutesy little girl gets eaten by a large reptile and for the stoner engineer who gets caught smoking crack out of a hollow light bulb (!?). An absolute gut-buster of a kitsch howler. | 1 | positive |
Considering that they wanted to do a vampire movie in space, I thought, "Well, it'll probably be pretty cheesy, but at least interesting enough to see a different take on the whole genre." Whoops. I don't care what kind of movies you like; even if you're the biggest vampire, horror, thriller, or suspense fan in the world, or adversely, if you've never seen a horror movie before and would expect that your first would be impressive in any way whatsoever...you're wrong. I don't think I've ever seen a "made for TV movie" or after-school special this bad. I've never seen a TV pilot show this bad. I've never seen footage of animals sleeping or shitting that's as bad as this. This is, by far, the single biggest waste of hours you could otherwise spend contemplating the importance of dish towels and their effect on your life. I would far rather be trapped in a bathroom for weeks with nothing to consume but my own urine and excrement than watch even a single clip of this movie again. Watching this made me wish for the fates that the characters fell to instead of dealing with knowing that I paid money to watch it. It was, however, like a train wreck: so bad you just couldn't help but watch, hoping something good might happen. It didn't. Please, for the love of God, if you or your friends - even if using illicit substances while doing so - even consider watching this movie, choose instead to have a contest to see who can shoot a snot-rocket farther. It will bring you far greater enjoyment and entertainment. | 0 | negative |
This is a typical college comedy and its very average. The story is OK but not very entertaining. Its about a unlucky guy named Reno who looses his job, gets his car ripped off and then his uncle dies in a stripbar. His got a girlfriend though (a nice one btw. :-). Anyway this uncle gives him his mansion in LA and mercedes as heritage and soon Reno and his girlfriend moves to LA to this new house. The problem is that they would need some roommates in order to pay the high rent for this house and so the film unfolds... <br /><br />The movie starts OK and has a few funny jokes here and there, but the suddenly the movie takes a turn straight down to hell... The ending is BAD. Really BAD. It destroys everything about the movie. You will know what I'm talking about when you see the movie...<br /><br />2/10 | 0 | negative |
If you want to see a brilliant performance of Mikado, played to perfection with expert timing and panache, don't watch this version. If you want to see a hammy version with Eric Idle strutting around in 1930's english gentlemen's private club society, this is the one to watch. It's a lot of fun and a good intro to Gilbert and Sullivan, but after this, rush out and rent the Canadian Stratford version. You'll see the difference between good and great. Nobody does G&S better than Brian McDonald and the Stratford group. | 1 | positive |
It's boring.<br /><br />It's slow.<br /><br />Where are the nasty and brutal murders? Where is the tension that is supposed to scare us? This is like watching Sesame Street without the funny characters of Ernie and Bert or Grover.<br /><br />It's really lame.<br /><br />Maybe it was the writing...maybe the direction...maybe the acting, maybe the editing, maybe the cinematography, maybe the special effects, maybe the makeup.<br /><br />Maybe all of the above brought this to something barely able to keep your eyes focused on.<br /><br />I wanted to get scared...not bored.<br /><br />This didn't scare me...it didn't even interest me...I had more fun watching the time on the microwave instead of watching this film.<br /><br />Don't bother to buy it..and if you see it on television by some freak chance, there is no need to tuck the kids asleep. | 0 | negative |
If you're into alternate realities, contemplating what's real and what's just a fantasy, this is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that'll keep you guessing and really make you think. Try to get a copy of it and see for yourself! I watched it at an L.A. film festival recently and it was by far the best one in the group that I saw. It helped that it was actually about something, unlike the others that were screened. It's very well directed and the production value is top notch. I would compare it to Jacob's Ladder in that it keeps you guessing as to what the true reality is of the world that we're in. You should definitely try to hunt this film down and if it's screening at any festivals near you, try to check it out. | 1 | positive |
Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his "approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.<br /><br />So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.<br /><br />I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.<br /><br />Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.<br /><br />Spare yourself the agony. | 0 | negative |
Well, what's wrong with the title "Separate Lies" (accused elsewhere of not being "exciting"). It's cunning, subtle and a bit poetic. (Of course there's a Phil Collins song and a James Belushi film called "Separate Lives", which are alluded to here.) <br /><br />But the real point is the ethical dilemmas of telling lies at different levels that the film probes. OK, it's not an "in-your-face" hilarious title, but then it's not an in-your-face hilarious film. Please give British films like this a chance. They do try to make people think about important things, as here: how far do you go to protect your life (even if it is a bit rotten) against unexpected disaster. Maybe you tell lies. Maybe you ignore your loved ones' lies. That can wear a lot of people out. <br /><br />American movies on this theme are abundant, but they usually go much further by involving the use of firearms, which are not a part of everyday life here in Europe. <br /><br />Maybe we're not so "exciting" over here, but we don't expect slogan-like film titles for films that are not aimed at a massive public. | 1 | positive |
Spoiler with plot explanation: a poor family is being thrown in the middle of war between the evil guy (that pops out from nowhere, and no questions asked... ) that went wacko, and Casper the friendly ghost trying to avenge his death. With every frame movie gets more and more predictable, a big disappointment. Ending seams completely dumb, it has nothing to od with the movie itself, i think someone run out of ideas or just get to the point that movie is s**t this way or other, so it may as well have a stupid ending. Waste of time, resources and money. Actor play is very poor. If you think about the dialogs you may find out that family conflict is artificially enforced by poor communication between characters. Some scenes seam random. In summary: boring, predictable, poor, pathetic. Waste of time, and money. | 0 | negative |
The Italians are undeniable masters in the questionable "art" of ripping off and imitating movies. What they do is take an innovative, money-making and foreign concept, maintain the basic plot and just add a whole lot of action, sleaze and political incorrectness. But what to do when the non-Italian original is already a reputedly notorious film and quite difficult to surpass in terms of slop and controversy? Well then, I guess, you simply disregard everything in terms of story-building or stylishness and fully focus on making something that is practically a porno movie! This Italian turkey was inspired by Richard Fleischer's successful slavery-saga "Mandingo", released one year earlier, but since the makers were even too lazy to think up a different title, you shouldn't expect anything that even remotely resembles a narrative depth, character drawings, unsettling atmosphere or thought-provoking statements regarding cross cultural relationships. "MandingA" is pure and simply a sexploitation effort where the plot only develops itself throughout the last ten minutes, in other words when you stopped caring a long time ago already. The characters in this film are a gathering of despicable bastards, which is of course to expect when you're dealing with wealthy and obnoxious white folks running a plantation in South America. The elderly and supremely sleazy owner of the place is a widower (who probably also won a couple of "Moustache-of-the-Year" awards) who exploits and extendedly whips the slaves working for him. His mistress, who if I understood correctly is also his cousin (?), is a genuine bitch of a woman who enjoys provoking arguments and sneaks out of the house overnight to copulate with crucified slaves. When the plantation owner's son returns from Europe, after approximately 25 minutes of purely wasted running time, the plot slightly begin to develop itself at last. The handsome young man has sex with the bitchy woman a couple of times (even in front of the slaves, supposedly to "demonstrate" how their masters do it
) but eventually he falls in love with the cherubic preacher's daughter. His romantic preference obviously makes the bitchy woman mad with anger, and she plots a horribly cruel act of vengeance that will alter life on the plantation forever. Hey
I just realized this brief description of the plot actually makes "Mandinga" sound like an interesting film! Well, it's NOT and I apologize if I raised anyone's anticipations. It's an incredibly boring and hideous film to struggle through, but if the themes appeal to you, then definitely check out the aforementioned "Mandingo". Much rather than sick exploitation, that film is a truly insightful portrait of one of mankind darkest history pages and it was also a properly produced film, with real actors, great music and impressive filming locations. "Mandinga" has nothing, absolutely nothing to offer. | 0 | negative |
I would not be giving away too much of the film to tell you that there are many, many, many, MANY scenes of Lucas (the young protagonist) walking and looking at things! Yep. And you'll be happy to know that the first third of the movie is pointless, meaningless, and pretty much ignored for the rest of the film!<br /><br />This movie is populated by dull people who do dull things, and the dullest person of them all is young Lucas, who is going blind and needs an operation. You see, he has delusions, terrible delusions! He thinks a killer is preying on blind women! He walks around a lot and acts like an insufferable jerk!<br /><br />Patience does NOT pay off with this film. By the end, the plot and events are just as confusing and lethargic, and it is very hard to care one way or the other about what any of the nightmarish images meant. Nothing is made clear, the film moves at a snail's pace, and it left me with the same effects of a hangover.<br /><br />Judging from "Afraid of the Dark," the British don't make stupid thrillers like the Americans do; they make boring ones. | 0 | negative |
This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10 | 0 | negative |
It was sad that COMMITTED lasted only two weeks in Dallas theaters. I thought this movie had a lot going for it. The script was funny, full of subtle emotional shifts, and it had a good message. The acting was great. Everyone did a superb job, especially with the script's subtleties. Heather Graham not only has beautiful eyes, she has *expressive* eyes. For that matter, all the actors were attractive! Why it didn't do well in its theatrical release, I don't know--other than the studio didn't seem to have much of a push behind it. But it deserved to do better, and I hope it does well on video. It's certainly one of my favorites for the first half of 2000. | 1 | positive |
Most of the positive comments posted here are as verbose as the movie! It takes a long-winded bore to appreciate a wordy and boring film, one supposes. Some have merely called the film "contemplative", meaning slow and devoid of plot, however, one Dutch reviewer hit the nail on the head: this is an important event turned into a dull film whose tone is set in the very first scene. Here a young couple is being shown an apartment by a Realtor who, predictably, talks non-stop and regardless of what else is going on. So does just about every other character!<br /><br />The only silences in this picture are dream sequences--1930's Soviet propaganda snippets--and they are also its most interesting parts. This tells you something about how watchable the rest of the movie is.<br /><br />The device of filming most of the scenes in extreme closeup--as if one were looking through a crack in the blinds--gets old fast. | 0 | negative |
The 1970s are often regarded as a golden age of British television comedy, a period which saw numerous classic sitcoms as well as sketch shows such as "Monty Python's Flying Circus". The period was, however, emphatically not a golden age of British film comedy, and what worked well on television rarely transferred successfully to the big screen. The most triumphant exceptions to this rule were provided by the Pythons, but their best films ("Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian") were very different in conception to their TV show.<br /><br />The main problem with adapting sitcoms for the cinema is that concepts devised to fit the BBC's 30 minute slots (25 minutes on ITV, which has to find room for commercials) do not always work as well when expanded into a feature film three or four times as long. Few people will remember the film versions of, say, "Up Pompeii!" or "Steptoe and Son" with the same affection as the television versions. In the case of many classic TV comedy shows ("Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em", "Yes, Minister", "Fawlty Towers", "The Goodies") no attempt was made to film them at all, for which we can be grateful. Characters such as Michael Crawford's Frank Spencer or John Cleese's Basil Fawlty can be hilarious in half-hour doses, but I doubt if they would remain as funny over two hours. One comedy programme (albeit a dramatisation of a comic novel rather than a sitcom in the normal sense) which might have worked in the cinema was "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin", but any hopes of a film were dashed by the tragically early death of its star Leonard Rossiter.<br /><br />"Dad's Army" was one of the few television sitcoms of the period which was turned into a decent film. (About the only other one I can think of was "Porridge"). This was possibly because it had an unusually large number of well-developed characters and derived most of its humour from the interactions between them. The original sitcom ran between 1968 and 1977 and told of the misadventures of a Home Guard platoon in the small seaside town of Walmington-on-Sea. (The Home Guard, initially known as the Local Defence Volunteers, was an auxiliary militia during World War II made up, for the most part, of men too old to serve in the regular forces). The film version is a three-act drama. Act I deals with the formation of the platoon and the recruitment of its members. In Act II they cause havoc during an Army training exercise. In Act III they succeed in capturing a group of Nazi airmen whose plane has been shot down.<br /><br />The three key players in this drama are the platoon's commander, Captain George Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe), and his two subordinates Sergeant Arthur Wilson (John Le Mesurier) and Corporal Jack Jones (Clive Dunn). Mainwaring, who in civilian life is the local bank manager, is a fussy little man, peering at the world through a pair of thick spectacles. It is he who takes the initiative in forming the Home Guard unit and who appoints himself its commander. He is pompous, officious, with an exaggerated sense of his own importance and of his own powers of leadership, the sort of man who does not suffer fools gladly. (And in George Mainwaring's world-view the term "fool" covers most of the rest of the human race). He does, however, have his good qualities. He is motivated by a genuine patriotic idealism and is capable of great physical courage, shown in his encounter with the Germans.<br /><br />Wilson is Mainwaring's deputy at the bank. The two men are very different in character, something emphasised by a difference in appearance, Wilson being tall and thin whereas Mainwaring is short and stout. He comes across as being both more intelligent and better educated than his boss. (His accent suggests he may be a former public schoolboy). Nevertheless, he has ended up playing second fiddle both in civilian and military life, probably because he has the sort of passive personality which leads to pessimism and defeatism and an inability to take anything altogether seriously. Jones is an old soldier who now runs the local butcher's shop. (His promotion to Corporal is due mainly to his ability to bribe Mainwaring with black market sausages). His enthusiasm for his new role is matched only by his incompetence and ability to cause chaos. Although his catchphrase is "Don't panic!" he is prone to panicking at any given opportunity.<br /><br />Several other members of the platoon are featured. Private Fraser, the dour Scottish undertaker, is even more of a pessimist than Wilson. (Catchphrase: "We're doomed, man, DOOMED!"). Private Godfrey is a gentle old man whose main concern is the whereabouts of the nearest lavatory. Private Walker is a sharp Cockney spiv and Private Pike (another bank employee) a spoilt mummy's boy. (Pike's mother is Wilson's mistress, although Wilson tries to keep this liaison secret from the disapproving Mainwaring). Two significant outsiders are the mild-mannered Vicar and the ARP warden, Mainwaring's detested enemy and quite his equal in pompousness and officiousness.<br /><br />There are occasional bawdy doubles entendres ("Keep your hands off my privates"- Mainwaring is ostensibly referring to those soldiers who hold that rank), more so than in the television show which was surprisingly free of innuendo. (Its creators, David Croft and Jimmy Perry, would later go on to create comedy shows such as "Are You Being Served?" and "Hi-de-hi" which were notorious for suggestive humour). The film does, however, preserve much of the mixture of gentle wit, nostalgia and sharp characterisation which made the TV series so successful. 7/10 | 1 | positive |
IMDb lists this movie as a comedy. I have no idea what genre this movie falls into but it certainly isn't comedy. tragedy maybe.<br /><br />I won't say whether this is a good movie or not. All I know is it is not a comedy. I wanted a laugh tonight and what I got was some bizarre notion of someones attachment to some ugly chair.<br /><br />This movie is not what is advertised. It's film school tripe that I can only assume is intended to "make people think". I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone that I know, or even that I don't know. It's ridiculous drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />It made me think alright. It made me think, "I wish I had those ninety minutes of my life back."<br /><br />I'm sure the world is full of armchair critics who have a liberal bent on their world view that will make this movie something worth watching to them.<br /><br />I am not one of them. | 0 | negative |
Retro Puppet Master is complete and utter CRAP.In particular,the puppets look stupid,and crappy.The acting was unforgivable and the story was rancid.This movie goes back into the the past,where the dolls where first created,thats not Puppet Master.Retro Puppet Master is rated PG-13,the first Puppet Master to be rated PG-13.The movie contains no horror,or suspense.The fact that this movie was a Puppet Master film boggles the mind,because this installment doesnt have the buckets of blood,good acting,or any entertaiment like the previous movies did.Dont see this movie,dont rent it,and dont even watch it f its on TV,because this film is stale,not violent,and completely crappy.2 out of 10.As a Puppet Master fan,I am disappointed...seriously. | 0 | negative |
when I first heard about this movie, I noticed it was one of the most controversial films of the 1970s. I noticed the music was by Elton John, so I figured I had nothing to loose, so I got it. What a Surprise!!! The movie was awesome. It was true love is all about. The characters (Paul and Michelle) had no luxuries, no money, and sometimes no food, yet they were still happy. I recommended this film to all my friends, but they all critized my tastes, and even called me names, becuase the movie featured two minors naked. I think that only made the movie more realistic. The cinematography was great and it only come to show the great abilities of director Lewis Gilbert | 1 | positive |
I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.<br /><br />Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.<br /><br />I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first. | 1 | positive |
This is defiantly a DVD rental movie. I'm a big fan of the cast members but the storyline never really grabbed me. Don't expect "Oh brother where art thou" in any way shape or form. Funniest part in my opinion is when the war hero explains what happens over in the Argon. Seems like they were trying to copy some of Clooney's funny facial expressions from "Oh brother where art thou" but you could kind of tell they were trying for that. John Krasinski was the bright spot and was solid throughout. Renee Zellweger plays the part of a zealous reporter willing to do whatever for the story. Overall it's a movie worth watching at home. | 0 | negative |
I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of Flynn appears in this film but even as a work of fiction it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />The script is all over the place and leaves you wondering how he got from one scene to the next - you are just not given the minimum information needed to keep some continuity and understand his present situation, and it is difficult to understand Flynn's and other characters' motives behind some of their behaviour.<br /><br />Add to that a series of silly and implausible situations and you have film that comes across as one of your dreams that seems to make sense while you are asleep, but when you wake up and you try to remember it, it is just strange, disjointed and totally unrealistic.<br /><br />There are many long, boring musical sections of the film that to me are either bad direction or a bad director trying and failing to be artistic.<br /><br />None of the characters are even likable and the Flynn character comes across as a self serving liar, thug, thief, robber, murderer, bear fist fighter, gigolo and impostor who will do anything and step on anyone to further his own dreams, and somehow, despite all that, great opportunities just seem to miraculously fall into his lap.<br /><br />This film is not entertaining nor satisfying in any way and by all accounts not even historically accurate, so why even watch it? To rub salt into the wound, the DVD had one of the worst transfers I have ever seen, it wasn't even in wide-screen or Dolby 5.1, it had terrible telecine wobble and many, many artifacts from what looked like a film reel that had been gathering dust and scratches somewhere. | 0 | negative |
This is supposed to be based on Wilkie Collins' _The_Woman_In_White_, but the only resemblance it bore to that story were the characters' names, the time period, and the settings. If they were going to change the story so thoroughly, I don't understand why they needed to keep up the pretense that it came from Wilkie Collins. Go read the book. It's much better. | 0 | negative |
I have been an avid Jane Austen fan for many years. I had never seen this adaptation, so when I had heard of it, I came here and read all the excellent reviews. On that basis I eagerly ordered it from Netflix. What a cruel disappointment! They have taken one of the most subtle and bright comic novels and made it dull. Each character seems to have been dealt a single facial expression, a single tone upon which to base their flat characters. Although this adaptation seems to have used every word that Jane Austen wrote, they appear to have been passed around to characters in a random fashion. Even though it was done as a miniseries, this adaptation manages to confuse and feel as rushed as if it had been done as a movie of the week.<br /><br />Mr. Bennett too harsh, Mrs. Bennet just a chattering chipmunk, Mr. Darcy as lifeless as a nutcracker, the Bennett girls almost indistinguishable and Mr. Wickham a man who no one would look twice at - hardly the appealing cad! I'm quite put out! | 0 | negative |
Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.<br /><br />I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the "unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.<br /><br />Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.<br /><br />Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability").<br /><br />But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.<br /><br />If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else. | 1 | positive |
No, it's not Citizen Kane. But would you expect it to be with a name like "Meatballs"? It's the best damn summer camp movie of all the summer camp movies. Does anyone quote "Little Darlings" line by line? Or "Whitewater Summer"?<br /><br />This is just one of those movies that got into my brain when I was in junior high, and stayed with me all these years. Every time I feel geeky, I mumble "Spaz. Spaz. Spaz. Spaz." Or when we're hiking in the brush in the forest, I tell my husband, "I'm Wudy da Wabbit." (He doesn't get it). "It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter." I mean, this stuff is classic!<br /><br />Disappointed with the DVD, though. Wish there were special features, maybe a commentary or a making-of. But the movie itself is a perfect snapshot of life as an adolescent in the late '70s. Maybe not MY life... You can't help but want to run around out in the woods in shorty shorts and knee-high socks and feathered hair every time you see this movie. | 1 | positive |
Well as a life long fan of Kung Fu films I have to say this is one of the best I have ever seen. Sure there is nothing special about the plot but man does it entertain. As does most movies of the genre. This film is packed with action and does not boar its viewers. It's so damn fun when I watch I have a smile on my face the whole time. This also has an impact on future films like Kill Bill. (Many of Kill Bill's Sound effects come from this film for example.) This is essential viewing for all knew viewers in Kung Fu. Form open to close this film is filled with fights that really are some of the better I have seen in the genre. There are few Kung Fu films out there that measure up to the sheer magic and entertainment of this film. So if in search of a Great Kung Fu movie check this one out for sure. | 1 | positive |
This is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.<br /><br />Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges Méliès years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). Méliès' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series. | 0 | negative |
Why this film was only released in 4 states is beyond me. I thought this film was a divine story. The name says it all: Seeing Other People. This movie has more logic than laughs, which I suppose is why it works so well. Common sense also makes an appearance in what would seem to be another puerile sex comedy. Alice is getting her feet frozen in the cold, when she feels irrationally about the way she might perform for her fiancé, not just sexually, but as a partner, and friend etc. This starts what seems to be an almost archetypal journey for the both of them. One fling after another leads to trouble, as if it wasn't a bad idea from the start. Witty dialogue and comic set-ups make this one funny as hell! Nicholson and Mohr set the tone of the film early on, and keep the promise they anticipate. Other highlights are Lauren Graham, Andy Richter, and Helen Slater(in her first theatrical film in 10 years!). Climax begins to take an insane turn, but a simple ending makes this one far more enjoyable than most movies today. Mohr fans will see something different in his Ed character, and fans of Helen Slater will enjoy her shiny moments of a quick, but excellent come-back. Any Richter takes home the award for most moralistic character. Romantic and funny, or just plain fun. Seeing Other People is a gem, which needs to be noticed. | 1 | positive |
I must have seen this movie about four or five times already, and it gets better with each viewing. Suffice it to say: This is the best film I've ever seen. And I think I've seen a lot.<br /><br />But I've always wondered why this film got so shunned in some reviews or ratings. For example, take the IMDb Top 250. Why does it rank only at #216 (as of today)? Surely, the answer's not in the film itself (because that is nothing but flawless), but in its reception. The film caused controversy in its portrayal of compassion for a convicted murderer and its anti-death penalty attitude. And so, obviously, the more conservative-minded user probably didn't like the film (as you can see from some of the other comments). So DEAD MAN WALKING gets a ranking that's nothing but ridiculous in relation to its quality. Those people didn't understand what the film wanted to say, and maybe they didn't WANT to understand, being pro death penalty. So now I get it: It's all political. You're pro death penalty- you don't like (and therefore don't want to hear) what the film has to say.<br /><br />I'm truly sorry there are still so many people out there who simply tune out when a new perspective questions their beliefs.<br /><br />Mr. Robbins, your movie's issue split people's opinions. Some reconsidered their point-of-view, some simply didn't listen, but you made a very important point. Your movie will probably never show up on any "TOP 100 MOVIES OF ALL TIME"-list, but it'll be remembered, long after films like Braveheart or Babe or Apollo 13 (all of which were unjustly preferred over your film at the Oscars 1996) are forgotten. Congratulations, Mr. Robbins, and thank you for this important piece of filmmaking. | 1 | positive |
THE RAP, the book this movie was 'based' on was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. Yet I could not put it down. Raunchy, crude, foul, lewd...you name it, it had it. It also had some of the best characterizations of any novel I've ever read.<br /><br />Well, as for the flick...it was deplorable. I mean, Tim Mcintire as Wasco? Wasco was the baddest mutha...talking 'bout WASCO...Mcintire as Wasco is like casting Tim Conway as Charles Manson.<br /><br />What happened to the MAIN character in the book? Little Arv. He doesn't even exist in the movie...Fast Walking WAS NOT the main dude in the book. Why even name credit this thing with THE RAP? None of the spirit, atmosphere, nastiness, or drama of the book was captured in this movie.<br /><br />For me it was not only a disappointment, but a total waste of time and celluloid. | 0 | negative |
This film is the most traumatising and painful horror film I have ever seen in my life. To know that this film is based on a true story and watching Jeffrey Dahmer(Carl Crew) brutally murder his victims is enough to bring a tear to my eye. I admit this was a low budget film with not the best dialogue, however it explained why Jeffrey Dahmer was a Psycotic maniac. As he was so selfishly/inwardly emotional his emotions and selfishness went so far deep into his brain that it resulted into him becoming a murderer. Every person that he lured back to his apartment, he was attracted to and had feelings for, and the reasons why he murdered them wasn't only for the thrill of killing them but because he couldn't cope with the fact of them leaving him. In the scene when he killed his first victim by bashing an object at the back of the guys head from what I noticed wasn't because he wanted to kill him but because he was devastated with the idea of the guy leaving him. It was from thereafter that he got use to the homicidal behaviour and made killing his hobby - for both evil and emotional reasons.<br /><br />The scene when he was talking while crying on the phone with his mother and telling her how much he loved her and the love he showed to his grandmother and how he didn't want to move out of her house did show that he did have love in his heart. One scene that I found quite spooky and strange was when a priest overheard Jeffrey in a pub inviting a guy back to his apartment and then phoned Jeffrey up in a phone booth within the pub so that the guy would lose patience and change his mind on going home with Jeffrey. When the guy left the pub, the priest then hung up the phone and was was laughing at Jeffrey. I also found that Carl Crew played a remarkable acting performance as the role of Jeffrey Dahmer. His evil and cold blooded facial expressions before he massacred his victims were so real, I was shivering in my seat. His facial expressions reminded me of the way Vincent D'onofrio (Private Pyle/Leonard) in the film 'Full Metal Jacket' looked just before he gunned-down the General in the toilet barracks.<br /><br />If your an emotional person I wouldn't recommend you to watch this film but if your not, than go ahead and watch it. | 1 | positive |
This movie shows me, that americans have no knowledge about the situation in the sad balkan-brother war! Please, if you want to see umpire movies with this theme, watch "Savior", and you will see that nobody is "bad"- and nobody is "good" in this land of tears and sorrows... | 0 | negative |
This movie had potential to be a good little high school thriller. Instead, we got a bore fest about a whiny, spoiled brat babysitting. The problem was there were too many unnecessary things. A fight with the boyfriend, random friends coming over to be killed. It was obvious they were just killing time. The main character was bland and uninteresting. Camilla Bell had no emotion during this movie. She was just there. Another problem was the fact that the killer was not a threat. The children survive, so it's obvious they are going to let Jill survive. The only reason this got a four was because the last ten minutes (when the killer FINALLY comes out) is actually exciting.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 | negative |
This film predates the Australian films Road Warrior and Priscilla of the Desert, and its influence on them is obvious: in the dialogue, locations, photography, direction and political philosophy. The photography is notably confident. The direction is stylish and for the most part well done. If you liked the early Australian films by Bruce Beresford, Peter Weir and George Miller then you'll love "Oz". The direction also reminds this reviewer of Edgar Wright's contemporary work. That similarity suggests that "Oz" was far ahead of its time. The critics of 1967 hated it and the public stayed away - 1960s Australia, like 1940s USA, was in some ways the sort of place where conformity was important, whereas this film is very different to what those viewers would have expected, especially after reading the promotional posters. This film will most likely have more appeal to contemporary audiences: it's still quirkily awkward and self-conscious, but in a contemporary European way rather than a 1960s Australian way. Joy Dunstan (who later appeared in the Australian TV series 'Prisoner') plays her role with less raw passion than her contemporary Jacki Weaver might have done, instead Dunstan's character in this film conveys some of the rather whimsical strength of Australian women most famously represented by Kylie Minogue playing Charlene Mitchell in the Australian TV series Neighbours and further developed in later roles in her career. Men will also enjoy this film, which presents various masculine issues in a different way than most other mid-sixties films from the USA or even Australia. In particular, Bruce Spence (who later went on to play Tion Medon in 'Star Wars III', the Trainman in the 'Matrix' films, and the chopper pilot in the 'Road Warrior' and 'Thunderdome' films) plays a central and sustained role which solidly supports the rest of the cast. This film is worth seeing for Bruce Spence's performance alone. 7/10 for some minor continuity problems. | 1 | positive |
NORTHFORK is above all a masterpiece of widescreen cinematography. For this alone the film is well worth one's time. The stark, wide open plains and badlands of eastern Montana are captured in the spare, muted earth tones of autumn or early spring. The gigantic grey cement Fort Peck Dam is the film's protagonist. The film comments both subtly and not so subtly on about a dozen issues of Western Landscape. The dialogue can be trying at times, yet the images and concepts are powerful enough to lift the film. The 1950's period works so well here and is executed so well. I think that the passing years will be kind to this film. | 1 | positive |
Absolutely, I agree with my previous commentator in describing this as a riveting,fascinating and certainly beautiful film. It's not necessary to see all the episodes,since the first ones are the best,while the last ones are a-bit tiresome,but for any person who likes German's and their good-natured ways,all episodes are worth seeing.In typical german fashion, values are constantly questioned,even it's murderous Nazi past is confronted in the last episodes, the rich dialogues are particularly interesting. These episodes are recommended for anyone who is about to live or travel in Germany,preferably in original language!!<br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
The film begins with a little girl (Rita) seeing her father killed. He apparently was a criminal who squealed on his fellow crooks. Later, and this part makes little sense, the girl has grown to adulthood and STILL her father's past haunts her! A bit later, Rita meets a good-for-nothing and dates him. During one of their dates, he's a bit intoxicated AND driving like a total fool. The cops give chase and he speeds away--killing a pedestrian in the meantime. Here comes the Really stupid part. He convinces her to confess to the crime, as he assures her his lawyers can get her off scot-free. Why, oh why, would she agree to this?! Yet she does and spends the next couple years in prison!! And, soon after her conviction, this boyfriend disappears--showing that he's a total heel. What a chump!!! Later, after her release, her friend (Jack La Rue) informs her about the truth about the boyfriend. Then, he explains, the boyfriend's family is loaded and she should shake them down for lots of cash for all the trouble he put her to by taking the rap. Frankly, this does make sense--as they certainly owe it to her--especially since they knew she'd go to prison and had every intention of using her and then casting her aside.<br /><br />Now the idea of bleeding money from the rich chumps is a good plot idea. However, there is no way this would have occurred in the first place because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid as to take the rap for a hit-and-run! In an interesting twist, the dumb lady decides on a life of crime--donning a wig and picking up a rich guy--taking him into the desert and robbing him at gunpoint! Wow...how she's changed! Apparently she loves the idea of stealing from "phonies"--i.e., rich hypocrites. However, and this made no sense, she soon stopped doing this and began shaking down the father of the old boyfriend--why she bothered to do some petty robberies in the meantime made little sense. And, what also was a bit hard to believe was that instead of wanting money from the old jerk, she was interested in getting him to put his influence behind a mob-controlled man for mayor. Odd...very, very odd.<br /><br />In the meantime, another plot develops involving a young Alan Ladd. He's an undercover agent who has infiltrated the mob. He was chosen because he just happens to be a dead ringer for a real crook--what a cliché! But what makes no sense is that this real crook isn't in jail and is out committing crimes while the fake one is infiltrating the mob in another town.<br /><br />Eventually, evidence that Ladd is able to uncover is enough to issue warrants to the mob kingpins--including Rita. This is a case of very bad timing, as in the interim, she's made a decision to become a decent and legitimate woman, as she's met a really nice guy who she wants to marry! Wow,...what are the odds?! Overall, this is a goofy and rather dumb movie that suffers from "kitchen sink syndrome"--in other words, there is way too many plot elements and weird twists to make the movie the least bit believable. Plus, since the movie is only a little over an hour long, it all seems very forced and contrived. It's a relatively bad B-movie from crap-studio PRC of note only for the performance of Alan Ladd just before he gained great fame the following year at Paramount.<br /><br />By the way, this DVD was released by Alpha Video---a company which sometimes releases some wonderfully obscure titles (mostly public domain) but which NEVER cleans up the prints or adds closed captions. In other words, the DVD production values are strictly 3rd-rate...at best. | 0 | negative |
When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.<br /><br />Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.<br /><br />The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.<br /><br />There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.<br /><br />The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.<br /><br />The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D. | 0 | negative |
Nothing great here but a nicely acted story about an abused deaf wife (Fonda) of a small time crook (Bochner)who gets involved with one of her husband's plans and his mistress. Sutherland and Weber are cops drawn into what turns out to be a unmysterious murder investigation and the story just flows along. | 1 | positive |
This movie was a failure as a comedy and a film in general. It was a very slow paced movie that seemed to be trying to convey a message, but the message was a cliché, hopeless mess to begin with. This movie falls on shameless environmental point, even making a self-righteous point of destroying an SUV and promoting Animal Planet.<br /><br />In sitting through this, I couldn't help but notice that Steve Carell got no more than a single truly funny line. The only thing that could hypothetically mark this as a comedy is the pitiful attempt to give comic relief lines to Wanda Sykes. Her character gets frequent, cringe-worthy lines where they absolutely do not fit.<br /><br />Far from the brilliance of Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty blows its whole record-breaking budget on special effect plot devices that turn out to barely advance the plot. The movie spends the first half building up to the construction of Evan's ark, but by the end, we learn that the ark was completely meaningless, and the whole plot was a just a vessel for the stupid gags and even stupider messages. The movie concludes when we learn that the whole ark, flood, and animal gathering was just a weak political statement by none other than God. Yes, God was trying to influence politics. | 0 | negative |
The first thing I wanted to do after watching this film was watch it again (because I'd missed lots with all the laughing I did). I'm European and I've studied abroad and I've as good as lived with Spanish, french, Italian and German people. The film was full of stereotypes, which, more often than not, p*** people off, and reading some of the other reviews I see that it did p*** people off. But, this film gets the stereotypes so right I cannot fault it. Except for maybe the way the french guy became a drunken party animal. The English guy was the perfect "geezer" stereotype. Drunk, annoying, insulting but shines through in the end. As well as the stereotypes the film also got the emotional aspect of studying abroad correct. At first he's shy, doesn't know anybody, misses home, doesn't know his way around. As time progresses it becomes his home and when the time comes to leave, it is extremely difficult. A feeling people can only understand if they've experienced it. I highly recommend this film. | 1 | positive |
The Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.<br /><br />For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.<br /><br />Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.<br /><br />Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.<br /><br />In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.<br /><br />In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason. | 0 | negative |
This is one of the best horror / suspense films that Hollywood has made in years or maybe even decades.Even though in my opinion this movie was predictable in parts, it has everything that a good film in this genre should had CHILL, THRILLS, AND yes a lot of GORE!! HOUSE OF WAX SURE DELIVERS!!! In parts it was sort of far-fetched,the acting was not that great,but my overhaul rating for HOUSE OF WAX is an eight out of ten......if you enjoy being at the edge of your seats, this is just the right movie for you,I have to admit,it was sort of neat seeing the whole town made out of wax...... I myself enjoy these museums, but after seeing this film I will now look at them in a whole new different way! | 1 | positive |
I have some of the older videos and dvds of Dr. Who. I've played them over and over. I adore each of the "Doctors" for different reasons. But due to a man in the BBC hierarchy, Dr. Who was canceled, even though it was still one of the mainstays of the BBC line-up. With the departure of Sylvester McCoy, the Doctor stayed alive through the fans. BBC graciously allowed fans to write books, and cartoons. The momentum of Dr. Who has been steady even after 1989. Then they took a chance with Paul McGann. The movie was flawed, but it gave the BBC an idea of what we wanted. In 1999, the "man" was gone and the newbies at the BBC felt it was time to bring the Doctor back. It was a complete success. Here in America, the Sci-fi Channel took a chance and it has become a complete success as well, although the writers were having to start over and explain the Dr. Who mythology for new viewers. It is incredible to me that they have done it. In Season 1, staring Christopher Eccleston with Russell T. Davis as lead writer, and Phil Collinson as producer, the Doctor has come back to us and in each episode we learn more about who the Doctor is. The Doctor Who universe has always been about "Choice", "Love" and "Sacrifice". This is what they provided. It makes me want more and it saddens me that Mr. Eccleston has chosen to leave the show. My first Doctor was Doctor no. 3, Jon Pertwee's Doctor. Mr. Eccleston needn't worry about his position in the Dr. Who universe. It is as solid as the rest. He is the 9th Doctor. I didn't know of Mr. Eccleston prior to his performance in Dr. Who, but I do now. I wish there was some way, he could know, there is push out in the Dr. Who fan community to find his other work and enjoy it. We have already seen that he is a great actor. | 1 | positive |
Special sneak previews are always a good time. No matter what movie it is you are seeing, the theatre will always be packed by people who have been awaiting the film, like free stuff, thought it'd be something to do, or just got lost. Either way, no matter how good or bad the film, the audience alone will make it enjoyable. Now when said movie is a PG-13 pseudo- horror film (can you really delve into horror when the MPAA is on your back censoring everything?) you know there will be chatter, laughing, and breath holding. With The Messengers, the crowd did not disappoint giving numerous outbursts and warnings to the characters on screen. As for the actual movie, I feel sorry for those involved because it really could have been much better had it been paced right and allowed to stretch its legs beyond the scare/fade-to-black/show aftermath progression these films have. In the end we are shown a boring, plodding story with no surprises and few moments of actual suspense.<br /><br />The story is a common one. A family moves from the big city to the country after a traumatic event to try and rebuild their relationship with each other. Once settled in, the spirits of the house come out to the reformed troublemaker child whose past makes it even easier for the parents to disbelieve everything told to them. Of course the child is not crying wolf and those around only find out when it is too late. I will credit the Pang Brothers, (directors of the acclaimed The Eye that I would like to watch more than before to see what they can do without Hollywood interferencesupposedly reshoots on The Messengers were done by someone else, but the brothers retained credit; it's a shame what our studio system does to foreigners especially when it was creative independence which made the films that brings them in and not bottomline interference), for really having a fitting style and for keeping the tired plot line somewhat fresh. Unfortunately, though, I also must give them credit for the almost unbearable slowness. Similar to why I disliked What Lies Beneath, I couldn't stand the drawn out suspense, which goes so far as to make it laughable. When our heroine and her brother stand in a hallway with a ghost behind them, the scene lasts about eight minutes with just static, oddly composed close-ups and depth of field focus changes to end up culminating to absolutely nothing. For being only 84 minutes, I almost think it would have worked better even shorter.<br /><br />Besides a very effective opening sequence, featuring the fantastic Jodelle Ferland, (strangely playing a boy), and a great atmospheric credit sequence, the only thing that saves the film from utter garbage is the acting. Except for Penelope Ann Miller, who first made me wonder what ever happened to her and then, after a few scenes, made me understand why I never asked that question in the years she was absent, and Dustin Milligan, completely lacking in credibility, the acting is very strong. Dyan McDermott does a nice job as the father trying to keep his family together through all the tough times. He has many little moments of light comedy to counteract his serious, dramatic role. William B. Davis (everyone's favorite Cancerman) is used effectively as an almost foreboding character, sadly not utilized more. Our true stars are Kristen Stewart and John Corbett. Stewart plays the emotion very well and shows some promise as an actress with this and Panic Room on her resume. As for Corbett, if he didn't pull off his role, the entire movie would have unraveled completely. I do wish he would be given more work as I've enjoyed him since the under-appreciated series "The Visitor"I still need to check out his first role in "Northern Exposure," a show I haven't yet been able to catch up on. It's a shame he will probably be most recognizable for the overrated My Big Fat Greek Wedding.<br /><br />If anything, The Messengers gave me a nice introduction to the Pang Brothers' work and reinvigorated my desire to check out their Chinese horror catalog. The mood and performances were there; it was just the simple and vacant story that needed way too much padding to make a feature film. If they delved more into other characters, rather than just Stewart's, it could have been more effective while also having something more to show then ten minute scenes of nothing. If our protagonist is the only one being attacked, there is no suspense as to how far the creatures will go to harm her. The moments of danger had no gravity to them and until the ending really just stood in as filler. I am excited, however, for the free comic book given away after the special screening, as hopefully the medium will allow for a faster paced story that engrosses before it tries to surprise. | 0 | negative |
the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! the director of this movie must have been mentally ill or even high ... when he accepted to direct this movie... ... i'd rather stare at my ceiling for 5 hours straight instead of being ... punished to watch that stupid movie ... my parents make me watch it as punishment...... ... Don't WATCH IT !!! | 0 | negative |
"twin peaks" and "blue velvet" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.<br /><br />many people will walk out of "mulholland drive" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.<br /><br />It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in "vanilla sky", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you. | 1 | positive |
As a longtime admirer of the 2001 film "Moulin Rouge" and a more recent admirer of Jean Renoir's film-making, I knew that I'd inevitably watch his "French Cancan" sooner or later. The movie tells a fictionalized story of the opening of the Moulin Rouge nightclub. The impresario Danglard (Jean Gabin) tries to turn Montmartre laundress Nini (Françoise Arnoul) into a cancan star, without arousing the wrath of his tempestuous mistress, the belly-dancing Lola (Maria Felix). This is just one of several love triangles in "French Cancan"--true to stereotype, these French showbiz folk are always falling in love.<br /><br />Renoir directs with his typical gentle humor and attention to supporting characters, and also wrote the lyrics to a beautiful waltz song prominently featured in the movie. Gabin perfectly incarnates the aging French playboy hero. Arnoul is a cute redhead who holds her own in the dance numbers, except for a few trick shots where a double is obviously used.<br /><br />"French Cancan" is billed as a musical comedy and while there are lots of musical numbers that take place on the nightclub stage, etc., only one character, Casimir, ever breaks into song in the middle of conversation. The actor who plays him, Philippe Clay, is fun to watch--a really tall, skinny young man who sings, dances, and does contortions.<br /><br />The movie ends with a long cancan sequence, as all the characters learn to triumph over their problems and make art together. The dancing is much more brightly lit and coherently edited than in "Moulin Rouge"; in fact, if I have one complaint about "French Cancan," it's that the whole thing is a little too Technicolor. Even when Nini experiences heartbreak or someone sings a melancholy song, the lighting is bright and flat, no shadows intruding. Yes, the result is a cheerful and warmhearted musical comedy; it's just that I can't help thinking that things weren't ever this colorful and innocent in real life. | 1 | positive |
Well!! the movie has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. It's a Hallmark television movie. It's from a Thomas Hardy novel. It has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. She is by far the only one in the movie who acts better than in my high school theater class. Oh yes it has Clive Owen in it. I'm not British so that means almost as much as being a Thomas Hardy novel. Except he was in "The Bourne Identity", and I liked that. That just about wraps it all up folks. That really all there was. I'm becoming repetitive, but I do like CZJ, so I stuck it out to the end. The computer is telling me that I don't have 10 lines and I keep counting them. I always count 11, but maybe it just doesn't like my style, but that is my opinion of the movie, too. | 0 | negative |
It's Bad for Ya really showcases more of George Carlin's talents. He really is still as sharp as a tack. It is a shame that we lost him this past year, but his comedy will forever live on. This stand-up special is literally one of the funniest I have ever heard a comedian perform. Even though he is making fun of small children, it just makes you laugh the way he says some of the stuff. It is true that Carlin can literally make something that seems unfunny and turn it into one of the funniest things you have ever and will ever hear. I really enjoyed this stand-up particularly from Carlin and recommend that those that liked this check out more of George Carlin's stand-up. | 1 | positive |
Todd Sheets has created one of the greatest LOW BUDGET Zombie movies EVER. The story is great, the gore is grand, the psychos are wicked! Yet the movie is flawed by its petty dialogue and sluggish imaging at times.<br /><br />Despite this ZB2 delivers what any Zombie movie should, gore, good plot, fast pace adventure into the macarbe. If only MR sheets had been given a 100k budget this movie would out do EVERY zombie movie ever even the almighty Dawn of the dead.<br /><br />But as time goes by he gets better and as he gets better more money comes into his pocket. Thus allowing this man this modern day Genius to craft his vision better.<br /><br />Just remember that Zombie Bloodbath 2 was just one of his great stepping stones when he is atop of Gore Mountain | 1 | positive |
I've watched this movie on a fairly regular basis for most of my life, and it never gets old. For all the snide remarks and insults (mostly from David Spade), "Tommy Boy" has a giant heart. And that's what keeps this movie funny after all these years.<br /><br />Tommy Callahan (Chris Farley) is the son of Big Tom Callahan (Brian Dennehy), master car parts salesman, and has ridden on that all his life. But after his died dies on his wedding day, Tommy learns that the company is in debt, and about to be bought by Ray Zalinsky (Dan Akroyd), the owner of a huge car parts company. So in order to save the company, Tommy has to go on the road to sell the company's new brake pads. Along for the ride, though not by choice, is Richard Hayden (David Spade) a former classmate of Tommy's who was Big Tom's right-hand man.<br /><br />The movie rides on the chemistry between the two SNL stars (and real-life best friends) Chris Farley and David Spade. The duo has enough comic energy going between them to power the world. It's the big, dumb guy versus the smart little guy. It works, and some of their scenes are unforgettably funny. Farley and Spade are actually decent dramatic actors as well. Although the film is primarily a comedy, it has its fair share of drama, but Spade and especially Farley are just as good there as when they're making the audience laugh.<br /><br />Forgive me, but I have to talk about Chris Farley a little more. I read his biography ("The Chris Farley Show: A Biography in Three Acts," for anyone who cares), and understanding who Chris was in real life made this movie more special to me. Chris Farley was a genuinely good person who struggled, and ultimately failed to conquer his addictions. Although this was the first movie he had a major role in, it is his best film. It really showed who he was, and just how much talent he had. Knowing Chris's story adds another layer to this movie, although it doesn't make it any less funny.<br /><br />Farley and Spade are matched with a good on screen cast. Rob Lowe is suitably slimy as Tommy's "new brother," and Bo Derek is solid as his step-mother. Brian Dennehy is great as Big Tom. Dennehy makes it easy to believe that they're father in son. Big Tom is just as crazy as his son, although he's smarter and more mature. Dan Akroyd gives one of his best performances as Zalinsky, giving Tommy the hard truth behind advertising. Julie Warner is also good as Tommy's love interest, Michelle.<br /><br />For me, Peter Segal is one of the great comedy directors. He keeps the pace quick and energetic, but most importantly, he knows how to make comedy funny. He doesn't belabor the jokes, and he understands that funny actors know what they're doing and he allows them to do it. But Segal goes a step further. He gives "Tommy Boy" a friendly, almost nostalgic tone that both tugs the heartstrings (genuinely) and tickles the funnybone.<br /><br />Critics didn't like "Tommy Boy." Shame on them. A movie doesn't have to be super sophisticated or subversively intellectual to be funny (God forbid Farley and Spade were forced to do muted comedy a la "The Office"). This is a great movie and one of my all-time favorites. | 1 | positive |
Like many situation comedies, "The War at Home" is getting better with each episode. The characters are starting to become real and I believe them as a family. I agree with many that the first few episodes were not that funny; I thought the show would be canceled for sure. But with the absences of "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Arrested Development," "War" provides much needed live action comedy for FOX on Sunday nights. And when compared with the rest of the sitcoms airing right now "War" is an even better choice.<br /><br />Its appeal, at least for me, lies in its real situations. Teenagers have sex. Not every parent likes how their kids are turning out. Parents fight and call each other names. But rather than relying on being "mean" like many shows, everything is nice in the end which is the number one rule of a good sitcom.<br /><br />One detraction from the show is the narration during/in between scenes. The "Arrested Development/Family Guy" style of flashbacks work well enough but the narration can be too much.<br /><br />So anyone who needs something to watch on Sunday nights should check out "The War at Home," especially considering what is on the other major networks at that time. | 1 | positive |
This movie is a terrible attempt at a spoof. Its attempts to parody various sports movies are half-baked and not at all funny.<br /><br />Even things that should be funny - like the female kicker from India who's always wearing traditional dress over her uniform - aren't really funny. The fact that the football team studies and gets good grades which makes the coach mad didn't get any laughs either.<br /><br />The plot of having a traditional loser get one more chance by coaching a loser high school football team really had potential as a spoof. It's a classic and trite sports theme. But alas, the screenplay was too weak for ANY cast to pull it off. And this cast is no exception.<br /><br />There is gratuitous use of women in bikinis and underwear, so it's not all bad from that aspect.<br /><br />But Animal House or Talladega Nights, this is not. | 0 | negative |
This movie shows what you can create if you have a camera, some spare paint and cardboard,a toy ship, a few friends who acted in community theater, and the incorrect notion you can make a film. The end result is an unwatchable time-waster that you'll skip through, unless you take it out of the DVD player and toss it through the window first.<br /><br />The acting in the opening scene (especially by the rotund Lee Morgan as 'Captain') and the toy ship "crashing" into the rocks before the credits is a good indicator of what you're in for (with all the foam, it looks like this "special effect" was shot in a kitchen sink. I guess Boyette figured he save some cash by washing the dishes at the same time). In terms of bad cinema, the funny thing is "Dungeon of Harrow" seems to have inspired (maybe by coincidence) the twist ending of "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Yep, it's the same lame "I was the victim, and now I take the mad villain's place" ironic ending. The bigger irony is that two inept, talentless filmmakers could make two equally-wretched, Texas-filmed horror movies and get away with it.<br /><br />Monotone nerd Russ Harvey is a noble in a great family line (why they were great is never broached), boring us while lamenting the death of his family line and crest before his ship even crashes (we're also treating to a droning narration throughout the film). Sadly, we aren't so lucky. His family's toy ship crashes into some styrofoam in a sink, and he's washed ashore with his bloated captain and some woman, conveniently deposited on a mad Count's island.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Count is visited by an evil spirit who, dressed in a Blackstone's Magic Kit outfit, assaults him with various puppets (spiders, snakes, bats. . . all the icky stuff). The Count (William McNulty) overacts worse than Shatner and has a visibly difficult time keeping a straight face through the typical madman ranting.<br /><br />I'd be mad too if I had to be in this disaster. The woman is promptly killed by the Count's ferocious dogs, and the two jerks are captured by his manservant. The Count accuses them of being pirates (apparently his worst fear), he slaps his manservant around a lot (apparently his greatest joy), Fatboy gets tortured, there's a woman who's a servant and one who's a nurse, the rotting leper hag-in-a-wedding-dress Countess in the dungeon (she digs the Nerdy Noble and is the only effective & creepy thing in the movie), a lot of inane dialogue at a dining room table, the blubbery Captain gets killed while making a pathetic getaway (aking to watching a sloth battle a pack of lions). . . it's all an ugly haze to me. I spent most of my time on the fast-forward button.<br /><br />Anyway, the jerk noble and nurse make a getaway and think they're going to be rescued by three guys in a rowboat on the lake (yeah, we're supposed to believe a lake is the ocean). They don't, since the nerd's hair turned gray and he scares the would-be rescuers away. Honestly, I think they simply took the opportunity to row away from this hideous film while the had the chance. They head back to the castle, the nurse starts rotting like the Countess (and your stomach, by this time), and we end with these two getting ready to descend into the . . . DUNGEON OF HARROW!!!! Blech!<br /><br />I love old, lousy horror films, but they must have some sort of entertainment value. I feel ripped off, even at the low low price of $5.99 for this biscuit. Mystery Science Theater would have a tough time making this one fun. I was taken in by a few nutty reviewers who claimed this film had atmosphere and some creepy moments. Wrong! Avoid this tripe at all costs, and don't even waste a buck if you find it in a dollar bin somewhere. This movie makes Corman's "The Terror" like like a masterpiece of horror and atmosphere. | 0 | negative |
William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is about a Jewish moneylender and his bond to extract a pound of flesh from the wealthy merchant Antonio, the forfeiter of a debt. The Jewish moneylender, of course, is Shylock and he is given such a towering performance by Al Pacino that even outstanding actors like Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynne Collins fade into the background. The film is set in 16th century Venice and director Michael Radford relies on setting, mood, and realism to tell its story, rejecting lavish period costumes or a modern setting with rock music to appeal to a wider audience.<br /><br />Radford slices the play's three-hour length to a manageable two hours and eight minutes and also provides some historical background. In the opening narration, he tells us how Jews came to England, were subject to increasing persecution, and eventually expelled from England. They were forbidden to own property, could make profits only by lending money at interest, and were forced to live in a Venetian "geto", a forerunner of darker events to come. In the film, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spits upon Shylock in public, yet feels no shame in going to the usurer to borrow 3000 ducats to help his friend and suggested lover Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) to properly court Portia (Lynne Collins), a wealthy heiress. Though Shylock has been insulted by Antonio, he agrees to loan the money without interest for three months on the condition that forfeiture of the bond grants him the right to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio's heart.<br /><br />The play is primarily a drama of hatred and revenge, but like many of Shakespeare's works there are touches of broad comedy as well. Here the comedy involves three pairs of lovers: Bassanio and Portia, Gratiano, Bassanio's friend, and Nerissa, and Lorenzo, another friend of Bassanio, and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. Portia has offered herself to the person who can pick the right treasure from one of three boxes, made of gold, silver, and lead. The Prince of Morocco chooses the one of gold, the Prince of Aragon the one of silver and both are disappointed. Bassanio, however, loves her for herself and opens the leaden casket to find the portrait within. Radford's adaptation conveys a remarkable feeling for time and place. Portia's residence at Belmont suggests one of those splendid summer homes complete with immaculate gardens and art treasures hanging in every room and contrasts well with the grungy look of Shylock's city with its dank alleyways.<br /><br />When it becomes clear that Antonio cannot repay the debt, Bassanio returns to Venice, leaving Portia behind. When he arrives, the loan is in default and Shylock is demanding his pound of flesh. Even when Bassanio, backed by Portia's wealth, offers many times the amount in repayment, Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status. The duke, who sits in judgment, will not intervene as Portia enters in the guise as a lawyer to defend Antonio. It is here that the film reaches its dramatic heights as all parties come to court to achieve a final resolution.<br /><br />The Merchant of Venice is not only about an unpaid debt but also about the estrangement of Jews from Christian society and their desire for belonging. It has been one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays and analysts have debated for a long time whether it is an anti-Semitic play or simply a play about anti-Semitism that reflects the prevalent view of Christian society in Elizabethan England. Although Shylock is definitely a caricature, he is an ambiguous figure and there are many indications that Shakespeare views his flaws as human failings, not Jewish ones. The Duke recognizes that he is simply a man who has failed to adhere to the compassionate language of the Torah.<br /><br />In the monologue, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?
If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?", Shylock shows a universal humanity, expressing the equality of all men. Though we are horrified at the sentence he wishes to carry out, we can feel his pain accumulated over the years. Pacino's performance brings new vigor to the text and his often over-the-top persona is replaced with a gentler, more understated demeanor that brings understanding to his cause.. During a Toronto International Film Festival interview last September, Radford said about Pacino, "
when you work with a brilliant actor, you have a great machine. It's a bit like driving a powerful car. You have to dare to do it." He has dared and we are all the beneficiaries. | 1 | positive |
A genuinely creepy ghost story, full of chills and sensuality, this movie just falls short of what it promises. It is apparently based on an old ghost story, and perhaps relies a little too much on a simple premise. For most of the way, its imaginative and genuinely gripping, but at the end its almost like Oshima just lost interest in it, and brought it to a rapid ending.<br /><br />The story is simple - a woman and her younger lover kill her husband so that they can be together. But their failure of nerve and his returning ghost condemn them to madness. Its beautifully handled, with imaginative set scenes, and the lovers passion is portrayed beautifully. But too often the movie fails to really deliver on its promise, almost as if Oshima loses his nerve in the same way the lovers do.<br /><br />Its a worthwhile movie to watch just to see how Oshima combines his great skill as a film maker with some exploitation movie tricks to pull the audience along, but sadly its not a true classic in the mold of movies like Onibaba or Woman of the Dunes. | 1 | positive |
Now, I watched this when I was hungover one Sunday and my auntie and uncle were visiting one day with my 2 cousins (one was 11, the other 9). We stuck on the TV and Passport To Paris had just started. My cousins both had said that they watch Two Of A Kind sometimes and I said they could watch the film if they liked. Since I was in no fit state to get up, I just stayed in the living room with them and ended up watching the film! I have to say, as a person who has no interest in those kinds of TV shows or films, I actually enjoyed it... it must have been the alcohol lol but I do admit, it would probably only appeal more to girls aged between 6 and 13, but it was a movie to pass the time. There's always a movie or a show that you don't think you'll like, but for a laugh, you enjoyed it. | 0 | negative |
(very serious spoilers)<br /><br />this movie was a huge disappointment. there are so many problems i dont know where to start. so, i'll talk about what is good about the film.<br /><br />the cast was great. steve martin delivers a really funny performance of a middle-aged, upper class, uptight white guy. queen latifah plays a big, beautiful, urban, black gal. and eugene levy, well he pretty much plays himself. add betty white and jean smart and you have a great cast - everyone played their parts really well. and if watching these guys for 1.75 hours is worth $8 to you, then you wont be disappointed.<br /><br />but the movie makes a lot of serious mistakes. first of all, there are enough racial stereotypes and racial jokes to offend everyone. all the white people are uptight bigots. all the black people are ghetto ebonics-speakers. the blacks are hip, cool, with-it and poor. the whites are nerds, stiff, and rich. (except eugene levy, he is clearly taken with queen latifa and "speaks the lingo" - so latifa nicknames him a "freak". so - if you're a white man and you like black women and you know street slang you must be a freak). the movie is littered with overt racial slurs towards the black cast members and in return the whites are depicted as morons and boobs.<br /><br />putting the race card aside, lets look at the major flaw in the film: they destroy latifa's character. she comes to martin's home under false pretense, but martin takes a liking to her anyway. she's supposed to be wrongly accused of robbery, martin takes up her cause. 3/4 of the way through the film we find out latifa's character escaped from jail. so, our sympathy for her goes out the window.<br /><br />there is no real plot. the movie plods along from scene to scene with latifa showing up in some place where she's "not" supposed to be (like a country club or martin's house) and martin trying to hide her. thats the running gag. then in the last minutes of the film they decide that they're going to finally deal with latifa's assertion that she was wrongly accused of bank robbery. martin goes under cover as a homeboy to extract a (let's face it, unusable) confession from latifa's ex boyfriend, and everyone lives happily ever after.<br /><br />finally (but there is a lot more wrong with this flick) this movie appears to be a hodge-podge of clips from other movies. the premise is clearly borrowed from another martin movie "the house-sitter". where goldie hawn comes to live with martin and shakes up his stodgy middle-class life. martin and latifa meet online - ala "youve got mail". the whole "quirky nanny fixes rich man's life" goes as far back as "the sound of music" and "mary poppins".<br /><br />i wouldnt see this movie again for free. | 0 | negative |
Astounding that something like this could find its way to be viewed by the public. I knew it was by Uwe Boll, & I found it in the bargain bin at a store for $2 (still pretty steep, considering) but morbid curiosity led me to view this, and: <br /><br />1). I am fairly sure this is a rip-off of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and American Psycho, all rolled into one, with dialog that may have been written by preteens.<br /><br />2). Casper Van Dien plays the main character, and he's so absolutely bizarre and creepy that just about anyone would KNOW he must be the crazed serial killer.<br /><br />3). Jennifer Rubin plays the "good cop" that invites a serial killer to her apartment for a home cooked dinner, and what does she get for her trouble? I'll let you guess.<br /><br />4). Michael Pare plays an "intense" cop, who drives a VW Bug, new-style, that is, with a siren on it. A VW Bug...that'll strike fear into criminal's hearts when they see THAT coming.<br /><br />5). Van Dien breaks up with his fiancé, but she still has an "not engaged" party, complete with "not a wedding cake". Imagine everyone's surprise he shows up (he was, of course, invited) and they all get shot.<br /><br />6). Actually, this should have been #1, really. The killer in this is known as "The Monkey Maker". This is, without a doubt, the stupidest killer name anyone could have come up with in a million years. Presumably it has something to do with the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" saying, complete with monkeys. It's possible that monkeys had something to do with the script, too.<br /><br />7). Oh yeah, and there's a club that Van Dien visits near the beginning of the film. There's bad disco music, I mean, really bad, and a chain-link fenced cage with, uh, gang members beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats? That's what it looked like. And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, the really cool stuff (?!) goes on in the basement, where some questionable "actor" talks some woman into signing a confession before she gets shot, this being, I guess, a snuff movie? Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the film, and Boll probably wasn't either, so if he wasn't worried, then I won't worry.<br /><br />An incredible piece of non-entertainment that will make you feel like you're watching something from a parallel universe. A parallel universe that's KIND of like ours, but where things are just enough off where they don't seem right. You have entered "The Boll Zone". Exit as quickly as possible, & don't look back.<br /><br />2 out of 10. | 0 | negative |
Blade is a dark, gloomy, but significent vampire movie and is one of the best ones. A bit of gore, but nothing really that bad. Wesley snipes played a strong role as he eliminates the vampires. Not really like buffy, because thats too tame but Blade delivers a decent plot and it's the kind of movie that you would probably like to watch on a dark stormy night....thats at best viewing!<br /><br />87% | 1 | positive |
When I was younger, this movie always aired on Friday night in the summer on Channel 40 (this was the years before Fox was a network and took over the programming). I always looked forward to it. I'd go grocery shopping with my parents, then sit down with my Swanson's TV dinner and a Lady Lee Cola(the only time of the week I was allowed to drink cola, and enjoy. Sure, the script is predictably late 70's (like Little Darlings), but it's a fun movie, and I loved Rudy and Tripper. Bill Murray coasts with little effort in the movie, but he is charming. Gotta love Spaz and those taped glasses (pre Revenge of the Nerds). Chris Makepeace is pretty much the same character he played in "My Bodyguard" but he does it so well. | 1 | positive |
I, like so many others on here, bought this movie at my local WM in the "Two for $11.00" cheap-o bin. I love cheesy B horror and sci-fi movies, and this one definitely fits in that category. Pretty much what everyone else on here said is dead on. Yes it was bad, but that was to be expected. The "main" problem I had with this movie is that it was just basically BORING. I mean serious yawn-o-rama. The acting was bad, the costumes (K Mart Skeletor outfit circa 1982) were worse, and the editing was awful. No continuity whatsoever. Mr Skeletor ultimately dies in an explosion of sorts...uh, although he encountered multiple explosion throughout this move. I guess the last one just took its toll on him. Apparently earlier encounters with this "military" group (cough) took its toll on his horse....it would change from red to black throughout this crap fest. Even for a B movie, do yourself a favor and skip it. The only good it serves me now it to add to my DVD collection. Hopefully no one will recognize it when they look through my movie collection. Thumbs down, big time. | 0 | negative |
The movie blood and chocolate is NOTHING like the book. The plot has totally changed and whoever chose the cast needed to read the book. First the girl is not an introvert Aden is. Vivian was the one that chased Aden. Her mother was to have survived and be the one after Gabriel. Astrid was the one that did all the murders along with Ralf an ex of Vivian's. Gabriel is not old. He is old looking. And Aden DID NOT get Vivian in the end, Gabriel did. The title came from Vivian comparing kisses from Aden (sweet like chocolate) and Gabriel(delicious like blood). She picked blood because it promised more and he understood her more. That reminds me, Gabriel is not against humans like in the movie. He just avoids intimacy with them because they hurt him in the past. Really the book is sooooooo much better than the movie. But if you want o see running, a dating montage, and a lot of jumping. Then this is the movie to see. | 0 | negative |
Subsets and Splits