text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Ocean's Twelve: just plain stupid, bad and nothing compared to the other two.<br /><br />An art robbery. 10 known actors, at least. A weak script and very slow developing idea. That's why I characterize a movie I only saw at least 20 minutes of it. Don't get me wrong, you may like it. But I only like the Ocean's films because of the Heist theme. If Ocean's 12 it's not about Heist then what's the point to see it? Glad Soderberg saw his main error and redeemed himself by making a film far superior to the first one. Kudos for that.<br /><br />Steven Soderberg isn't really a good director. Apart from his hit "Sex lies and videotapes"... nothing else happened so much great to the career of this director. Shame on him. But his fault only. | 0 | negative |
This is a classic continuation to Bleu, the likewise excellent film, with Juliet Binouche as a main star, moreover, she is a cameo appearance here, in Rouge, just for a second at the very end. But this film, truly red and very sweet although very sad, is a real winner. The main heroine, played by ever great Irene Jakob, is a successful photo / fashion model. She leads a full, active life, only darkened by her traumatic relations with her weird friend Mike, who is in England. By some lucky chance, she gets friendly with the old Judge, who spends time listening to the private telephone talks of his neighbors. The story starts to weave even further, and we see him in court, being almost universally condemned for his pastime. She is the only one who feels sympathy for him, for his cute doggy Rita and her pups, and for all the people who surround them. We also witness the break-up of a happy couple of a young lawyer and his lady, and their quarrel is also fueled by that telephone scandal... But the film is not about this, even. It is mostly about the loneliness and deep rifts between people, far and near. When she sails to England on a ferry, with that lawyer as a chance fellow-passenger, as well as that earlier mentioned Binoche who starred in Bleu, the ship sinks and we see the horrified look of The Judge when he watches the news trying to guess if she survived. She did, and still we feel very heavy at heart. Mr. Kislowski managed to draw a grand, subtle story about the solitude, misunderstanding, secrets and pain. Deep, dark personal pain of those who are lost and lonely. Brilliant film. | 1 | positive |
I was surprised that I liked this movie. But it reminded me of a 2004 version of the first Friday the 13th. There were a number of cheesy elements, yet at the same time there were many cool ones. The story line was good--predictable if you have seen more than one or two horror movies, but full of one-liners to make it worthwhile. There are some memorable scenes worth watching. A few issues I had with the plot had to do with the continuity of the characters. For instance in the opening scene the scarecrows (which were humans on stakes, whose blood was drained to grow the crops), looked very real, but later in the film they looked more like fake scarecrows wearing blue colored masks. There were more than several gaps in the plot, and the acting was mediocre, but at least it sounded like how real people talk, unlike Hollywood movies where the dialogue is really fake sounding when you think about it. The culmination of the last scene, when the main character says "I'm not a Baker, I'm a Connell!" and lops the head off of the scarecrow is satisfying, as his friends have for the most part been killed off by these creatures at that point. | 1 | positive |
The genius that is Stephen Sondheim was never more prominently displayed as it was in his 1979 "Musical Thriller" SWEENEY TODD, a Gothic, gory, grisly, yet delicious musical concoction about a demented barber who returns to London to exact revenge on the evil Judge who not only had him permanently exiled from London, but who is also raising his daughter as his own and plans to marry her to "shield her from all the evils of the world." The barber finds love,sympathy, and assistance from a lonely pie shop owner who has her own agenda where Todd is concerned. This musical rocked Broadway and won nine Tony Awards, including Best Musical and Best Actress in a Musical (Angela Lansbury). The production was filmed in its entirety in 1982 with Angela Lansbury recreating her Broadway role as Mrs. Lovett, the daffy pie shop owner who finds a practical use for the heads that Todd makes mincemeat out of. George Hearn, who replaced Len Cariou on Broadway, is electrifying in the title role, so much so that you have to wonder why he wasn't originally cast in the role. Lansbury and Hearn are riveting from start to finish and commit 100% to their ghoulish characters aided, by a first rate Sondaheim score, probably the closest thing Sondheim has written to an opera. Lansbury shines on "The Worst Pies in London" and "By the Sea". George Hearn stops the show with "Epiphany" and is also compelling during "Pretty Women", a duet he sings with Judge Turpin, the man he has sworn revenge on. Cris Groendahl is vocally impressive as Antony, the young sailer who rescues Todd and falls for his daughter Johanna. Betsy Joselyn is a little over the top as Johanna and really pushes vocally to the point that during "Green Funch and Linnet Bird" she actually drives her voice off-pitch during a couple of moments. The rest of the cast is first rate, especially Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin who gets to perform "Johanna" in this production, which was cut from the original production and Ken Jennings as Toby, whose gorgeous tenor fills the auditorium on "Not While I'm Around." But it is breathtaking musical score by Stephen Sondheim and the mesmerizing performance by Lansbury an especially George Hearn that makes this night of Gothic musical theater an experience that stays with you long after curtain call. Not for all tastes, but if you're game and have strong heart, SWEENEY TODD is a joy for all music theater lovers and a must for fans of Stephen Sondheim and Angela Lansbury. | 1 | positive |
Well, I remember when the studio sacked Schrader and hired Harlin to do reshoots to this film, they were quite right to do so.<br /><br />Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist is simply a bad movie, it's boring, really it is.<br /><br />It would be nice to think that the studio put aside a psychological masterpiece and that all those who in such big words condemned Harlin's version and praised Schraders, even if no one had ever seen it, would have been right.<br /><br />But they weren't.<br /><br />To put it in a nutshell : Schrader has no idea what a horror film should be, and it shows in a big way.<br /><br />Droll, boring, unintentionally funny in all the wrong places and bad supporting cast.<br /><br />Save your cash and your nerves, don't see it. | 0 | negative |
Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie focuses around "Fizzy" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell). What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all without hesitation. It is also based on a true story.<br /><br />10/10 | 1 | positive |
-love is hard to find in this fast food society that we live in so man called Hitch makes it duty to help men find love with women that they are beyond madly in love with. his rules are that he only helps you find love and not just some casual sex which seems like a great deal but soon word begins to spread around and people begin to get the wrong idea about what he does which begins to complicate the relationship with woman he just met that he is madly in love with.<br /><br />-I have to say it's really nice to see Will Smith in a movie that doesn't have him trying to save the world from aliens or robots. There are no jaw dropping effects nor is he showing off his beefed up body. He's just a normal human being in this movie which was really nice. He doesn't necessarily stretch his acting muscles in this movie but then again the story doesn't call for that but all the same it was nice to see him relaxed and not showing off his ripped body to make those of us without six packs jealous. His character here is as with all his characters likable, witty and very charming which is something that almost all the characters in this odd love tale seem to share. The Kevin James character is just a regular guy that needs help hooking up with the girl of his dreams which really makes you feel for the guy and root for him every step of the way. the only character that was a sore spot for me was the Mendez character because she's so cold and calculated that it's hard to believe that Smith could fall for her. He must love a challenge I guess.<br /><br />-now this is the part of the review in which I'll make a joke about how I would never need Hitch because I'm such a player but I just got through writing about 16 reviews for another web site plus I'm still working on a little project so I'm a little jaded right now. whiles the movie is packed with enough charm and likable characters with funny lines it slowly but surely falls into the sea of formulaic romantic movies in which after the big scene where the terrible secret comes out everyone is forgiven and the relationship is even better than before. But hey there's like 4000 movies about the underdog overcoming adversity so I guess one more movie having a predictable ending that's been done to almost death doesn't cause much harm. I really like the message of the movie as well because in the end you don't need a formula to get the right girl, just be yourself and all will fall into play which is theme of the movie and why it works so well. I'm sure if it had turned out that the James character gets the girl after following everything that the Smith character said then it would have being a pretty empty movie but as it stands it works really well.<br /><br />-despite being predictable this is a PERFECT date movie. It's sweet, it's funny, and it's romantic so anyone that watches this movie on a date should be getting some after it's over. and by some I mean sex | 1 | positive |
I was hooked in by the premise that the show was about demons. From hell. And a doorway to hell. What I didn't realize was that I would be watching some guys run around tunnels chased by small children who may / may not have been demons for the entire movie. Sure there was some dialogue in between, and great underground scenery but the lack of a plot, developed characters, any twists or development in the story at all was sorely lacking. Oh, and out of interest, there were no special effects. The entire budget was spent on actors salaries, sets and lots of time running around with a camera underground.<br /><br />The ending was one of the typical lackluster boring endings that makes you say "I endured this film of boredom for that!?" If you want to see demons and a doorway to hell, I promise you that you would be better off served watching the trailers to the game Hellgate : London which while shorter than this movie at 5 minutes, pack more dialogue, character development, action, plot and satisfying conclusions than this.<br /><br />The second star is for effort, but overall a low score for failing to make a movie that stands out, and for promising in the tagline much more than what was delivered. | 0 | negative |
But to be a little more precise I do not think that it is as bad as it actually could be. Eventhough the actors (famous to semi-famous) didn't do a very great job. Directors fault? Could be the script as well hard for me to say? Anyway, if you are after a lot of cool guns and action this is not the movie for you but they do run around with a lot of ww2 vintage guns. Sort of fun :) Well I guess I could say more but it just doesn't feel as if it's worth it. If you are desperate enough or a Hackman freak see it otherwise don't!<br /><br />Live well and prosper | 0 | negative |
I never thought a movie could make me regret the fact that I subscribe to the HBO service. Now I know better! Jack is usually one of my favorite actors but not even he could rescue this part. Not that he tried. Jack plays his usual Wiitches of Eastwick type character. Unfortunately it doesn't transfer over to the American southwest. He is about as believable a cowboy desperado as Pee Wee Herman. There is no edge to the performance and for that reason the comedy fails. He is almost to goofy. The remainder of the cast was worse. Timing in delivering lines is apparently something that the leading lady had not perfected as of 1978 and the others appeared to be just happy to be there. My recommendation to those of you interested in seeing this movie is that you save your valuable time for something like watching paint dry. | 0 | negative |
"Medusa: Dare to be Truthful" is an outrageously funny parody that is a fine companion to the original, "Madonna: Truth or Dare". Julie Brown's brilliant creation skewers Madonna's highly entertaining documentary (although it wasn't exactly daring, insightful, candid, or truthful) with a faithfulness to detail, right down to the packaging. I highly recommend this for Madonna fans, Julie Brown fans, or anyone who enjoys sharp and clever parody. | 1 | positive |
Reading the other two comments, I had to wonder if I had seen the same movie!<br /><br />Perhaps life is drastically different in Australia, but, wow - call it sci-fi or fantasy, but people just don't act like this.<br /><br />I couldn't pass up this review without commenting on it myself.. it gets better after the first half hour, but I doubt most could make it that far..<br /><br />Yikes. | 0 | negative |
I learned little of significance from this film that I did not already know from CNN and The New York Times. (And I did not follow the Enron case obsessively as did some others.) The film did a very poor job of explaining what "business" Enron was in that might actually have been on the up-and-up before it started hiding its debts in the entities created by Andy Fastow. It also significantly underplayed the role played by Arthur Andersen and Vinson & Elkins in validating practices that were afterwards found to be illegal. Nor did it go as far as it might have in exploring what the "investors" -- all those prominent bankers -- thought they were doing. With the 24 hour a day cable networks, the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, documentaries have proliferated. I've seen many in the past year that were better than this one. | 0 | negative |
Joline (Heather Graham) sets out after her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) who disappeared to clear his head about himself and their marriage. Joline, who is committed to their marriage starts her journey to find Carl, yet on the way discovers a lot about herself. On her trip she encounters a bountiful of interesting characters who unknowingly help her find her way.<br /><br />In my eyes this is a classical road movie, which moves just at the right pace (some viewers may find it too slow). Throughout the movie it keeps its humorous note while Joline responds to the craziness of the world around her with a warm, knowing, sometimes sad smile. All actresses and actors give wonderful performances and the musical score is immaculate. 9/10 | 1 | positive |
'Nemesis' was the last book to feature Miss Marple written by Agatha Christie (the official final case 'Sleeping Murder' was written in the forties) and I've always had a very soft spot for it. I loved the characters and they are lovingly brought to life in this excellent BBC adaptation with Joan Hickson, terrific as ever, as Miss Marple.<br /><br />On the whole it is very faithful to the book. A few characters are dropped, the first (new) murder is slightly different and a couple of new characters are introduced. Personally I felt that the added character of Lionel Peel was unnecessary and rather irritating. Tour guide Madge was irritating in a different way but often quite amusing. It's largely because of Lionel that I don't award 10 out of 10! The other characters are beautifully done especially Helen Cherry as a dignified Miss Temple and all of the three weird sisters but particularly Margaret Tyzack who gives a towering performance as Clothilde. She threatens to go over the top towards the end but just avoids it. The female bodyguards are good value too and the episode contains one of my favourite Hickson lines...'An Archdeacon?!' <br /><br />This is another relatively early BBC Marple that looks wonderful and is has a gloriously nostalgic feel to it. Highly recommended. | 1 | positive |
To be frank, this is probably the best version in my book as a sound movie version of the Jazz Singer. The 1927 version is really a silent movie despite its build-up as the first talkie.<br /><br />Danny Thomas is a great comedian, and he sings very well. He does the Jewish stuff with feeling. Peggy Lee is great and any film that has her is always entertaining. Allan Joslyn is not too entertaining and we could have done without him. One question: since when do Cantors live in such luxurious houses??? | 1 | positive |
Based on the book "Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.<br /><br /> The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.<br /><br /> Not to be over-looked. | 1 | positive |
Who ARE the people that star in this thing? Never heard of them!! But this is one of the funniest comedies I have run across. It should win the Putz Puller Prize for Parody. The absurd starts with Dr. Jeykl snorting his powder and turning into a sex fiend.He is pursued by libido driven nurse early in the movie in one of the funniest scenes of the movie. Pay attention to the hospital PA system in the background; rather like the system in MASH. The final scene with Hyde accepting the award has had me laughing for years. Oh... and the "Busty Nurse" is Cassandra Peterson, who went on to become Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. <br /><br />If you liked the Mel Brooks classic movies (Blazing Saddles, etc.), I suspect you'd like this one.<br /><br />Damn shame you can't get it on DVD anywhere.<br /><br />It's available on DVD now !!!!! Good thing DVDs don't wear out from use !!!!! | 1 | positive |
Truly I Love Lucy as well...comedic genius yes.....MAME...NEVER...she was as ridiculous as Mame...as was the film adaptation of Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood. Both just completely missed the point. Roslind Russell was, is and always will be the first and only Mame. Perhaps as a young starlet, Ball could have pulled off a role like this, where her inherent beauty and youth could have carried her through...but this seemed a desperate attempt from an aged star to show that she was still viable in the field. The reason there are sooo many more supporters of Russell's version (aside from the fact that you cant improve upon the original) is that Russell had presence, she absorbs every scene, whereas Lucille Ball might as well be a pattern on the wallpaper in Mame for all the attention she commands in the role. | 0 | negative |
While some of the things in Haggard are dumb and unnecessary, the overall package is good. <br /><br />Haggard follows Ryan Dunn and his friends Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon Dicamillo) trying to win back Glauren (Jenn Rivell), Ryan's ex. <br /><br />The story is followed and developed surprisingly well, it doesn't wonder off and become an episode of Jackass or Viva La Bam, although it does have a side story which doesn't hurt the main story.<br /><br />And, for all the Bam fan boys (And girls) there are multiple sequences of Bam skateboarding, perhaps the weakest aspect of the film. Phil makes 2 surprisingly small appearances, even Don Vito got a bigger (but pointless) roll.<br /><br />If you are hoping to see a comedy and escape Bam's craziness, then stay away from this movie, otherwise, enjoy the time you spend with it, if you can find it. There are some truly funny scenes in this film. | 1 | positive |
This movie is a gay love story disguised as a tale of graffiti and friendship. Not ONE review described this movie as a gay romance film, and that's the weight of the plot. I don't know if this was to trick people that would otherwise be uninterested to sit through it, expecting the film to be as it was marketed... The film is out of touch with graffiti culture, abuses and defames graffiti culture, and the acting is abysmal. Oh yeah, the graffiti sucks too. This movie was a clever way to hide the agenda of portraying young boys getting gay. Just look at the rest of the movies the director's been involved with, all contain the same subject matter. Boring as hell, not what I expected. | 0 | negative |
I love most movies and I'm a big fan of Sean Bean so I thought that I would at least LIKE this movie. Also, I'm Canadian and this is a mostly-Canadian movie so I was prepared to cut it some serious slack. Nothing could have prepared me for the garbage that is "Airborne". Steve Guttenberg as an action hero? Give me a break. The acting throughout the movie was so bad I am going to have trouble sleeping tonight. I now have only two wishes in my life.<br /><br />1. I hope that you never have to sit through this movie. 2. I wish I could get those 6 hours back. Oh wait, the movie's under 2 hours - it only seemed like 6 hours...<br /><br />Don't watch this. Seriously. | 0 | negative |
This movie was total cheese. It stank. The only thing good about it was the acting. Other then that, nothing noteworthy at all.<br /><br />Big Time Spoilers Coming up! Don't Read Anymore If You Have Not Seen It!<br /><br />This movie is centered around a family whose happy and wonderful lives have been shattered as a result of their younger son and later as they find out older son have been molested by their daycare providers. Although, they are called liars in court and the defense attorney is a real prick the jury finds them guilty and convicts them.<br /><br />In the end all I can say to the director is: "The next time you wanna make a movie like this, do it differently". | 0 | negative |
Tomorrow Is Another Day is NOT the sequel to Gone with the Wind but a lovers-on-the-lam story, and a surprisingly alert and moving one as well. For a supposed hack relegated to B-minus features like The Devil Thumbs A Ride, Felix Feist proves adept at filling his work with unexpected, inventive details. Steve Cochran leaves prison after 18 years for killing his brutal father when he was only 13, and now he's still a tentative, gawky pubescent operating inside a man's hulky frame. Lonesome, he visits a 10-cents-a-dance palace and falls for brassy, grasping Ruth Roman. But the sudden shooting of her police-bigwig boyfriend causes the ill-matched couple to hit the road, ending, like the Joads, in a California migrant-worker camp. <br /><br />Roman's the revelation; in her best-known role, as Farley Granger's fiancee in Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, she was ill- and under-used. Here she modulates persuasively from bottle-blonde taxi dancer to sacrificing wife and mother-to-be (and a brunette, to boot). Cochran's almost as good, waffling between the suspicion of a wounded child and the explosive reactions of an under-socialized male. And the ending, while unconvincing, is nonetheless welcome. Along with They Live By Night and Gun Crazy, Tomorrow Is Another Day displays a redeeming sweetness and warmth that belie its film-noir pedigree. | 1 | positive |
Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama. | 0 | negative |
I first saw this film on cable in the 80's and it rocked me to the core. It showed up again on TV about six months ago.<br /><br />Filmed on location, the black and white cinematography graphically portrays 1950's New York as the gritty "urban jungle" at a time when there was far more industry and port activity in the city, particularly in Manhattan.<br /><br />John Cassavetes always brought a special intensity to his acting, and is magnificent in the role of the army dodger. His brief 1959 TV series "Johnny Staccato" is also a joy to watch.<br /><br />Sidney Poitier and (later in the film) Ruby Dee bring freshness and vitality to their roles. But it is Jack Warden's superb acting as the vicious, brutal shift boss that grabbed my attention. To get an idea of Warden's versatility, watch this film, then check out a 1962 episode of the TV series "Naked City" entitled "Specter of the Rose Street Gang (available on video)." If you are a fan of film noir, this is a must see. Enjoy! | 1 | positive |
This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.<br /><br />This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly. | 1 | positive |
Interesting cartoon, included on the DVD of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra". I especially like the way the color was used in the background art--very artistic for Columbia, whose cartoon department generally had a very low budget (and the results looked like it!)<br /><br />I do wonder, however, how a certain... um, finger gesture... ever got past the censors. Granted, the gesture in question was seen a lot less frequently in 1937 than it is today. You'd think someone besides the animators would have noticed, though--especially since it's seen three times in the scene in question! And based on the context, I suspect that its inclusion was intentional, something the animators slipped in just to see if the censors WOULD notice! | 1 | positive |
An interesting premise, and Billy Drago is always good as a dangerous nut-bag (side note: I'd love to see Drago, Stephen McHattie and Lance Hendrikson in a flick together; talk about raging cheekbones!). The soundtrack wasn't terrible, either.<br /><br />But the acting--even that of such professionals as Drago and Debbie Rochon--was terrible, the directing worse (perhaps contributory to the former), the dialog chimp-like, and the camera work, barely tolerable. Still, it was the SETS that got a big "10" on my "oy-vey" scale. I don't know where this was filmed, but were I to hazard a guess, it would be either an open-air museum, or one of those re-enactment villages, where everything is just a bit too well-kept to do more than suggest the "real Old West". Okay, so it was shot on a college kid's budget. That said, I could have forgiven one or two of the aforementioned faults. But taken all together, and being generous, I could not see giving it more than three stars. | 0 | negative |
A ragtag collection of Western tourists in Africa suffer the misfortune of their plane breaking down, so they're compelled to hop on a bus to travel across the Namibian desert to reach the nearest jumping-off point back to civilization. Not surprisingly, the driver's compass ends up not working, and they find themselves way off course, coming to a stop at a deserted ghost-town that had been a barracks during the fighting in WWII. They find some kerosene (useless in terms of re-filling the tank of their bus), a storage room full of half-poisoned carrots in tin cans, and a native hermit who views them with indifference. The one fellow amongst them who appears to have something on the ball in terms of survivalist techniques goes off to get help. They are to remove the tires from the bus and burn them if he's not back in five days: hopefully, someone will see the black smoke.<br /><br />Does this sound interesting? Well, sure, even if it sounds a lot like *The Flight of the Phoenix* or any number of films in the "deserted island" genre. Which is why it's surprising that *The King Is Alive* is Number 4 (if anyone is still counting) in the ongoing "Dogma 95" series, which, if I remember that ridiculous "Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity" correctly, proclaimed that "genre films" are strictly verboten. Oops. Well, anyway, you can tell it's gonna try and be all arty and stuff in order to compensate for the fact that it's a genre flick. Yep, it doesn't take long for one member of the group, a wizened old stage actor, to start scribbling down -- from memory! -- the various roles from *King Lear* on, well, rolls of paper. The idea is that performing the play will help while away the time. All of which really goes against the absconded survivalist's advice to stay optimistic (didn't the old actor ever do a dinner-theater performance of *The Odd Couple* just once in his life?), quite apart from such an activity being a colossal waste of precious time and energy.<br /><br />This movie is so bad I really don't know how to continue. It's so monumentally stupid, so full of absurd situations and characters that it beggars rational criticism. It may be a timely moment to offer Full Disclosure: I despise this so-called Danish film "movement" to an almost irrational degree. I think my face even turns slightly red at the mere mention of Dogma 95. First of all, if the name of your movement has the word "dogma" in the title, you've already lost me; secondly, in this particular instance, the movement's insistence on the abnegation of individual artistic achievement is a recipe for arch hypocrisy when you consider that the filmmakers here are plundering one of the greatest works of the greatest INDIVIDUAL writer who ever lived. (But, doubtless, the Dogma crowd believes the Works of Shakespeare were actually penned by a consortium of Elizabethan bigwigs like the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, and the Queen Herself.)<br /><br />Hell, I may have forgiven the whole enterprise if it had played the scenario for farcical purposes (attacking the precious Dogma -- now THAT would be subversive!). But the movie takes itself very seriously, and soon devolves into the clichés attendant upon the genre in which it unmistakably belongs: people turning against each other; the men growing beards; the inevitable deaths of a few of the principal actors. All with a straight face. "Is this the promised end?" Well, not quite: we also have to endure the abysmal transfer of DV. For this is another Rule in the Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity: hand-held digital video only. Some friendly advice to the Danes: your "movement" is in trouble when your finished product has worse visual quality than an average high-school graduation home video. Professionalism belongs in an artist's bag of tricks, right alongside his own individuality. "Artisan" and "artist" are kindred words, Mr. von Trier: not every jackass with a $100 hand-held can be a filmmaker. Pass it on. And by the way: allow your Dogma directors to be credited for their films, while you're at it. The fact that the writer of *The King Is Alive* receives credit, while the guy (or girl) actually filming it doesn't, is just a wee bit hypocritical. <br /><br />Contemptible. 1 star out of 10. | 0 | negative |
First off, I would like to make it clear that I voluntarily subject myself to the viewing of terrible movies. I have seen what I thought were the worst of the worst. In my mind, movies could not get any worse than the likes of D.E.B.S., Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood, and Terror Storm. Until I saw this movie.<br /><br />The Pirate Movie, without any exaggeration, is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD. I was informed prior to watching that the movie was, indeed, awful, but I did not believe the allegations. Believe me when I tell you that this movie is simply an abomination to film.<br /><br />It starts out with a 3 minute clip of a boat of pirates apparently in the middle of a battle with themselves. "The End" splashes across the screen. Unfortunately, it is not the actual end of the movie. The movie is about an unpopular, awkwardly nerdy girl named Mabel, who carries around a ghetto blaster and is attracted to ambiguously homosexual pirate boys. She drowns and has a overly drawn out hallucination in which she stars as a scantily dressed skank who falls in love with Frederic, who happens to have just crawled out of the ocean. He might actually be homosexual. The Pirate King has a ruby and diamond studded codpiece. It honks and squeaks when he squeezes it.<br /><br />There is singing in this movie. You might have the impression that this is a hilarious musical. It isn't. Trust me. They are the worst songs that you've ever heard, and by the end of the first original tune you will be searching for objects to pierce your eardrums with.<br /><br />There are "references" to other movies in here. By references, of course, I mean "obvious rip-offs." The inclusion of Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau, and the lightsaber were, in fact, anti-hilarious.<br /><br />The dialogue is, in its better moments, painful to hear. The direction is flat out awful, and at one point you can see the stunt pad in the scene, which isn't very well hidden at all.<br /><br />In conclusion, if there is even the shadow of curiosity in your mind about this movie, get rid of it. There are times when people want to see how bad something really is, but this movie is not worth it. Put it completely out of your mind and never think about it again. If you cherish your mental capacity then I beg of you, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE. | 0 | negative |
In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.<br /><br />I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.<br /><br />Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.<br /><br />This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.<br /><br />I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.<br /><br />But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program. | 0 | negative |
Out of the top 24 lesbian films in my library, I must rate this one as the number one film of all times. This film will go down in history as the best in it's genre. It is a story about a girl (Rachael Stirling) who goes from riches to rags and from rags to riches, with her first love (Keeley Hawes) popping in and out of her life. It is set against a Victorian background in the 1890's, which makes it an ideal setting for some of the best entertainment in the industry. This film spared no expense for music and costumes, and the make-up Rachael and Keeley wore while on stage in the Halls only added to the film's diversity.<br /><br />No matter what kind of films you favor, I can guarantee this film will not only amaze you, but will keep your attention through all three episodes. This film will be played and enjoyed for decades to come. The unrated DVD collector's version is a must for anyone's library. Rachael Stirling and Keeley Hawes was the best choice for the casting in these two roles, and they played them extremely well. | 1 | positive |
I love this film. There is something for everyone. It if funny, saddening, passionate and dramatic. The mixture of two completely different cultures creates a whole new world that the viewer cannot help but want to be a part of. I must admit that I am slightly biased, as Colin Firth is my favourite actor and so nothing that he does is wrong in my eyes (!), but in this film his tremendous acting talent is apparent and it is furthered even more by the beautiful acting of his co-star Nia Long. The problems that their love affair suffers makes it, ironically, more believable and the simple features like the contrast between the colours of Matthew's and Nimi's clothes alone, makes this film all the more enchanting. I defy anyone that cannot be moved by this story. I find it enchanting and have watched it at least ten times since I bought the film a week ago! | 1 | positive |
Some of the secondary actors try, really hard. And camera shots in the desert are quite lovely. Otherwise, this film is horrible.<br /><br />William Shatner's character, Harvey, is an amateur screenwriter. He's also a psychopath, a man who quite literally escapes from a mental institution. Is the point of this film that amateur screenwriters are psychopaths? Harvey will do anything to get his script read and turned into a movie, even if that means taking a film crew hostage. Do amateur screenwriters ... grovel? Maybe they do.<br /><br />The film's setup is way too long. We don't get to the point of the story until well into the second half. The first half darts and flits among assorted characters.<br /><br />"Shoot Or Be Shot" is touted as a comedy, but I found it totally not funny. Dialogue contains no subtext. None of the characters are believable as real people. They're all stick figures that perform "action" in a way that resembles cartoon characters. Indeed, the film is basically a cartoon for adults: silly, inane, birdbrained.<br /><br />I can understand why some actors are in this film. They need the money or the exposure. But what are insiders Shatner and Harry Hamlin doing here? Maybe Shatner wants more comedy roles. Is this the best he can do? Is Hamlin that desperate for money? He used to be a respected actor. What happened?<br /><br />Even though the story is supposed to be a satire, it comes across more as a put-down of amateur screenwriters. Maybe that wasn't the intent. But that's certainly how the film can be interpreted. As such, the script was very, very poorly written. | 0 | negative |
In Truffaut book-length interview with Hitchcock, it's apparent that Big Al's fear from the police dates back to his childhood. His father sent him to the police station carrying a note. The note said: "He's been naughty, imprison him for an hour." The policemen obliged and ever since Hitchcock has had a deep fear of being wrongly accused and taken by the police.<br /><br />"Strangers on a Train" is probably one of the best in his "wrongly-accused" series. The movie is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. That's the same author who wrote the Ripley series. She was always fascinated by smart criminals.<br /><br />Hitchcock's opening is very strong and takes you immediately to the protagonists: Guy Haines, a famous tennis player, and Bruno Anthony, the aspiring criminal. The two guys share a chemistry which in that day and age was probably a lot more than what the audience could chew. Bruno tries to persuade Guy that they could commit the perfect murder (leaving no clues), if they switch victims. Bruno will kill Guy's wife who wouldn't give him a divorce, and Guy would kill Bruno's father. The motives are respectively love and money.<br /><br />Bruno's performance is meant to be seductive and homoerotic. This is not something that was done by accident. In fact, Hitchcock edited two versions of the movie: one US, one UK. In the US version the volume of Bruno's seductiveness was turned down quite a bit.<br /><br />"Strangers on a Train" is a very deep movie but more importantly this is another excellent Hitchcock thriller. An excellent example of a thrilling scene is when Guy is climbing the steps up to Bruno's father room. Hitchcock reasoned that the audience's attention needed to be distracted at this point so that they don't figure out what Guy will find in the room. Hitch treats us to a HUGE, menacing dog at the top of the stairs which provided the needed distraction.<br /><br />The most famous shot in the movie occurs during a tennis match. Bruno has been continuously stalking Guy so that Guy will fulfil his end of the bargain (kill his father). When Guy looks at the audience, all the heads are swiveling back and forth. All except one - Bruno's. He's looking straight at Guy with an "i'll-get-you" smile.<br /><br />The ending is another example of suspense. Both men fight for one key piece of evidence on a merry-go-round that's rotating at mad speed. A worker is crawling under it so he could get to the controls. When we finally get off this ride and the movie ends with Guy proving his innocence, we are left exhausted and nail-less (for those of us still biting our nails!).<br /><br />"Strangers on a Train" is easily one of Hitchcock's best "wrongly accused" movies. Some credit him with one of the best villains (Bruno) as well. All in all, the movie might appear somewhat dated but that's a lesson in thriller-making from the master himself. I won't turn down Leonardo, if he came to teach me Renaissance painting, so neither should you.<br /><br /><< Review posted at FilmDailies.com>> | 1 | positive |
The Joe Cool Review - Hellraiser: Bloodline<br /><br />Starring: Bruce Ramsay as Phillip L'Merchant/John Merchant/Dr. Paul Merchant, Valentina Vargas as Angelique and Doug Bradley as Pinhead<br /><br />Plot: This follows a timeline of the lineage of the Merchant bloodline, which started with Phillip L'Merchant, who created the box that opens the doorway to Hell. Starting with the 18th century to present time when Pinhead first meets Merchant and tries to sever the bloodline..(he's the only one who can stop Pinhead, you see) and finally in the future, in space, where Paul Merchant has finally figured out how to send Pinhead to hell for good.<br /><br />Openers: This is a movie hated so much by the people who made it, they declared fictional director Alan Smithee would be the credited director. They only pull Smithee out of the woodwork when they really think they've made a terrible movie, such as classics as The Birds II: Land's End or Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh. No I didn't make that up. How did I like it? You're reading this so I'm sure that's what you want to know.<br /><br />The Good: This movie isn't as bad as you've been led to believe. Oh I'm not going to sugar-coat it. This movie was filled with so much potential and ended up being a disaster, but it does have some positives. Cooler cenobites this time around for starters, such as the twins and the demon Angelique. Pinhead is still in a main role, and still has good lines("Pain has a face, allow me to show it to you") and it's somewhat entertaining throughout. Gorehounds will love the movie because of it's endless supply. There is also some continuity with the rest of the series, although you'll have to look hard to see it. The Chatterer Dog is awesome.<br /><br />The Bad: But for a story about Hell vs the cursed Merchant bloodline that could close the gateway forever, it was really complicated and held together with duct tape. Nothing was really explored to it's full potential and there were some really stupid things included. Pinhead kidnaps a kid and holds him for ransom! Random deaths just to feature more blood(not always a bad thing, but not for the sake of the story). Pinhead is at his worst here, he rants and rants and rants even when he's about to die! For the very smart demon that he used to be, he's been reduced to nothing more than a Bond villain, at best. If Hellraiser fans ever needed a reason why he was moved back into a cameo like role, this is it. Bloodline ruined it for us all.<br /><br />The Ugly: Gore is always mentioned here. This one has skin ripping, drilling, hook impaling, beheadings, and more goodies. The Chatterer Dog, while awesome, reeks of bad special effects during the chase scenes.<br /><br />Final Verdict: This movie had the potential for something great, even Hellbound levels of greatness. But all of that was wasted. Who knows exactly what went down to produce this crap, but we can only blame Alan Smithee.<br /><br />Compared to the rest: This movie is the worst of the Hellraiser series. For completists only.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* of ***** | 0 | negative |
'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright, 'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994), starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in 'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy. <br /><br />'Camilla' dealt with a friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a May/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same year.<br /><br />International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India, the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman (Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more. Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context. All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female characters just happen to have a sexual relationship. <br /><br />Two years later, Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language. <br /><br />Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it would be just as great as the other two. | 1 | positive |
Because they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.<br /><br />I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.<br /><br />Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.<br /><br />The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.<br /><br />The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.<br /><br />The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.<br /><br />It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.<br /><br />Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.<br /><br />Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny. | 0 | negative |
Cruddy, innocent..no smoking, drinking or bikers, but Jeremy Slate (good actor) and Jocelyn Lane (good actress) make this moronically feasible for a bad biker flick, post-biker (exploit) time. They knew it, we knew it...Adam Roarke and Slate are wasted..but they lived on.<br /><br />A 3 out of 10. Best performance = Jocelyn Lane. Lane is the ONLY really to catch the final exploit biker film after RUN, ANGEL, RUN (which also has good actors - like Don Stroud, etc.). It was over. They knew it. They were trying to make a living. But, Jocelyn Lane (from two Elvis bad flicks, TICKLE ME and something bad one) in yellow and leather is the modern hot chick with J. Slate fighting for honor. It's worth seeing, but it sucks. But check it out. Well worth non-biker, non-smoker, non-boozing, "biker" types with hot chicks. | 0 | negative |
I saw this film at the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival. La Pianiste reinforces the "Austrians=grim" thesis I'm formulating. Isabelle Huppert won a well-deserved Best Actress award at Cannes for her portrayal of a woman who, in her efforts to attain the artistic ideal, loses her humanity. Trapped by her talent, she suppresses her emotions and her sexuality until they can only be expressed in twisted and terrifying ways. When a younger student falls in love with her, our hopes rise, but are soon dashed by the realization that she cannot experience love the way others can. It is too late for her, and the film's final 30 harrowing minutes are, tellingly, devoid of the beautiful music that carried the first 90 minutes. The message seems to be that the music itself is not enough without the life and beauty it's describing. | 1 | positive |
I caught this at the Chicago IndieFest and have to say YOU ARE ALONE is a lot funnier than the other reviews and even the website would lead you to think. Not HA HA Wedding Crashers' funny, but sick, twisted, I can't believe she just said that but it's so damn true funny.<br /><br />Jessica Bohl, who deservedly won Best Actress, is amazing to watch. There's never a moment when you think oh, I'm watching a movie and she's an actress. She's too damn real for words.<br /><br />In fact there's 2 scenes that I'm still giggling over, and I won't give them away, but in one she's in the bathroom talking about how much she gets paid for performing a certain service and how "awesome" it is. (I almost wonder how many people in the audience are secretly thinking the same thing!!!) <br /><br />In another she talks about a teenagers definition of "sex" versus an adults, and if it isn't the truest dialog I've heard in a movie in a long time, I don't know what is. | 1 | positive |
Being a "Wallace and Gromit-fan", I was looking forward for this full-length movie. Surprisingly I saw it at THE world-premiere in Vlissingen (NL), at the Film by the Sea festival. A wonderful feeling to be one of the first to see this very amusing and merry movie. It's about Wallace and Gromit (whom I believe don't need an introduction) having their own pest-control company in the city which is hosting a giant-vegetable contest in a few days. Everyone, including an eccentric baroness, is hoping his or her giant carrot or melon will win the Golden carrot. Unfortunately the town is plagued by lots of hungry rabbits. This is where W&G come in. The have their own cracking contraptions to control these cute creatures in a human way.<br /><br />It's a very funny and colorful story. Anyone who liked the three proceeding short movies of W&G (which are more than great!), will love this full-length movie. Nick Park really delivered a wonderful and original result with a great sense for humor. Like in Chicken Run, it truly amazes me how he can capture so much story and emotions in just a few frames. "Job well done, lad" ;-) Oh yeah: The music was fantastic! It really completes the ride. Enjoy! | 1 | positive |
caddyshack II does NO justice for the caddysack. thin plot, thin actors(exception of randy quaid). the ONLY thing that is decent with this movie is the soundtrack..maybe. this movie should have been destroyed when the script was written. | 0 | negative |
a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure. | 0 | negative |
Snakes on a Plane was such a well hyped film that it was both inevitable and a little crazy to try to release another movie with almost the same title in the same year let alone the same week. Reading the other comments here I see the results. A lot of people are mad. Mad because it doesn't have the best special effects. Mad because it doesn't have a star cast. Mad because they wanted to see Samuel Jackson say "I'm sick of these M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Snakes on this M^*&*&%-Er F*^(^%-Ing Train"! <br /><br />Well, this sure ain't the Samuel Jackson version. And maybe that's good.<br /><br />Snakes on a Plane was lost between cop film and horror, a family action film and a bloody gory movie of death. Saturday Night Live performers got laughs while Jackson swore enough to make a grandmother cover her ears, and as far as kids go, they would be traumatized by the violence.<br /><br />Snakes on a Train however knew exactly what it was. This was a cheaply made horror movie on a train. Sure it had snakes and sure many of them were scientifically harmless garden snakes with fake rattler sound effects. But never once did it miss a step in its plot or intention where as the "on a Plane" version was tripping all over itself from the first scene on.<br /><br />I did enjoy the over the top fun that Snakes on a Plane had to offer and I admit that the "...on a Train" version was a little dry. But hey, in trade, it was a cool and unexpected story. This little horror film could have gone way more wrong than it did.<br /><br />For this it gets a 7 out of 10. | 1 | positive |
i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!<br /><br />stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.<br /><br />murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.<br /><br />i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will | 1 | positive |
"Imaginary Heroes" is a 2004 film starring Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, Emile Hirsch, Michelle Williams, and Kip Pardue.<br /><br />The story concerns a dysfunctional family that becomes even more dysfunctional when the oldest child (Pardue) commits suicide.<br /><br />"Ordinary People" has been mentioned often in relation to this film; it's sort of "Ordinary People" with a role reversal. The mother in this case, Sandy Travis (Weaver) is more accessible than the father, Ben (Daniels) who is clearly devastated and unable to cope. Like "Ordinary People," the younger son Tim (Hirsch) is the focus of the film.<br /><br />For me, the film was absorbing enough to keep watching but has a curious detachment about it. There were some wonderful interactions - mother and son, mother and neighbor, brother and sister (Williams) and some good offbeat moments. What never clicked was Ben being any part of that family or having any chemistry with Sandy. This seems to have been the goal of director/writer Dan Harris. In one scene in a grocery store, the checkout kid assumes Sandy is "about 30" and gives her his phone number. In almost the next scene, Daniels asks Sandy if she wants plastic surgery for her birthday. Weaver was 55 when this film was made, actually probably 54, and looks phenomenal. So what is Ben looking at? However, there's something askew about Ben's complete detachment because the viewer doesn't really see how Daniels ever WAS attached to that family.<br /><br />The end has a couple of twists and also some very touching scenes. Everyone is very good, with Weaver and Hirsch being the standouts.<br /><br />There's not a tremendous amount of dialogue in this movie and lots of stares. The script could have been sharper. But "Imaginary Heroes" is a good effort. | 1 | positive |
I absolutely love stand-up comedy. I love to hear the raw thoughts of the stand-up on stage, as they are appealing to an audience of their peers different life experiences they have had, or things they have thought up or seen that they just thought were so ****ing stupid that they had to share it with someone. <br /><br />There used to be stand-ups who took on a persona that everyone could relate to (Rodney Dangerfield comes to mind) or were just so damn crazy that you couldn't help but laugh with them as they laughed at others (Richard Pryor). And then, there were the thought-provoking comics like George Carlin, who, despite pretending to be a loon, was the smartest guy in the room, who appealed to people to rethink things they saw when they walked around, and realize just how screwed up things were, and how easily they could change things.<br /><br />Now, this might seem to not have anything to do with "Mind Of Mencia," which, as I agree with most commentators here, is Comedy Central's horrid solution to the loss of "Chappelle's Show," but it does. Carlos Mencia spends half of the show doing stand-up bits for his audience, sometimes on popular topics, most of the time on just racism and racial stereotypes. He tries to be all three of the above types of stand-ups. He makes a stage character, an every-day Mexican named Carlos who, despite stereotypes, is just your run-of-the-mill normal guy. He then proceeds to try to laugh at others, people he calls racist or just those that disagree with his opinion. And then, finally, he presents skits to the studio audience and the viewer, telling them that it will help them see his point of view.<br /><br />Carlos Mencia always says he's showing a point of view that people don't see, yet what he is really doing is not only promoting racist stereotypes that already exist and have been joked about to death, but he stupidly encourages people to hear them and do the one thing that helps keep them around:laugh.<br /><br />Promoting stereotypes is usually the lowest, yet easiest, way to get laughs in stand-up. The best comedians, which, I fear, Carlos Mencia feels he is in good company with, don't have to resort to them. They talk universally, and ask you to laugh AT absurdity, rather than with it, like Mencia encourages. As he creates more skits or "real-life" situations that call for racism or the bashing of others with the use of it, he tells us, rather than asks us, to laugh, and actually presents these absurdities as truth, rather than just extremes of it. <br /><br />His show is an insult to the minds of those who watch it. Mencia doesn't give us comedy and ask us to digest it and take from it what we want (something that, as much as I hate to compare the two, was "Chappelle's Show's" finest quality) he tells us exactly how we should view it and react to it---which, according to him, is to make a stupid face and say "Dee Dee Dee!" This show is appropriately named. It is indeed a show about "The Mind of Mencia." It's Mencia's mind, through and through, and, as such, is nothing more than dumb entertainment. The show is tailor-made to give life lessons to its core audience, 14-24 year olds, about how stereotypes are bad, but that racial bashing is alright to Carlos Mencia, and therefore should be alright to you! | 0 | negative |
This movie bombed at the box office and in the voting here but I loved it. One measure of a movie's worth is how much of it you can still remember after 25 years. I won't bore you with a list but there are dozens of deeply comic scenes, also a good story and great casting. The inept robbers are a hoot. See it and judge if it ever gets on TCM. | 1 | positive |
The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...<br /><br />Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clichés, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clichéd even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself! | 0 | negative |
If you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.<br /><br />The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something. | 0 | negative |
The movie isn't too bad, up until...<br /><br />The main problem is with the ending, so it's a pretty major spoiler...<br /><br />For the time it was made, it's a beautiful movie, and does get a lot of it right.<br /><br />However...<br /><br />In the book, Sam succeeds and lives his dream, whereas in the movie, he gives up and goes back to the city, completely destroying the "you can do what you put your mind to" theme of the book.<br /><br />This movie is a desecration, and instead of remaking classics that don't need redone, the Hollywood types who haven't any better ideas should do this one, right this time. | 0 | negative |
While the design and locations and photography are strong assets in this film; it is a turgid and melodramatic affair which demonstrates the limits of cinema to convey truth.<br /><br />The case is the use of the soundtrack music: a mix of Gustav Mahler and Andrew Lloyd-Webber that plays constantly and loudly, and would have made Max Steiner grimace at its over use as it instructs the audience how difficult; how ecstatic; how tortured it is to be an artist. And then it really counts the story elides the details at the end.<br /><br />This heightened and kitsch exploitation of emotions was once well ridiculed by Peter Ackroyd about a Yukio Mishima book: This is not writing, this is Barbara Cartland. Precisely the same critique can be made of this film: a deceptive, mawkish vanity project. | 0 | negative |
Another nice entry in the Crime Doctor series [#4/10], with atmospheric almost noirish black and white photography and some splendid Spanish American backdrops and sets. And a more off-the-wall storyline too!<br /><br />A man who looks like the insane murderer of his first two wives is found dead in a locked room after a dramatic dinner party. The Crime Doctor is on the scene (ostensibly as a guest) to immediately and resignedly proclaim it murder, and so we are presented with a quite weird set of people to mull over, for one of them did the deed. Was it the frothing brother of the dead 1st wife, the 3rd wife and rich widow Hilary Brooke, the dancing brother and sister vampires, the intense young man, the eccentric cabinet maker Lloyd Corrigan on loan from Boston Blackie, the irreplaceable butler, or odds-on Jerome Cowan? Police Inspector Emory Parnell had his work cut out, but Warner Baxter as Ordway was as unflappable as ever in working it all out. One of the goofs listed on the IMDb is wrong: On breaking into the murder room Ordway says "Right through the centre of the forehead" and Cowan replies "He didn't miss this time". Favorite bits: Baxter and Cowan travelling through club sandwiches and beer at the nightclub to make amends for their interrupted dinner party; The scene where the Braga's place of repose is seemingly rumbled. The plot does seem to meander a bit at times and the way it was all explained off was perhaps more worthy of Monogram, but leaving it in the air as supernatural wouldn't do either!<br /><br />Well worth a watch if you already like the genre, you won't be disappointed unless you really don't like the genre. | 1 | positive |
I loved this film! It has a great heart and great bones. I stumbled onto it by chance and I had no recollection, not even an inkling, of this movie from promos or reviews or word of mouth. I remember reading, many years ago, a journalist who commented on the value of watching movies without having them contaminated by the pre-judgement of reviews or the false shill of the promos. And this seems to be the single most common source of the critics' negative reaction to the film: it failed to meet expectations of it being a comedy, or a slice of life, or character driven. I had no expectation about the film, and so it was comedic - but I only laughed once or twice - without being a comedy; it was about a person, but so eccentric that it wasn't slice of life; it was about a character, but the character was so intelligently optimistic and trusting of her instinct to life, that it wasn't the angst-driven sentimental melodrama so typical of American 'serious' film - as I wrote that I realized that writer/director Lisa Krueger managed to poke fun at this schlock American sentimentality in the husband! And very cleverly too! And Kreuger was able to keep the cloyingly sentimental ending from the screen, when the wayward, not prodigal, husband returned with his tail shrunk between his legs. Bravo, Ms. Krueger, bravo! (Now I will be watching this film again, as it is getting better and better as I reflect on it.) <br /><br />Graham's performance as Joline is brilliant. I loved how subtly but completely she was able to portray and convey intelligent awareness of her committable commitment to honouring her words and actions - she knew that in keeping her word with a band, or friends, or husband that she was setting herself up to ridicule and/or disappointment in a world that was unable to honour commitment as she was able to do. But even with that strength, she was fully connected to humanity, and embraced with a fully committed heart their frailty and failures. The character of Joline was amazingly well acted, and I left the film surprised that I had no recollection of awards nominations for it. Okay, not that surprised, as American awards tend to go to women in 'serious' roles, filled with angst and the proper amount of nudity, which this film did not have. What it has was far better, which was heart in this woman's discovery of herself with the assistance of new friends and a self-deprecating shaman.<br /><br />I admit to being a bit of a soft touch for eccentric characters who manage their peculiarities while remaining honest and true to themselves as they move through the minefield of what comprises 'proper' societal behaviour and 'acceptable' interpersonal discourse. So, if people must conform to normality in your world, then this film will not be to your liking. And that was, it seems, one of the common threads in the critiques.<br /><br />And I am always a sucker for a good play on words when it raises questions of human behaviour and ethical/philosophical values. Until this movie I hadn't made the emotional connection between being committed (to a cause or honesty or something) and being committed (to an insane asylum). At what point does one's commitment to a personal sense of truth and action in life become a one way ticket to insanity? This sounds like a simple question, or one that is easily dismissed as being rhetorical. But is it? And yet few of the critics - I think maybe two, commented on this aspect of the film either directly or indirectly.<br /><br />A lovely film. 8/10.<br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
A woman finds herself caught up in an apparently inexplicable rash of suicides. Then again, are these really suicides? It seems as though there's a ghost on the loose. Guess what? The ghost has long black hair that hides its face, and it moves about with its head or arms twisted this way or that, making for a very weird looking specter. Recurrent theme music plays from unexpected locations to announce the arrival of the ghost, and bizarre sound effects--which resemble the sound of small twigs being snapped--always accompany this hapless spirit. Does any of this sound familiar? Well, if you've seen a few Asian horror movies in the last 10 years, it should. Borrowing heavily and unabashedly from "The Ring", "One Last Call" and a few other recent horror hits, this film tries to carry an uninteresting and worn-out plot to a climax, but we've seen it all before. Avoid it unless you're desperate or haven't seen any other Asian horror movies in the last 10 years. | 0 | negative |
This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever "save the day". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.<br /><br />As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested. <br /><br />Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great. <br /><br />definitely could have been better. | 0 | negative |
This film is replete with sentimentality, unprofessional flying that makes a pilot like me cringe, and irrelevant material. Why introduce Rachel, for instance? She has absolutely nothing to do with the film except to permit her "Follow Me" truck to run wild and crash into Dorinda's fence. That has got to be one of the stupider sequences among many in the film. Another is at the end when the aircraft (was it a B-26 or an A-26? --both designations are used in the film) is left with props whirling and no chocks in place. That serves the plot, of course, but to reveal it would be to commit a dreaded spoiler. As it is, the aircraft would have begun to taxi sans control. The ending (again, avoiding spoilers) involves much too much talk -- as at the beginning of sound films in the 30s with all those final speeches. Here, Dreyfuss just babbles on and on. The ending also incorporates other radical violations of aircraft protocol and a couple of improbabilities/impossibilities that I won't describe. What a dull and disjointed effort! | 0 | negative |
Out of the handful of alternative titles in English, "The Sexorcist" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of "Jungle Holocaust" and "Planet of the Vampires") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of "The Exorcist", I recommend "Demon Witch Child", "Beyond the Door" and "The Antichrist". | 0 | negative |
I have seen so many bad reviews on Supervivientes de los Andes that I felt compelled to stand for it (or at least I'll try). First of all, of course that it looks dated, it was made in the seventies with very low budget, but that's part of it's charm. I like contemporary films but also dig the old ones for what they worth. I'm not the one to feel the urge to only see or like movies with modern treatments and effects; besides, almost every movie buff likes old fashioned motion pictures (who doesn't like films from El Santo or Plan 9 from outer space, no matter it's overall quality?). In the aspect of pace, is just a tool for covering (again) it's low cost, and I think the constant dialogs are in order of a better character and situations development. Sure, Alive has better FX, but I won't despise the old one just because of that, and I don't feel quite attracted to English speakers in an event involving people from Uruguay and for me, that gives a plus to Supervivientes de los Andes. It's like, even if Canoa, from the seventies and based on a true event too, would have a better remake now due to the advance of technology, but I think I would stick to that one based on the emotions that offers regardless it's production date.<br /><br />All of this is based in the impact that had on me because the first time I saw it was on TV, and nowadays I don't think it has lost some of it's primal force. Of course it's been a long time and I've seen tons of better movies in every aspect of cinema, but that doesn't diminish it's true value. It's not a bad film, and I place it above Alive without hesitation. Just give it a break. | 1 | positive |
I've waited 9 years to watch this film, simply because i never saw it advertised on TV. Eventually i caught it and it was well worth the wait. It's much better than your over-hyped scream or last summer garbage because it's all at a fairly quick pace, with no drawn out, creeping through the house to cheesy music scenes. Only the bad dubbing lets it down a little but don't let that put you off in any way. What lies beneath - over hyped and crap. Mute witness - low budget, not hyped at all and very good. | 1 | positive |
Let me start off by saying I love Japanese cinema, literature and culture generally. I've seen many Japanese movies and enjoyed them, but "Portrait of Hell" (aka Jigokuhen) makes itself ridiculous. The two characters who dominate the action -- the "evil lord" in his privileged bubble and the "stubborn, crazy artist" are pure types with zero subtlety or nuance, and all their actions emanate from cartoonish extremes. The film wants to show horrible scenes of violence and raw emotion but many of these scenes are so over the top they actually become laughable and the overall feeling is that of a made-for-TV movie that went off the rails. If this rarely screened movie falls in your hands or comes to your town, spare yourself and give it a pass. | 0 | negative |
I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.<br /><br />What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.<br /><br />Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end? <br /><br />This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather! <br /><br />Don't waste your money. | 0 | negative |
I was a sophomore in college when this movie came out and I had never actually seen it until last night. I finally decided to watch it because I like good dancing and because the movie had such cultural impact. After seeing the movie I am completely baffled by how it had any effect other than putting people to sleep.<br /><br />The story is pretty preposterous when you think about it. Does anyone actually buy the idea that that beer joint full of gnarly old steel-workers and teamsters could keep their clientèle with the high concept dances that those girls were doing? They would have all been over to Zanzibar faster than you can say "performance art". Can you imagine the reaction of the real life versions of that audience to that bizarre TV watching No theater dance thing that she did? Please.<br /><br />It seems plausible to me that there could be a woman that worked in a steel yard and was also a dancer--after all both are physically demanding jobs. But I didn't buy for a second that THAT girl worked in a steel yard. And I didn't buy for a second that I was looking at a real steel yard. Steel work is dangerous. You don't keep your work area looking like a junk yard and not end up loosing a limb. I love some of the inane shots like when two welders are sitting in the big corrugated tubes welding. What the hell are they doing in there? Or when she is cutting six inches off of a rusty steel bar with a cutting torch. She was obviously board and just started cutting random things up.<br /><br />But story holes like that can be overlooked if the movie is fun or at least stimulating in some way. Flashdance doesn't offer anything to balance it, however.<br /><br />The dancing horrible. It is the spastic twitch-and-pose style that ruined American musicals until...well are we really over it yet? The sensuality that the movie tries for is ruined by Jennifer Beal's complete lack of personality. I mean I am a 42 year old male and when she was supposed to be eating lobster my only reaction was to think that she should get a lobster bib.<br /><br />You can't really get behind Alex and her dreams because her character is so stupid and shallow. The dog had more going on than she did.<br /><br />The love affair is flat. It comes across as nothing more than a boss with the hots for one of his workers. Zero passion.<br /><br />Even the final scene where she dances for Orville Redenbacher and some other stiffs is unsatisfying because the panels reaction is so unbelievable. What serious dancers wouldn't roll their eyes at Alex's lame cheerleader routine? In short the movie had nothing but leg-warmers and large sweatshirts. Oh, yeah, there is a good chunk of nudity when Alex "rescues" her friend from being a useless erotic dancer (a laughable bit of hypocrisy). Other than that the movie is a waste of time. I wish that the MST3K crew were still in business. This would make good fodder for them. | 0 | negative |
Don't know what film or version Jeff saw, but this entire film was awesome, not just Poitier and Going. The story was riveting, suspenseful and engaging. And for the guy complaining about historical accuracy, get real. Yes there were some Black deputy marshals in the Indian territory, but they had no authority to arrest Whites outside of Indian territory. As a rule, they did not "patrol" but exercised warrants on criminals only. I did find it odd that Corby didn't seem to have "any' Indian friends. I know their numbers were diminished but it still strikes me as strange. Even as Corby returned to his people, his Indian cohorts remain faceless and nameless. | 1 | positive |
This is based on Michael's life from 1983/4 till 2004. Flex Alexander did a good performance but looked nothing like Michael. I feel Michael was portrayed as a stupid person which I don't believe he was (even though he trusted the wrong people at times). I thought Flex Alexander looked Chinese when they made Michael look white. I think Latoya should of been portrayed in this, she was always pictured with her brother in the 80's. I never thought any of the supporting cast looked like their counterparts. There were some things that were inaccurate Lisa-Marie Presley's son looked about 4 in the wedding scene even though he was not yet 2 when Lisa and Michael got married. Also when Michael says to his mother Katherine he thinks he and Debbie should marry if she is carrying his child, it was Katherine's idea for the two to get married. | 0 | negative |
A teen-age boy, who is not in the military and has not trained to be a jet pilot, takes off for a foreign country to rescue his dad. If this is not ridiculous enough, he talks a Colonel in the Air Force into helping him get his hands on a jet [wow!]. To make the picture even more absurd, the Colonel risks his career and life by giving the spunky lad some hands on aid. They not only don't make Colonels like this anymore, but they never did. This sappy, corny film should be tossed into the air and blown away by a MIG. | 0 | negative |
If we compare the movie industry with an ocean, we have the tendencies to observe only the surface. Driven by the strong Hollywood marketing force, we all saw war movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. But underneath the splashy waves grow in silence, from time to time, less known pearls. When you pick one and look carefully at it, you wonder why this pearl lie almost unknown and why it's not already on the crown.<br /><br />"Stalingrad" is such a gem. Why, it has a bunch of multi-million dollars rated actors? No. It have thousand of extras? No. It have breathtaking, spectacular, shiny computerized visual effects?. Not at all. So, what's so special? Well, in one word, it's pure past reality recreated and transposed to celluloid fifty years later. The tragedy of the most bloody battle in the history is here. Filthy, wounded soldiers, Russian civilians who lost everything during the invasion, burning villages, collapsing buildings, decayed suburbs, gunfires, explosions, tanks in flames, soldiers shot, burned alive, ground by tanks in their pits or shred to pieces - you got all. But the real horror is elsewhere. People are reduced to simple pawns, without the power to change anything. The soldiers we follow in film try to leave the combat zone and they fail. The civilians stay in prostration in the middle of nowhere, only crying for their children killed. Mercyless, the huge grinding machine of war melt together humans, equipment, villages, cities - and ask for more victims and destruction, over and over.<br /><br />In all this collective insanity a group of German soldiers struggle to survive and to keep at least a minimum level of normality. They do their duty and fight bravely. But, as everyone know, a battle is almost lost when people start to loose confidence and faith. We see how all those people are abandoned, how they plan to desert, how they struggle to catch the very last plane to Berlin (full of wounded), how some very bad injured soldiers were treated as simulants and shot, how they were forced to execute a small group of Russian civilians, including a young boy, how they later discovered a place literally full up to the ceiling of food and drinks - destined only for some "superior" officers, of course. One by one, they drop dead. The end of the movie is one of the most bitter, depressing and touching ending I ever saw, all on the magnificent score of The Munich Philarmonic Orchestra. The war destroyed everything in its path.<br /><br />This movie is a must-see for everyone. A true movie-lover should have it in his/her collection. The strong anti-war message must be a warning for all of us. Unfortunately, the mankind never learn, nor the politicians. Self-destruction is in our DNA and the human pain seem to last forever. Can we be enough reasonable to stop THE WAR? | 1 | positive |
This is one of those movies when you are watching it you wonder whether it is documentary or fiction. After the movie, Ramin Bahrani answered many questions and we learned that the movie has a script.<br /><br />Bahrani's camera is silent, he is not judgmental, he almost erases director from the movie by purpose, background is not organized to make the picture pretty, however don't get me wrong; there is a lot of preparation for this movie. Starting on personal level, being the part of environment, being to be ignored when you film.<br /><br />Main character is a 'real' actor in every sense.<br /><br />I would like to thank all crew for this movie, showing us another country within NYC. I strongly suggest it if you like stories of others.<br /><br />Bora Kizilirmak | 1 | positive |
Wow, did this episode start on a STOOOOOPID premise! The Enterprise is chugging along when all of the sudden, Abraham Lincoln is floating around in space and welcomes the Enterprise!!!!!!! Is it just me, or is this a really lame-brained idea?! Lincoln comes aboard and they welcome them. Abe suggests they beam down to some barren planet, where they meet other famous dead folks--both good and evil. It seems that a really cheesy-looking rock monster has assembled a team of GOOD and EVIL people to battle it out for supremacy. The whole thing seems really daffy and inherently unfair, as the GOOD side is saddled with Surak--a Vulcan who makes Gandhi seem like Rambo!! Despite a totally AWFUL premise, the action is pretty good and it's great to see overhead shots of obvious doubles fighting it out in this grudge match. But, don't mistake this for high art or deep sci-fi. The bottom line is that the series was on its last legs as a first-run series and this really looked like they dusted off this turkey and filmed it regardless of the absurdity of the premise. | 0 | negative |
Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap. | 0 | negative |
I think this is the worst movie I have seen since "Mortal Kombat 2". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost. | 0 | negative |
I'm not sure as to call this movie a children's drama or a fantasy film. When I first watched this I couldn't really make out the ending and that's the only part of movie that's seemed to lack depth and left me a bit depressed for awhile. Then I watched it a second time and realised how great the acting was and was clueless as to why it received the meager attention it did at the time.<br /><br />Unforgettable performances by the young Mazzello and Wood should have made this film a classic.<br /><br />Although the it was probably intended to be a fantasy/drama by the original writer/director (Evans), once Donner took over he presumably made it with a more dramatical outlook especially the ending, which left a lot to be desired as to what really happened to Bobby - Was he killed?, did he escape & really do all those fantastic journeys?, or was it just an imaginary story woven by Hanks to prove a point to the kids?<br /><br />But in all it didn't provide the closure of a happy ending that we are so used to in a children's film. Perhaps it's because it's not just that.<br /><br />To see what may have been a more classical ending check out the Official Elijah Wood Site where you'll find the First rough draft script of the conclusion of the movie(presumably by the original writer)<br /><br />Also a note of the music by Hans Zimmer which is one the best Soundtracks I've ever heard, a mixture of childish and dark sentiments throughout the movie. A great CD to get hold of if you can.<br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
I just had the opportunity to see 'Nuovomondo' (hitherto known in the U.S. as 'The Golden Door'), and was very impressed by both it's dreamy & occasionally surreal tale of a family that immigrates from Sicially to the U.S. in the early days of the 20th century. It also worked as a (proverbial)middle finger jammed into the eyeball of Homeland Security (preferably all the way up to the 3rd knuckle),in it's depiction of the ill treatment of foreigners who just want a better life than they were getting from their original mother land. The (mostly) Italian cast, with a few exceptions works well. This is a quiet,understated film that is lovely to look at (the occasional,but tasteful use of surrealism is always a pleasure),while the screenplay is well written. This is a film for those who are sick & tired of mindless escapism from Hollywood that serves little more than to sell popcorn (not that I have any burning issues with popcorn,mind you!---I actually love the stuff). You would do wise to seek out Nuovomondo/The Golden Door (or whatever it's being titled in your area). | 1 | positive |
Cannibalism, a pair of cinematic references to Delicatessen, not only in plot, but in style. Cannibalism, a pair of references to the historic case of the Uruguayan rugby players that survived in the Andes by eating the dead members of their flight to Chile. Cannibalism, only an excuse the movie uses to delve into the extremes men are willing to go to defeat isolation and obtain social acceptance.<br /><br />The script is extremely creative, and hopefully is going to leave the viewer laughing and wondering... | 1 | positive |
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*<br /><br />I thought Pitch Black to be quite enjoyable, with some nice effects--I liked the larger beasts, although they aren't a patch on the Aliens from the Alien series. It had quite a good atmosphere, which I felt Vin Diesel helped contribute toward.<br /><br />One thing which kind of stumped me was how it rained. If the planet has three suns and is in almost continuous daylight, where did the moisture come from to form clouds and therefore rain?<br /><br />I liked the fact that Fry died at the end--it reminded me of the New Hollywood films of the 1970s, with the main heroine not making it to the end. | 1 | positive |
True, this is not John Sayles finest film (Brother From Another Planet) but it is not entirely forgettable either, if not for any other reason than its message. Like Batman, Wild Thing's parents were murdered in front of him, leaving him to fend for himself in 'The Zone,' a corrupt section of an unnamed city where greed and violence reign supreme. Instead of falling in with the likes of Chopper (Robert Davi) Wild Thing fights for justice, using his powers of Tai Chi and eerie cat impressions, occasionally lighting himself on fire. He becomes something of an urban legend, a modern day Robin Hood, and a hero for the ages. 1987 at its finest, WILD THING LIVES | 1 | positive |
An ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby" had a human side). Wretched. * from **** | 0 | negative |
I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant... No doubt, one of the best works of Forman.<br /><br />The simple story about love, friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are ready to go in war...<br /><br />There is not a single fake word, single fake character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things aren't something that "everyone can view from different angle" These aren't things that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is simple, their ideals are as simple as the word "simple" itself and that's why these characters are so deep.<br /><br />Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to make him happy with his property...<br /><br />Berger never accepts that something can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he just do it.<br /><br />How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he is FREE.<br /><br />Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too. | 1 | positive |
While not truly terrible, this movie is still largely a waste of time, and paints an incredibly inaccurate and revisionist picture of Beach Boys history.<br /><br />Basically, this movie would have you believe that Mike Love was the brains behind the band and Brian Wilson was just a pathetic psycho. In fact, none of the characters is developed beyond a one-dimensional parody, but this is a TV movie so what do you expect? Mike Love's foul stench is all over this turkey as he attempts to re-write history with himself in the role of band figurehead and resident genius. Yeah, as if...<br /><br />On the plus side, the music is excellent. Unlike the previous Beach Boys made-for-TV bio-pic "Summer Dreams", this movie actually features real Beach Boys music, rather than anemic cover versions...Also, it features a surprising number of Beach Boys-related rarities and seldom-heard tracks - The Sunrays "I Live for the Sun" being but one example.<br /><br />This movie was originally shown in two parts on American network TV. Part one is the superior of the two and documents the Boys early days and rise to the top. By the time part two rolls around, the Brian Wilson character has become a mere cartoon and the actor seems to be playing for laughs - but how could anyone take this crap seriously? If you're not a Beach Boys fan you probably won't get much out of this movie except an extremely warped and one-sided view of the band's history. But then again, why would you watch this if you weren't a fan? | 0 | negative |
This movie actually almost made me cry.<br /><br />For starters the fake teeth. Then you spot a nice plastic or drawn set. To make it even more boring all the action is followed by a bright light flash. Then the talking: sound levels are so different, sometimes too hard, then too soft, never exactly good like in good movies. Also, it echoes so much that i think they had one microphone on the entire set. And to make matters worse, EVER heard of stereo? If the camera switches, the sound always stays centered. The actors talk like they are reading from a board staged behind the camera. And the zooming into another scene, how terrible childish.<br /><br />The music is so badly chosen that it never adds something. It only destroys any accidentally created excitement.<br /><br />To finish it up, the fighting scenes... my 3 year old niece would make a better fighting scene.<br /><br />This movie is not even good for a laugh, it's just that bad... | 0 | negative |
If anyone has any doubts about the talent of Liev Schrieber, just a look at his new film, "Everything is Illuminated", which clearly shows a man that is not only one of America's finest actors, but a new director whose first effort is indeed an inspiration and a harbinger of what is to follow. Mr. Schreiber has adapted the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer into a film that will live forever because of the way the director has adapted the material. The film clearly surpassed our expectations since we had no preconceived ideas.<br /><br />For those who haven't watched the film, perhaps you should stop reading here.<br /><br />Jonathan is a collector. His love for his grandparents is boundless. He watches as his grandfather dies and as his grandmother is on what appears to be her death bed. On a clear moment, this dying woman gives Jonathan a picture and an amber ornament for his collection. Watching the photograph, taken a long time ago, a young couple are seen together. Watching makes Jonathan think it shows the grandfather and his girlfriend, taken on happier times. Watching the snapshot seems to be the motivation for this intense young man to go looking for his ancestors' past in the Ukraine.<br /><br />Jonathan has made arrangements with a travel agency, Heritage Tours, of Odessa for his trip to Trochenbrod, the mythical place where his grandfather came from. The agency is handled by an older man, who claims to be blind, and his grandson, Alex, a man who loves the pop American culture that has captured his imagination, as well as his contemporaries in the country. Alex speaks a kind of English no one speaks and his conversation and translation, for Jonathan's benefit are hilarious to our ear for the use of sometimes unheard English terms. The old man insists in taking his dog, Sammy Davis Jr., against the wishes of Jonathan, who doesn't want to sit next to the snarling and barking animal during the trip.<br /><br />As they embark in search of Trochenbrod, it's clearly that his companions, especially the old man has no clue where he is going. At this point, the film becomes a road movie, as the three characters riding the back roads of the country become more acquainted with one another. As the trio arrive at the sunflower field with the house at the end, it indicates they have indeed come to the right place. Some places are a clear reminder of the conflicts of the past.<br /><br />The older woman, living in the isolated place, is the missing link of the story. She is able to put things into the right perspective. But here is where the story changes its emphasis from Jonathan, who clearly has come to the land of his ancestors, to the old man. We watch as this older man starts remembering things about himself. This, in turn, changes the dynamic of the film as we discover how connected Jonathan and his guides have been all the time.<br /><br />Some criticism in these pages have expressed opinions about the accuracy of the story, which after all, it's a work of fiction and liberties have been taken. It would have been impossible to make another film including so much that is contained in the book. The great way the film is divided into different chapters is a clever way to let the viewer know what's about to be seen.<br /><br />Elijah Wood, a magnificent film actor, does an excellent work by underplaying Jonathan. Mr. Wood makes one of his best appearances in any film with his interpretation of the main character. The felicitous casting of Eugene Hutz as Alex, the Ukranian tour assistant and translator, seems to be an idea made in heaven. Mr. Hutz is about the best thing in the film. His arcane usage of English gives the film a funny angle that delights the viewer. Boris Leskin as Alex's grandfather and driver of the tour car makes a valuable contribution to the film, as well as Laryssa Lauret, who is seen in the last part of the movie.<br /><br />The excellent cinematography of Matthew Libatique brings the splendor of the Czech Republic's countryside in all its magnificence. The musical score by Paul Cantelon is heard in the background adorning the film in ways that it adds a richness to the movie.<br /><br />Above all, this is a triumph for Liev Schreiber, the first time director that will surely go far in whatever he decides to do next. | 1 | positive |
OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...<br /><br />I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clichéd beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a comedy, albeit an unintentional one.<br /><br />Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a dreadful performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is smart enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of "running upstairs" stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...<br /><br />I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a "Mystery Guest Star" credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize "the old guy from 'Star Wars'"). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.<br /><br />People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...<br /><br />2/10. | 0 | negative |
I would hope so and how can I get involved?<br /><br />This movie is a classic and ripe with laughs, adventure and an all star, 80's cast!<br /><br />What happens when you get together a group of jocks and sororiety, a group of debating nerds, a band of misfits and couple of couselors?<br /><br />A load of laughs that will have you begging for more!<br /><br />David Naughton stars as Adam, the leader of the "yellow team," a kind and hip college counselor who helps students with everything from getting the classes they want to first dates.<br /><br />His nemesis is Harold, the leader of the "blue team," played hilariously by Stephen Furst of "Babylon 5" fame, the no good loafing son of a wealthy, former college jock with enough trophies to make any hall of famer jealous.<br /><br />Pit these two against each other and throw in a "red team," a "white team," and a "green team," an unbelievable "view" at an observatory, consequences of cheating at minature golf, a super tour at the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer factory, and a hateful old landlady among other adventures, and you have all the makings of a night to remember!<br /><br />Look for appearances by Michael J. Fox, Eddie Deezen, and director Andy Tennant in one of the last movies he acted in before becoming a director and you have an all star, hilarious, cast.<br /><br />The only down side to this movie was Debra Clinger's performance as Laura. She terribly overacted, but the rest of the movie is so good, she can simply be ignored.<br /><br />I own this movie and can never watch it enough!<br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
Brass pictures (movies is not a fitting word for them) really are somewhat brassy. Their alluring visual qualities are reminiscent of expensive high class TV commercials. But unfortunately Brass pictures are feature films with the pretense of wanting to entertain viewers for over two hours! In this they fail miserably, their undeniable, but rather soft and flabby than steamy, erotic qualities non withstanding.<br /><br />Senso '45 is a remake of a film by Luchino Visconti with the same title and Alida Valli and Farley Granger in the lead. The original tells a story of senseless love and lust in and around Venice during the Italian wars of independence. Brass moved the action from the 19th into the 20th century, 1945 to be exact, so there are Mussolini murals, men in black shirts, German uniforms or the tattered garb of the partisans. But it is just window dressing, the historic context is completely negligible.<br /><br />Anna Galiena plays the attractive aristocratic woman who falls for the amoral SS guy who always puts on too much lipstick. She is an attractive, versatile, well trained Italian actress and clearly above the material. Her wide range of facial expressions (signalling boredom, loathing, delight, fear, hate ... and ecstasy) are the best reason to watch this picture and worth two stars. She endures this basically trashy stuff with an astonishing amount of dignity. I wish some really good parts come along for her. She really deserves it. | 0 | negative |
A lot of people say the end did not make sense, but it did. With the female vampire dead the link to earth was broken and the ship took off, having picked up a lot of Lifeforce from hundreds of thousands of souls. Enough to re-energize those hexagon cells and create new bat creatures. It seems they do not have carnal sex, like vampires of legend. <br /><br />vampire bats from outer space may be ludicrous, but killing them with with a shot to qui force center below the heart is consistent. All you can ask for is consistency. The viewer has to suspend disbelief, even for scifi. <br /><br />The only problem is having to be a sword or stake, not bullets. That puts in a supernatural twist that does not fit with sci-fi. So that is a problem. <br /><br />The only major inconsistency I found is killing the male vampires with the sword, but the soul of the girl and Carlsen go up to the ship. I assume the males souls also went up the ship, but not shown. <br /><br />What about all the humans killed? Do their qui forces ("souls") go up to the ship as discrete entities, are does all the lifeforce get merged into one, for use as ship sees fit? In other words, all the human souls that went to the ship could be re-incarnated as bat creatures. <br /><br />The basic concept is no more ridiculous than Star Wars "Force" or even re-incarnation. <br /><br />This movie was over the top, kitchen sink (Dawn of the Dead meets Alien meets Dracula), but in many ways profound. It was also a beautiful love story. The beginning and end were ethereal. It both began ("what is happening to me") and ended as a love story. <br /><br />Most of the criticism of the movie is about its being bizarre.So what? Bizarre is an art form. As far as being ludicrous, it all fits. The plague concept is much more interesting and subtle than the Aliens just killing people. Maybe they didn't need Patrick Steward's blood to form an image of the girl, but it was a very far out, surreal, scene. <br /><br />Another reason the movie is hated is because of the end. But the end fits perfectly with the beginning. People are so wrapped up in the nude girl that they miss the movie's core. Its a lover story,from start to finish. It starts with Carlsen and the girl on the alien spaceship and finished same way. So it fits perfectly. Most people are fixated on the hero killing the monster, and this movie did not end that way, which is precisely why I love it. <br /><br />Instead, it has a happy ending, with the 2 of them going back to ship, to be reborn. Way cooler than the hero kills monster end, but that is exactly why it bombed. It was not a straight-up horror or even scifi/horror at all, but a love story, with a beautiful beginning and end. All those souls twinkling on the ship. And the crystal room pulsating with new life. <br /><br />Most people can't deal with a love story that is also Alien meets Dawn of the Dead meets Dracula. | 1 | positive |
Maybe our standards for Vientam movies have increased since Born on the Fourth Of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. This movie has a predictable plot, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad special effects, etc. Compared with other Vietnam movies this one is completely unbelievable. | 0 | negative |
Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!" | 0 | negative |
I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.<br /><br />At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.<br /><br />This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit. | 0 | negative |
This was on the Saturday before Halloween this year (today, at the time of this writing) and it has to be the best horror anthology out there. I am normally not a fan of horror movies - largely due to the volume of crap that's been recently released. However, the director of Campfire Tales has the Hitchcock-esquire gift of suspense - unlike other contemporary films, it doesn't take every opportunity to scare you silly, instead using foreshadowing and 'near-misses' - incidents that seem like the instant that the climax will occur in the instant before, but turn out not to be.<br /><br />I didn't catch 'The Hook' or the first main segment, but from what I have read here, they were the two you could afford to miss.<br /><br />'People Can Lick Too' was full of suspense - this short keeps you on the edge of your seat, waiting for something to happen to the little girl as she wanders about her yard and house looking for her soccer ball and later her dog. She encounters so many near-misses that the suspense reaches heart-stopping proportions before the climax of the short, when the girl gives up and goes to bed, thinking her dog is underneath it. She reaches her hand down to let him lick it, and she feels the touch of a tongue on her hand...before noticing that on her mirror, written in blood, is 'People can lick too'. I'll leave the last few seconds for you to find out, my reader, for at this point the short could have taken any number of turns.<br /><br />'The Locket', however, was the unarguable masterpiece of this film. It begins with a man on a motorcycle, simply driving...towards what he does not know, but he can feel himself getting closer. As he's driving along, a storm breaks out, and he's forced to find shelter in the house of a mute girl. The two quickly cozy up to each other, but before they can do anything besides kiss, the girl reveals through writing that ghosts inhabit her house. They quickly begin packing up to leave, but they are caught in the middle of a reenactment of a scene decades past - a father, coming home to his daughter and her boyfriend preparing to elope, murders the both of them and then commits suicide. I'll have to leave you to discover the ending here as well - I couldn't hope to do the story justice in any case, and what I've said so far is just a brief summary of the story - I couldn't hope to convey the nuances and sensory details that add to it.<br /><br />'The Campfire', being the connecting thread between all of the stories, is a fairly interesting rehash of the car accident theme, and the girls are very much attractive - in fact, most of the girls in this film are good-looking. Anyway, despite the fact that it's chopped up, the story is given justice, and the ending is difficult to predict if you're preoccupied with the other stories. However, if you pay enough attention to the segments of The Campfire spread through the film, it's certainly possible to predict the ending, especially if you've seen movies based on the same premise. (MST3k fans, remember Soultaker? Same premise, but without the god awful writing of Vivian Schilling, and the bulk of the movie. If you've seen the first 30 minutes of that you should be able to predict the ending.) All in all, the best horror movie I've seen in a LONG time, and the only horror anthology worthy of a buy. | 1 | positive |
I don't know what it is about the crew from CKY, but everything they produce seems to be genius in its simplicity and stupidity. Haggard is so incredibly dumb and funny that it's almost comedic excellence. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense, but who cares?<br /><br />It made me laugh my ass off. A must-have for the CKY/Jackass aficionado! | 1 | positive |
The premise of this movie, of a comedian talk show host running for president as an independent just to shake things up, is funny, entertaining, brilliant and even a bit inspiring. (thought about the west wing debate when Tom Dobbs leaves his podium, thought about Steven Colbert announcing his candidacy, good times) The first 15 - 20 minutes of this movie are therefore very very entertaining, the debate especially. When he eventually get's elected, it's a pity that is because of a computer glitch, you'd want him to win fair (although that is unrealistic).<br /><br />But after that this movie goes completely downhill. I thought we'd get a great movie like 'Dave' (1993) in which we see how it would out if a comedian actually ran the country. Instead, the movie turns from comedy into a thriller, a romantic comedy and a drama and does none good. The computer glitch becomes the main storyline, which really sucks. Boy is this disappointing. I give it 3 stars just for the premise and because I actually managed to watch this movie from start to end without stopping it, which is usually a good thing with me. | 0 | negative |
Out of any category, this is one demented and over the edge film, even in todays standards. Filmed entirely in crap-o-rama, this film will blow your mind (and something else too!)<br /><br />The amount of hilarious bad taste and sleaze is astonishing. The dialog is breathtakingly fast and campy. You'll either love or hate this film, but give it go. I've seen it 4 times and absolutely love it. Divine is in the quest for being the filthiest person alive, but so are her rivals too in this obscene and disgusting (but funny) and stylish little film. <br /><br />Divine was phenomenal, and "she" will always be missed greatly. Edith Massey does the unforgettable performance as the "egglady" and don't forget the energetic Mink Stole!<br /><br />Über crazy s**t! <br /><br />Recommended also for you sick little puppies;<br /><br />Female Trouble <br /><br />Desperate Living <br /><br />Polyester | 1 | positive |
If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!<br /><br />For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.<br /><br />Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre. | 1 | positive |
If you like silly comedies like Airplane you'll love this movie! It's definitely in the style of Airplane and Scary Movie. A fun film! It has the strangest cast of characters all in the same movie. Michael Jackson, Evan Marriott, Joyce Giraurd, Stuart Pankin, Charlie Schlater and Eric Roberts. The special effects are hokey, but I think they're supposed to be since it's a silly comedy. There is apparently two versions of the film, one at Blockbuster and one on the official website: MissCastaway.com. The one on the website appears to be a preview release version signed by the director. There's some fun behind the scenes material filmed at Neverland with Michael Jackson as well. The movie was filmed in 2003 and says it's PG rated fun on the box. | 1 | positive |
I put this movie on not expecting much, other than a B movie gore fest. Thankfully I was presented with a very well made film, that built up the suspense and managed to maintain it throughout its run time. This was an impressive achievement. The acting was solid, creating characters that you cared about and related to; and although some may find the film slow, it did force you to think about what you would have done in the same situation. Added to this there was some fine camera work and the directors pulled it all together admirably. An excellent effort then, that is well worth your time if you prefer development and suspense over gore. | 1 | positive |
When I watched L'Appartement with my girlfriend, she sighed: "How complicated!" And she is right, of course. When you are used to simple, one-linear plots, especially violent hero vs crook schemes, L'Appartement is hard to follow. A couple of the negative reviewers here also have missed one or more important points. Other whine about the confusing flash backs. Come on! This is not the kind of movie from which you can leave to visit the toilet, come back and get hooked again within a few seconds. This one demands full concentration and a keen eye on details. Then it is really not that hard to figure out what's happening and when. The director has left more than enough clues in all scenes.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie centers about the question: why did Max and Lisa split? The film, as my girlfriend remarked, begins as a romantic lovestory, suggesting that two lost lovers will find each other again. Having experience with French movies, I predicted that the story pretty soon would get a sick twist and I was right. In the end of the first part it becomes clear, after many twists and turns, that Max and Lisa were manipulated by Alice. Max did not know, that Lisa had left and why. Lisa did not know, why Max did not contact her in Rome and left her without a trace, when she returned to Paris. The only one who did was Alice and she had her own reasons to keep her mouth shut.<br /><br />After both Max and Lisa have found out the truth, the question of course becomes: can Alice's manipulations be undone? Well, of course not, time has passed by and things have changed.<br /><br />Many European movies use a story telling technique I fully enjoy. There is no exposition of the basic conflict in the beginning, after which two (or more) interested parties try to decide in their own advantage. Instead the spectator is gradually fed with bits and pieces of the plot and hardly knows more than the main characters. L'Appartement is a fine and subtle example of this technique. In the first half Alice seems to be a side character; slowly it becomes clear, that she is key figure.<br /><br />Acting is simply great. Vincent Cassel is perfect as the somewhat naive and impulsive character, who risks a secured life just to hunt a dream from the past. Monica Belucci is very beautiful of course, but also competent. Jean Paul Ecoffey provides the necessary comical touch. Romane Bohringer is very convincing as the neurotic woman, plagued by feelings of guilt and regret.<br /><br />The only reason I did not gave it a 10 is the somewhat unsatisfying end. Of course it was necessary because of the desired symmetry. After all the events Max is exactly on the point where the movie begun, only wiser and sadder. Alice has paid for her sins. But still the little twists on the airport are a bit artificial. Max too easily exchanges Lisa for Alice; Alice too easily decides to reject Max, who has been her dream for so long; Max too easily returns to his fiancée. But then again, I don't know how how this could be achieved without sacrificing the elegant symmetry. I guess sometimes artists have to give up realism for beauty. | 1 | positive |
You can read all kinds of references into the world of Idiocracy. A futuristic world populated by pampered, self-indulgent morons spoon-fed by the technology of a bygone era: this idea has its precedent in H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" amongst other satires.<br /><br />Early in the film, a narrator explains the quick degradation of humanity over five hundred years, but does not fill in the gaps of where all the futuristic technology came from in the meanwhile. Most of the criticism of this very fun (and funny) film seems to surround this omission, and the resulting complaint that the world isn't "realistic". As if "realism" has ever been a necessary quality of satire. Is "Brazil" realistic? How about "Futurama" or "Transmetropolitan"? Hell, how about "Gulliver's Travels"? I thought not. "Idiocracy", while maybe not as pointed as the best of the genre, hits the same notes and generally does so successfully.<br /><br />Besides, I didn't find the futuristic technology to be a problem. It is pretty easy to figure out that Mike Judge is satirizing the current trend toward automation and simple product interfaces, so that even total idiots can use them. As in "Brave New World", the society in the film seems to have reached a point of automated self-sufficiency at some point in the past (apparently created by the now-extinct 'smart people' in order to placate an increasingly stupid populace), leaving the remainder of humanity free to indulge all the worst, most selfish impulses they can come up with, and grow even stupider. The film just happens to take place during the last gasp of humanity, as everything begins to fall apart for good. It may still be "unrealistic", but if so, it's a remarkably well-presented brand of unrealism.<br /><br />The stupid people take up most of the screen time, of course, but they're just the victims -- they don't know any better. Mike Judge saves his real hate for the intelligent people in power who are dead by the time the film begins, but who are very much alive right now, in the 21st century. People like scientists who chase "hair growth and prolonged erections" for no other reason than the possibility that they'll turn a profit on their snake-oil treatments. People like politicians who let corporations simply purchase the FDA and FCC. People like media executives and their yuppie stooges who promote stupidity -- who enable the destruction of all culture, morality and health to make a quick buck.<br /><br />After all, who is really to blame, the Morlocks or the Eloi? The Paris Hiltons of the world, or the brilliant executives and advertisers that put her on TV and lowered our cultural standards enough to leave her there? This is all implicit in "Idiocracy", though. A line here, a hint there (witness the hilarious auto-doctor which literally does all the work in the health care system). It's one of the few aspects of the movie that's NOT pounded into the ground by the unnecessary narrator. It's just there for the viewer to pick up, or not, but it is one of the most interesting themes in a movie that's much smarter than any other comedy of the year.<br /><br />Pity that so many people will leave the film thinking it's just an excuse to show rear ends farting and people being hit in the groin. Not that that stuff isn't funny too, and maybe it IS a little pandering. But in "Idiocracy", it's just not as simple as it seems. | 1 | positive |
If you've ever listened to any of the James Lee Burke books on tape or CD and the reader was Will Patton you may agree with me that Will is the personification of Dave R.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Jones is a native Texan (or so I've heard) and no one portrays a Texan better IMHO, but he's not a Cajun. His delivery is all wrong. I lived in the state for several years and I can still hear the strange patois that a Louisiana accent contains. TLJ doesn't have anything like that.<br /><br />I thought Marry Steenbergen was a good choice for Bootsy, but I missed seeing Cletus (who will be cast in this role? The Rock? Mickey Rourke? whoever, he'll have to be big).<br /><br />Overall, I thought the movie was only a 4 - the plot flopped around like a fish out of water and didn't have the normal interesting, yet non-linear continuity that the book typically has.<br /><br />Hopefully, Hollywood will try another JLB book, "Last Car to Elysican Fields" would be a good choice. We'd get to see some of the best villains from JLB ever. | 0 | negative |
Subsets and Splits