text
stringlengths 98
6.42k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson and Inspector Lestrade investigates the killings of young aristocratic women in 19th century London.<br /><br />Ian Hart is fine as Watson (as he was in "Hound of the Baskervlles") but - Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes??? No, totally miscast - right down teaming with Charlton Heston as the detective in "The Crucifer of Blood".<br /><br />The plot is not too good either. Well, it IS a well-planned detective story. But it seems more like a plot for series like "C.S.I." or "Inspector Lynley" than for a movie about Sherlock Holmes. There is no Holmesian feeling at all.<br /><br />This said, I enjoyed it in some moments. It's in fact rather creepy, and the sets are beautiful. 3 stars of 10. | 0neg
|
The only gripe I have with this film is the ending? Does it really necessary to make the rich kid with the 'good life' to envy the less fortunate one's for his 'freedom'? To get the protagonist killed to prove a point? Maybe the writing here is more of self expression than depicting human condition in general? Loud volume doesn't make the music more significant. Perhaps something could have left unsaid to the audience's imagination...<br /><br />I always liked the French movies for there seemingly understated fashion over the dog barks of moral debate and preaching of the Anglo-American types - assuming the viewer is deaf and dumb. Well, the movie's ending is a bit surprise to me. Instead of letting the actors barking at each other, it chose to create a big bang with its twisted story line in the end. I certainly saw it coming after the middle point of the film. But still, I'd have no problem giving it 10 had it not been for the forced ending. I thought the biggest tragedy for people like Toto is that they never got anything right and nobody cares what they do or do not do. Therefore, to force Alfred to 'envy' Toto in the end and let Toto leave with a bang instead of a wimp is certainly gratifying to the audience, Hollywood style. But it feels very concocted and unnatural. Trying to force a tragedy into a comedy really is pointless. Because life really do sucks for folks like Toto. | 0neg
|
It was wonderful to see again this 1983 gem. Just as I remembered plus those unexpected surprises that time puts in evidence. Kim Stanley for instance. A few minutes on the screen, a peripheral character but I took her with me and here I am, thinking about her. The "starry" role jet pilots played and that new breed: "tha astronauts" getting the all American treatment, becoming overnight celebrities. Ed Harris is extraordinary as John Glenn. He becomes a sort of leader with some TV experience and we never ask why. Ed Harris's performance explains it all without ever actually saying it. Dennis Quaid is irresistible as "Gordo" Cooper. You believe every one of his thoughts, specially the ones he never reveals. In spite of the film's length, I wished the film would not end. I haven't had that wish very often. "The Right Stuff" is the real thing. | 1pos
|
This couldn't be funnier, even if it had intended to be. It is a 21st century rendition of those awful 1950s drive-in fodder, supersized radioactive insect movies. It just doesn't know its a parody. It really thinks it's a serious movie. As a result, it has turned out much funnier than Date Movie, Epic Movie and Scary Movie, all the uninspired clones of the Zucker brothers' wonderfully screwy Airplane (Flying High down under) and Naked Gun flicks.<br /><br />Great sets, nice photography but the praise stops there. The script is stupid and the acting is atrocious. Grab snacks and laugh your head off. Lucy Lawless is a scientist battling swarms of carnivorous locust, a CYA secretary of agriculture and an army general eager to gas the bugs and most of America. All are of about equal intelligence. Well, maybe collectively the grasshoppers are smarter. Remarkable, given they are all stick-on props and CGI.<br /><br />BTW, the unintentional humour is so raucous I never pegged Xena until I came to IMDb. She isn't nearly so visually arresting out of leather. Her estranged boyfriend though, another scientist, is another matter. He could push this flick over with specialized audience niches. It was guffaw time for me when he walked into Command Central and was introduced as a leader in some sort of scientific field. Square jawed, wavy haired and such a caricature of handsome, you know he must have just come straight from his other job. As an underwear model.<br /><br />Low moments but big laughs: Every time Lucy jumps up and down like an 11-year-old trying to get the attention of a doubting bigwig. When the biggest mid-script plot turn is the "reveal" that Lucy is pregnant. Prime moment for a line something like, "You remember that night. You came straight home after shooting the g-string commercials and you were unstoppable." No matter; viewers are already laughing so hard they'd have missed the line.<br /><br />Oh yes, and those amazing CGI effects! Really love the computer simulations of the USA at Command Central where the dark swarms of dots (representing the locusts, ya know) spread across several states as fast as spilled water covers a granite counter top.<br /><br />Enough already. You get it. Do NOT approach this as serious entertainment.<br /><br />Oh, I forgot. There is one good performance. It's Mike Farrell (B.J. Hunnicutt on M*A*S*H) as a man outstanding in his field. You got it; a farmer. That's cuz the locusts attack all the crops in Midwestern America. Those good, honest folk don't deserve such diss. | 1pos
|
I could spend hours trying to come up with the perfect words to describe "61*" Simply put, its one of the best baseball movies I have ever seen. Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane ARE Maris and Mantle. Billy Crystal did an exceptional job directing this picture. The acting is excellent. A great part of the movie is seeing all the old ballparks that have been refaced and digitally made to look like the parks did in 1961. Turning Tiger Stadium into Yankee Stadium is quite a feat! I would recommend this movie to the die-hards, the casuals, and those who don't know anything about baseball. Billy Crystal -- Thank you for another great movie! | 1pos
|
The show was broadcast on T.V. once or twice in the early '70s. Recently I had the rare pleasure of viewing a bootleg video of the show as it was broadcast. If you think you know how well Liza could dance, and how captivating she was on stage, and if you think you know how extraordinary Bob Fosse's choreography & direction could be, and you haven't seen this performance, then you still don't know.<br /><br />The marriage of Liza, Kander & Ebb, Fosse & the glitz of early 1970s musical theater come together here in perfect harmony. The lighting, the dancing, the songs, the costumes, the star. This was the year that Liza won an Oscar (for Cabaret), and an Emmy & a Tony for this production, "Liza with a Z". She may have also gotten a Grammy that year, but even if she didn't, it's a hat trick that stands alone in the annals of American entertainment. For her and for us, it's been all down hill from here.<br /><br />To see her do "Ring Them Bells", "Mammy", "Son of a Preacher Man" and "Bye, Bye, Blackbird", just four numbers on this hour-long video, is worth the trouble of finding a bootleg copy. | 1pos
|
Antonio Margheriti still is one of my favorite Italian directors (thanks to his 70's & 80's films), but the mix he presents us with "Alien From The Deep", he has done before and much better already. "Killer Fish" mixes a heist movie while cashing in on Joe Dante's "Piranha". With "Hunters of the Golden Cobra" he gave us a hero with James Bond allures in a film reminiscent of an Indiana Jones adventure. In a way, "Aliens From The Deep" fits in perfectly with all other blends of Margheriti entertainment. It's not on par with the films it borrows from, but it tries to redeem itself by going over the top a little further.<br /><br />So what kind of blend does Margheriti present us this time? Obviously, the Italian title "Alien Degli Abissi" (which roughly translates to "Alien Of The Abyss") tries to cash in on James Cameron's 1989 hit "The Abyss". But that's where the comparison ends. Most of the film can be categorized as some type of 'adventure on a tropical island' film. Some military/governmental facility is dumping toxic waste into the earth. Some noble people try to expose this and ultimately stop them. Some action & some shooting. Fair enough.<br /><br />Now what's with the alien-aspect of this film? Well, we have to wait a good 50 minutes for it to show itself, and it's not really an alien, but some mutant giant monster (basically formed by toxic waste, creating a symbiosis of organic material & scrap metal I know, that sounds way too smart for a movie of this type) emerging from the bowels of the earth. It somewhat looks like a black giant crab-robot monster of sorts. It just gets thrown into the movie's third act so they could rip off the climax of Cameron's "Aliens". Remember Ripley fighting the mother-alien in that yellow robotic worker-unit? Well, it's here too, only it's some type of bulldozer.<br /><br />So "Alien Degli Abissi" is just entertaining Margheriti nonsense (featuring yet again fun miniature effects) and nothing more. It's sub-par, as to be expected, but thankfully it's not boring. Oh, and it has Charles Napier running around in it, mainly behind computers. Other than that, he seems to have little else to do.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes, fair enough fun & inept action/adventure/monster fodder. 4/10 and 6/10. | 0neg
|
Tragic yes if you look at what happened, but like many documentations made for TV, this one fails miserably. The plot is based loosely on the actual case by what was shown, using the most catchy of scenes and then over-glorifying them. The acting, atrocious. Pin the blame on the bumbling cops who are trying to solve this murder. Are they really cops? The guilty couple who committed the crime was okay, but suffers the same glorifying effect. It doesn't make them tragic, it makes them inane. Bottom line, not a very good drama. 4 / 10 | 0neg
|
There's something wrong about dropping an American con-artist into London, but somehow here it works. There are lots of potential reasons not to like this film, but most of them don't seem to really matter. It just works, anyway.<br /><br />Maybe it's because this was the first time I ever saw Kate Beckinsale, and I was just stunned.<br /><br />Anyway, I was hugely amused when I heard that there was a boycott organized against this film by some people who thought it was going to be about someone shooting at fish (bang, bang). Poor fishies. No, of course, it's no such thing.<br /><br />If you haven't seen this, then I can pretty much guarantee that you will not waste your time if the opportunity comes up. | 1pos
|
Italian-American ethnic humor, and similar mafia-based spoofs are pretty passe by now, wouldn't you think? Even so, a clever, interesting, and especially a FUNNY movie is always watchable, even if not a hit. This could have been an "OK" flick. This movie, however, is a dreadful, horrible, depressing pile of junk. It is mean spirited, ugly, and worse than a waste of film-- it is a bummer and a downer. The only surprise here is how a group of talented and likeable movie stars such as Burt Reynolds, Dan Hedaya, and Richard Dreyfus, to name the ones I remember, got themselves hooked into doing this. Did they owe someone in Hollywood a lot of money, and this was the pay-back? Did they lose a bet? What? I had to walk out of the theater after half an hour it was so bad.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs. I gave this a 1 out of 10. If we could give negative numbers, this trash would have gotten a minus three. | 0neg
|
This could have been a much better film. Strangely, it seems to have been made by well-meaning amateurs (that includes the talented veteran actors who performed in a stilted manner and seemed rather lost). I found the historical content and some of the dialogue pleasing, but it became ultimately pointless. The ending was ridiculous and destroyed any credibility that may have existed up to that point. Others have commented on the film's realism. I did not experience that. The characters seemed unnatural and self-conscious, except for the young girl, who was adequate. There is no artistry here. I would prefer to view someone's home movies showcasing untrained actors and unplanned situations. I did think that Irene Pappas had a lovely voice and her moving rendition of the Greek song was a nice break from the tedium. What was Oliveira thinking? | 0neg
|
I just watched this movie on the Sci-fi network. Let's make one thing perfectly clear: there has never, ever been a quality film or television show that has used the phrase `It's on a need-to-know basis'. Once you hear that phrase, and its subsequent follow-up phrase `believe me, I need to know', you can rest assured you're watching something written by someone with absolutely no creativity.<br /><br />Sandra Bernhard is terribly miscast in this five hundredth derivation of `Alien'. Whining and sneering her way through this movie, she sounds ridiculously unconvincing spouting the technical mumbo-jumbo necessary for science fiction films. She aint no Sigourney Weaver, that's for sure. How someone so marvelous in something like `Roseanne' can be such a bad actor in films like this and `Hudson Hawk' is one of the mysteries of life.<br /><br />This film has the production values of a high-school play: cheap-looking sets, bad lighting, and clumsy-looking props. The spacesuits look like second-rate rejects from Joe's Army Surplus. When Sandra comes back into the ship after a spacewalk, she flips the visor lid up, and there's no seal around it! The flimsy visor looks like it was made from a clear plastic pie-cover from Safeway. There are no special effects, unless you call an exterior shot of the spaceship a special effect. They couldn't even spring for some fancy flashing lights or decent music; tapping military-style drumbeats punctuate some of the scenes, while someone practicing a bass fiddle provides the rest of the music.<br /><br />Typical of bad films, during the shootout scenes, many many shots are fired in all directions, but it is only coincidental that anyone gets hit, even at point-blank range. Is it wise to fire a gun onboard a spaceship while you're surrounded by all kinds of machinery that is keeping you alive?<br /><br />Most of the film consists of close-ups of people standing around talking or arguing while sepia-colored walls float in the background. I'm convinced that the dialogue was written by a thirteen-year-old boy after watching video games for eighteen hours straight: `she belongs to me', `it's stuck in a loop!', `you don't drink martinis!', and so forth. You get the idea.<br /><br />As if that isn't bad enough, a videotaped Laura San Giacomo rocks back and forth spouting Shakespeare. Good thing she had `Just Shoot Me' to fall back on.<br /><br />The only way to describe the quality of this film is that this is the kind of movie they show on Saturday afternoons when the football game is pre-empted. The television station figures `what the hell, there's no one watching anyway.' It's either that, or an infomercial. | 0neg
|
This is a curiosity piece for those who are royal watchers. It details the story of the relationship of Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles. For some reason, it came out choppily edited and one scene jumped a bit too abruptly to the next. The actors playing the main roles tried hard but Charles came out looking like a social misfit (seemingly the only woman who took to him, according to this film, were Lady Diana and Camilla--actually he had serious relationships). Camilla comes out looking like a tea and sympathy type (what about it dearie) who takes Charles in and has a long term relationship with him. The actress playing Diana is a total miscast. All she has is the hairdo, but she cannot convey or channel Diana. For one thing, she is quite wooden, too mature for the part of a starry eyed nineteen year old and the other she is all wrong physically and facially for the part. Charles towers over her which is quite jarring. In reality, Charles and Diana were about the same height, she being quite tall. There are factual errors, the most blatant being when Camilla tells Charles Princess Caroline is a prospect and probably still a virgin (this takes place in Fall 1979 when Caroline was married about a year to Philippe Junot). Also, Charles' other significant other Lady Kanga is completely left out; she had a major role in his life around the seventies and early eighties. This is a once see for those who enjoy movies about royals. For others, it's best to avoid. | 0neg
|
A must see for all Americans! This film must be brought to America's theaters as soon as possible. If we don't learn from our mistakes in the past we are bound to repeat them. This movie has today's stars playing the "true" characters of November 1963. If this film doesn't make you mad, check your pulse because you are not alive. I am asking the producers to please find a way to get this gem in front of men and women, boys and girls, the young and the not so young. The Commission message to me is not pro conspiracy per si. The message to me is the Warren Commission failed in almost all ways to investigate the murder of President Kennedy. As a result of this film and this film alone the viewer can follow the lack of investigation and now demand that any and all Kennedy related material be opened NOW. | 1pos
|
This was also my favorite episode of NCIS. Charles Durning does a great job, and there are some great scenes in the show. My favorite is when Tony reveals the Medal of Honor to the two Marines who snap to attention and salute. In my opinion, (and I may be prejudice since I am ex-Navy)NCIS is the best show on TV. For the most part, they get the language right (bulkhead, etc) and the customs (not saluting when your cover is off, etc) Michael Weatherly is a good actor who can go from acting goofy to serious parts (like the time, he had the plague) And of course there is Leroy Jethro Gibbs. It will be real interesting to see how the spin off does. | 1pos
|
I really enjoyed this movie. It didn't always seem like it knew what it wanted to say about fame but I thought it was consistently funny. I especially liked the cast. Nat DeWolf and Laura Kirk are quirky and sincere and very funny as a result. I also like some of the supporting, non-celebrity roles. In particular I like the casting director of the commercial and the guy at the party who gets outed accidentally. There's a lot of talent in the film. | 1pos
|
Jia has kept his style but lost some of his edge in this state-funded effort with its rather relentless harping on the irony of a globalized China whose underlings can't get out of the country and are stuck in menial jobs in Beijing, cut off from their native dialects and where they came from and reduced to expressing their strongest emotions in text messages and cellphone chats. There are compelling moments, like the two main lovers Taisheng (Taisheng Chen) and Tao (Tao Zhao) lying on Taisheng's hard dormitory bed and even the schmaltzy wordless communing between Tao and her Russian friend Anna (Alla Shcherbakova), but in the aimless round of daily emptiness of working at this trashy hi-tech carnival falsification of "The World" outside, which the workers will never see in person, Jia loses the momentum of the turbulent, emotional decade he chronicles in "Platform" or the tragic downward spiral of the two boys in "Unknown Pleasures." I don't object to the animations, because they're thematically unified by always being connected to travel and cellphones and they create a sense of link with the 20-somethings, the generation after the director's that he's focusing on here; the fact that they're glib and kitsch just fits with everything else quite intentionally. So does the New Age-y techno music score, which is annoying and repetitious, but again, intentionally so. This time there is a bluntly ironic contrast between the pretty brightly colored costumes of the World shows the girls put on, and the shabby run down environments in which they live off-duty. The contrast is a little too pat: surely some of the environments -- and there is one, at the train station -- off duty are as glittering and new as the World stage shows. One can't say that Jia has lost the complexity of environment he achieved in his earlier films; he's just limited its focus. One may miss the jangling ambient noise of Platform and Unknown Pleasures, though, and particularly the informative TV broadcasts of the latter, which always fit in context even though they may speak to us more than to the characters.<br /><br />For me, Unknown Pleasures is by far the emotional peak of Jia's work so far, and hence the film that puts across his themes most powerfully as well. Next comes Platform, which is off-putting and sometimes almost absurdly hard to follow, but which nonetheless obviously has deep personal significance to the director as an authentic portrait of his generation's journey into the Nineties. The World is almost too self-consciously a development of his themes of alienation and globalization and of a generation without hope or aims. The theme park is almost too obvious and too good a metaphor, and it robs his excellent actors of the opportunity to be themselves for more than a few minutes at a time.<br /><br />What does the ending mean? It seems to mean more than anything else that Jia wants to hit us over the head with the idea that his characters have nowhere to go, and it also seemed to me to be somehow a too-late subconscious attempt to steal from the kind of effects we get in Kiselowski's Dekalog. But it only underlines that this is a world seemingly cut off from any moral system.<br /><br />The World meanders too long, given the failure to connect emotionally, but it is nonetheless a powerful, rich, and original work and Jia is unquestionably one of the great ones of his generation working today, and representing as he does literally millions and millions of people in a dynamic enormously changing country, he stands as one of the world (small W)'s most important movie directors. Whether "success" in the form of open film-making and state funding will "destroy" him or water down his raw originality remains an open question. | 0neg
|
When I first heard that Prey was coming out for the PC, I expected it to be another normal and boring PC game. It was when I heard that IGN gave Prey a good review along with various other sites, I decided to try it out. I bought Prey off Ebay for 5.00 pounds and When I played it the first thing I realized was the beautiful and realistic graphics. I eagerly jumped into playing Prey and was completely astounded to what I thought would be a sh*t game. You control a Cherokee Indian whose life is a bummer. His girlfriend thinks that Tommy Dommasi is difficult and he doesn't get along with his grandfather because he doesn't believe all that spiritual and superstitious stuff. The gunplay is excellent and the guns themselves are different because they are alive and very different to earthly guns, mainly because he is aboard a alien spaceship. The gore is overly disgusting and disturbing, all the way through the game you will see blood, guts, and livers. The gore is very important to the game because without it the atmosphere will feel dull and pedantic.<br /><br />After his girlfriend and grandfather get kidnapped by an alien spaceship, Tommy tries to release them from the clutches of evil. As the game progresses onward, you realize it isn't that easy. The ship is controlled by a power hungry leader who steals people from different planets for what they call "Harvesting", meaning to eat. Along the way you earn a power called spirit walking, you leave your body in a state of meditation while you do what you have to do with your spirit, and you shoot with guns that will blow your mind.<br /><br />The worst thing about this game is the easiness of it. It will take you about 5 or 7 hours to finish the game. The portals are so important in this game and Prey was the first game ever to have portals in it. Defying gravity was one of the fun things in this game but it can get weird sometimes because you have to shoot in a way which would make your brain dizzy and fuzzy. Prey is enjoyable and somewhat stupid because when the enemy is about to throw a grenade they call out, "Grenade" and then you can easily avoid it. Prey should be in every gamers collection and have a wonderful time playing. Happy Gaming! | 1pos
|
There is not a crease or seam in Judy Davis's performance in My Brilliant Career. She being one of the greatest of all actresses, or even actors, at the innate endowment of physically, mentally and emotionally residing in a character builds a rivetingly ambitious and combustible character that takes charge of herself and simply does not make a good follower at all and is whirled from early in her life by her independent attributes to have a career in the arts despite society doing all they can to tame her. Her character is so enrooted and actualized that the love story that serves as the flesh of the film between her and the dark and magnetic character of Sam Neill is like a diverging extension of her nature. She only idles away with what she feels could so easily be hers and is driven to single- minded desire of it when it comes to be a challenge. The romantic element of the film, especially in its outcome, fits as a large-scale model of who she is and why she is born to be anything but what her cavalier and domineering family of early twentieth century Australia strives to mold her into.<br /><br />The support of the story, which is Davis's struggle to be independent of society's taming and manipulation is what is ultimately compelling and infuriating, very effectively putting us in her mad, aggressive shoes. The framework involving the attraction between her and Neill is what is ultimately moving and hearty. That is what this film supplies a solvency of, a fiery emotional experience. | 1pos
|
Synopsis: "Na Nan has known best pal Dong Mi and Jung Joon since childhood, and now the trio shares the ups and downs of their turbulent single lives together. But everything turned on end when Dong Mi and Jung Joon end up in bed! Na Nan has a job offer and a marriage proposal from the Charming Soo Heon to consider, and her twenties are fast coming to end. What's the generation of soon-to-getting-older youth to do?" I liked this movie a lot. The plot was light hearted and funny, and characters were well developed and are people you can relate to. Na Nan especially shone light on what it means to be single and fabulous (well, not gracefully). | 1pos
|
Astonoshing acting! Phenomenal directing! and an amazingly well brought out film! Realistic killer ants invade a new york office building, and it's occupants are doomed! Ik you're into horror, many die from the killer attacks of the giant ants, if you're into action watch as the office workers fight off ants and suspend themselves across buildings in order to save their lives. If you're into romance, enjoy the passionate and romantic intimacy shared between the Janitor and an executives assistant. This movie is the full package! I HIGHLY recommend this movie and think that EVERYBODY should see it! 11/10 stars!!!! | 1pos
|
This is a pretty well done piece of English wartime film, made in 1942 and clearly intended to buck up the English as they faced the possibility of a German invasion. In the story, the small village of Bramley End is occupied by German paratroopers, who infiltrate the village disguised as English troops, along with the help of a local "Quisling" named Oliver Wilsford, played by Mervyn Johns. Seen with the benefit of hindsight, the story is rather far-fetched, since there really was no serious threat of a German invasion after 1940, but of course those making the movie (and those watching it) didn't have the benefit of hindsight, and so it has to be seen for what it is: a well done bit of movie-making encouraging the English to fight back in case it did happen.<br /><br />In Bramley End, a pretty good (and ultimately successful) fight was put up once the locals got over their shock, and the fight involved men, women and children; soldiers and civilians alike. The Germans (as expected) are portrayed as ruthless (although, given the context, I thought they might have been portrayed even worse than they were.) Although it clearly was propaganda to an extent, the movie didn't have what I would consider to be a typical "propaganda" feel to it, which I appreciated, and which makes it interesting rather than dated even today. Speaking from a North American perspective, I confess that at times I had a bit of trouble following the accents, but the flow of the story was clear enough in spite of this, and I thought Oliver's ultimate fate at the hands of Nora (Valerie Taylor) represented poetic justice.<br /><br />The movie opens and closes with a narration which is set in the post-war era, and is perhaps the only thing that seems really out of place today, with references to Hitler getting what was coming to him (I don't think he really did) and speaking of the invasion that finally came (which it didn't.) Aside from that, though, I found this movie quite enjoyable. 7/10 | 1pos
|
Others here have expressed that this Indie film was good and I agree. I think it could have been better. I also agree, the educational part was not about Charlie Banks, who seems very passive and self centered with many short rather flippant comments. He really doesn't rise very high on the intellectual ladder. However, I also felt as a privileged kid who had all his little ducks in a row, and egocentric as most of these people are, the film seemed to project a kind of real life situational social drama.<br /><br />What exactly Charlie learned? Well, I was mystified how a moocher could live and walk about an Ivy League campus without some security officer kicking him out. I suppose this does happen where friends allow for social reasons something like these triangles to happen. But, gosh uncle Elmer how did he eat and live in a dorm room that was rented for two legitimate male students.<br /><br />I suppose the moral crisis comes late in the story, and in fact, Charlie and his Mich buddy were not physically matched for fighting. I would have thought Charlie would have attempted to undermine Mich earlier in the film, rather than passively sulking and accepting this man's total illegitimacy as a college student.<br /><br />However all these picky concerns did not over all make me dislike the flick. I have known students like Charlie before and wondered if they actually had any moral compass other than their own egocentric interests in sex and pleasing their parents.<br /><br />I rated it above my standard 5 to a 7. The film is worth a look ! | 1pos
|
After seven years of his wife, Ellen, presumably being lost at sea, Nick Arden marries his latest flame, Bianca. Only to get on his honeymoon to find that Ellen has in fact survived, and spent the seven years on a tropical island with another man called Stephen Burkett.<br /><br />My Favorite Wife is based around the Alfred Tennyson poem entitled "Enoch Arden". Numerous adaptations have been made, but few, if any, are as frothy as this Cary Grant and Irene Dunne starer. Grant and Dunne are re-teamed here after their massive success with the quite marvellous The Awful Truth in 1937, and tho the role of Ellen was touted to Jean Arthur, it was Dunne who grasped the role and created sizzling comedy once again with the fabulous Grant. The Awful Truth director Leo McCarey, was all set to direct this piece but a car accident put paid to that and the reins passed to jobber Garson Kanin, who aided by a firing on all cylinders cast, weaved a splendidly delightful picture.<br /><br />Tho the movie's obvious charm lays with it's two main stars, it would be a big disservice to forget the contributions of Randolph Scott as Stephen Burkett and Gail Patrick as Bianca. Scott's laid back persona is perfect foil to Grant's more batty approach work, while Patrick in the tricky role of the neurotic second wife is fabulous, and it remains a mystery as to why she didn't go on to better and brighter things. Tho the ending is never in doubt, and the last quarter dries up on the gags front, My Favorite Wife still stands the test of time as a screwball picture of note, see it if you get the chance, it should brighten your day. 7.5/10 | 1pos
|
I don't usually like westerns, but I enjoyed this immensely.<br /><br />Twice! <br /><br />I didn't find the music irritating, as some found it. I thought it developed the drama all the more with each drumbeat & rhythm, as if embracing the beat of hooves on the mostly primitive landscapes encountered! I enjoyed the adventure from the comfortable distance of a lounge room setting, far removed from rattle-snakes & even more vicious & treacherous humans, who were shown generosity of spirit & heart, that they attempted to cruelly & aggressively turn on their hosts. <br /><br />Such remains mostly unresolved, but I liked the coolness of the loner, quietly righting wrongs along the way, mostly against the odds, but with effortless precision & skillfulness if not mastery as he goes about his unfolding journey. You can't help but think this guy would have been a hero, probably much unappreciated, in his earlier journeys! Hence, "the black rider"! Probably relentless & skillful & talented beyond what he has cause to display in each interaction! <br /><br />Personally, I was mindful of the concept of 'vengeance is mine says the Lord!' I could well imagine God inspiring such a man in pursuit of love for his beloved, mother or wife or other aspects of love, as variously reflected here in the powerless but generous farmer, & the quiet ways of the returned war hero on a new mission, who seemed to be threatened more than he spoke! But in his own way, he was a VERY believable "007" in a real world setting of immense hardship & injustice we are not much removed from, but we should be grateful much of the world has moved on from much of what is found here! <br /><br />"The Wild West" was not a place we'd want to return to mostly! Yet its somehow all around us in each advertising break & news bulletin & insights into worlds we are free to observe but not interact with or help, secure we think, but always being observed. Even from the comfort of a lounge chair, where the viewer is free to journey into frontier land for a gripping journey like this, mostly of hardship & heartbreak & enduring suffering, but of much merit, courage, relentlessness into bravery & towards justice & love against the odds! <br /><br />And take with you, as with me, the drum & simple rhythmic beat the repetitive music masterfully captured. As a man of good heart marches on to his inner beat of heart & spirit & soul! Whatever those around him make of him & his love & his quietly honoured concept of justice, integrity & love!!! | 1pos
|
Greek pledges find themselves in an abandoned mansion that is rumored to still be occupied by the deformed offspring of the owner. This is a typical 80s slasher where nothing really happens until the final half hour. The most unrealistic part of the movie is when the assumed "Big Man on Campus" is hitting on the campus hottie who is ready to bed him, but then he turns around and says "Who is THAT?" in awe of someone else's beauty. The camera then shoots across the room, focusing on little Linda Blair. I've got to give the filmmakers props for setting up certain scenes with horror movie clichés, only to break them down in really unbelievable ways. | 0neg
|
shame on bashir and shaw for being completely one-sided and prejudicing michael jackson before they ever even started shooting. it's clear they had only one idea; to make jackson look as bad as possible. i felt like i was sort of watching a sun tabloid. bashir is no better than any of the paparazzi's following. but michael wanted to be honest well there you go then.<br /><br />i don't have an opinion about jackson in the issues raised on this document, since i can assure you I DON'T THINK I REALLY KNOW michael jackson after seeing this document. sure he seems strange and guilty of lying at points but no matter how hard you look you can't tell anything for certain about him, can you? please remember that when you start bashing him. meanwhile bashir catches every little mistake or a sign of "notnormaladultbehaviour", that jackson makes. "omfg he went on the stage early. holy **** he's climbing trees!" use your own brain, people and don't let bashir lead you.<br /><br />3/10<br /><br />"Propaganda is ... the deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control, or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of instruments of communication, with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist."<br /><br />oh, and btw ask yourself who is the craziest; weird michael, paranoid bashir, insane crying screaming dancing fans, or me for watching this document in the first place? | 0neg
|
I'm not sure how to describe this very long sci-fi fantasy. It rips off everything: The Mummy, Stargate, a dash of Star Wars, and of course a huge helping of Indiana Jones. It even has a Satanic secret society of super-villains whose whole "raison d'etre" is to take over the world and rule it with the usual iron fist. Casper Van Dein is clearly playing a younger Indiana Jones, complete with a professorship, a brown fedora, and a whip. Although the date of the setting implies he's a younger, alternate Indy in another, more fantastical universe, he doesn't quite cut it. Unfortunately for him, he's not Harrison Ford. He's not even Brendon Frasier, that other Indy-like action hero of archaeology and ancient legends. One cliché after another, not a single original concept. And at the same time, I found myself enjoying it enough to sit through all three hours of it. It is just escapist fantasy, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes a little nonsense doesn't hurt. | 1pos
|
I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy<br /><br />I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy | 0neg
|
Even the Disney animated version isn't as cheesy, lame or frankly ridiculous as this live action remake, based on the Lewis Carroll tale. You know the basic story, Alice (A View to a Kill's Fiona Fullerton) falls asleep, and dreams chasing the White Rabbit (Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em's Michael Crawford) into the bizarre (more son in this version) world of Wonderland, meeting a variety of weird and "wonderful" characters, such as the Dormouse (Dudley Moore), The Caterpillar (Sir Ralph Richardson), Tweedledee (Frank Cox) and Tweedledum (Freddie Cox), the Cheshire Cat (Roy Kinnear), the Mock Turtle (Michael Hordern), the Mad Hatter (Robert Helpmann) and March Hare (Peter Sellers), the Gryphon (Spike Milligan), and Queen (Flora Robson) and King (Dennis Price) of Hearts. I don't know if it is the film itself that is ridiculous, or the fact that so many well known TV and film stars are making complete idiots of themselves, and as for the songs, they don't help, oh, Fullerton talks to herself too much. It won the BAFTAs for Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design, both wrong choices. It was number 63 on The 100 Greatest Family Films. Pretty poor! | 0neg
|
I've seen some bad movies. I've seen some great movies. This movie is neither. It's barely even a movie.<br /><br />Maybe I should explain what I mean: Most films have a general sense of coherence. By that I mean, scene A points to scene B, scene C explains some aspect of scene A, and in one way or another most of the scenes relate to Theme X. In THIS film, however, the whole thing is all over the place. It's more like an algebra problem with seven unresolved variables.<br /><br />The plot revolves around a character with obvious mental issues. I say issues because the whole film does nothing to explain exactly what is wrong with her. It simply goes to great lengths to let you know something is wrong with her head.<br /><br />Apparently the filmmakers felt this gave them license to produce scene after scene of random, unrelated material with twisting camera angles and the characters moving from a somewhat solid, real atmosphere to a whirling dream world where everything spells disaster.<br /><br />This happens for an hour and thirty-five minutes, roughly.<br /><br />I would say it all culminates in a lackluster ending, but "culminate" is too strong a word. Really what happens is some crap happens, some people walk around, and the film reveals what the creators obviously thought to be some brilliant revelation about the main character. Unfortunately, Hitchcock these people are not.<br /><br />I don't mind films that leave some material open to interpretation. What I do mind is a film that ends up being more like a Rorschach test than any kind of intelligent, coherent item of media. <br /><br />Seriously. This sucks. I'm incredibly angry at my waste of money, and I only spent a dollar at Redbox. | 0neg
|
There is something to the marketing of foreign films and the way Hollywood tries its hardest to fool the public into thinking it is an English language movie. By not allowing any characters to speak in the trailers, giving away their secret with subtitles, someone like me, knowing it's foreign, is able to get a glimpse at the style and tone without really learning anything about the plot to ruin my surprise upon sitting in the theatre. This aspect worked perfectly for Guillermo Del Toro's production of El Orfanato. I had very little idea of what I was getting into and this film ended up being the best atmospheric horror I have seen since Alejandro Amenábar's The Others, (I don't count Del Toro's own El Laberinto del fauno because that was more fantasy than anything else). I now ask what it is that all three of these films have in common? With thisJ.A. Bayona's feature debuteach is helmed by a Spanish director. I can't think of a better nation making movies right now; the Spanish are doing everything right and this film just adds to bolstering that argument.<br /><br />Bayona creates a mood and tone that keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats, anticipating the scares that they know will shortly be coming. I was actually surprised how slow the introduction was and how carefully laid out all the story pieces were. We are led into this world, discovering the relationships between our lead roles and the vague past of the orphanage that once housed our heroine and now is about to become her home for special needs children. Like The Others, the spirits involved here are not necessarily violent or demonic. They have an agenda, for sure, but what may at first glance seem malevolent could be nothing of the kind. The orphans now haunting the establishment are only trying to play a game. By taking something you love, a scavenger hunt is begun. Following the clues is the only way the game can end and if successful, the children will grant you one wish. The rules are simple, except the circumstances are far from easily accessible. One must believe that the game can happen before he/she can truly take part. Without the belief that the spirits are in control, success can never be achieved.<br /><br />The cast is led by a remarkable performance from Belén Ruedawho, as it turns out, had a wonderful turn in Amenábar's latest Mar adentro. Her composure and beauty is shattered as she finds her son has been lost. Trying to keep herself together, taking in what the police, her husband, and the mediums enlisted to help on the paranormal aspect tell her, she is given the task to figure out for herself how far she is willing to go to find her son. Always captivating and never out of her element, Rueda carries the story and never looks back. The supporting players around her are all portrayed nicely as well. Fernando Cayo plays the husband watching his wife deteriorate before him while unable to open his mind to the possibility that what she says could be true; Geraldine Chaplin is magnificent as the psychic medium whose trance brings out a puzzle piece necessary to continue the game; and young Roger Príncep plays the child Simón with the right amount of innocence mixed with the knowledge and comprehension of his fate to help keep the bond between he and his mother strong.<br /><br />Bayona never goes for the cheap thrills either as he builds up the tension with sounds and visuals. His use of the closing doors and the moving merry-go-round add a sense of foreboding that ends up being more important than you may initially guess. Stylistically too, the transition between the house's current state of duress with the way it shone by the glow of the adjacent lighthouse from the past is expertly handled. There were numerous instances where the film could have gone off the rails to tragic effect, but he holds it steady throughout. More psychological than visceral, the scares are few, but effective. Even when the grotesque rears its head, it is to enhance the story, not to shock for shock alone. The sound work is utilized to the fullest too. What seems to be jarring and loud for the purpose to scare our lead and us is actually very important to the tale at hand. Nothing is shown or heard here that doesn't have absolute relevance to the film as a whole.<br /><br />The final third of the film comes quick and fully envelopes you into the proceedings. You are right there with Rueda's character as she slowly uncovers the secrets hidden behind the years that have past since she last lived in the orphanage. Whereas a film from Hollywoodof late usually being a remake from a better horror film in Japanwould use this tension in order to hide the flimsy and lackluster conclusion it tacks on so as not to alienate those viewers who enjoy leaving the theatre with a smile, Bayona knows how to effectively end his tale the way it should. I was blown away by the handling of the final scene and the way he used the rules of the game to transition us from one reality to another. It is truly a remarkable feat that hits home hard emotionally, but I will actually say also succeeded in me leaving with a smile on my face. Whether you exit the theatre with your eyes moistened or not, you will not forget the beauty and perfection for which it concludes. The tagline is correct, for while it is a story of horror, it is above all else a tale of love. | 1pos
|
Let me begin this review by saying that Universal's DVD release of this film is beneath contempt. It's exactly the same as the Polygram VHS release from 1993. There are absolutely no extras - none. Not even scene selection or subtitles. The whole film plays in one chunk, and that's it. The picture and sound quality are terrible - one can but wonder how different things might have been if Anchor Bay or Network had got their hands on it. Because this film deserves it. Derek and Clive, the notoriously filthy alter-egos of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, are outrageous enough to give the PC militia nightmares and keep the rest of us rolling on the floor in hysterics for weeks. To give you some idea of what the characters are like, Peter Cook described them as "strongly Tory, probably mechanics. They like a drink, are embarrassed by women and think the world's gone mad. Life ended for them when the Big Bopper died. They hate having to pay taxes when the country's going down the pan." In short, they're a dead-on, mercilessly funny spoof of every drunken pub bigot you've ever met - the boozy know-all who'll talk absolute rubbish on any given subject for at least ten minutes at the slightest provocation. We've all been there. This film, shot on a shoestring (which might explain the poor quality - they should have shot it on film instead) in documentary style by Russell Mulcahy and Nic Knowland (who went on to helm the far less amusing HIGHLANDER and CATS respectively) at the Townhouse Studios in London, captures Cook and Moore in the process of recording the final Derek and Clive album. The language is appalling, the attitudes indefensible, the subject matter spectacularly inappropriate, and the pair of them seem to be having a whale of a time, even when they're at each other's throats (which happens a lot). Cook is on record as saying he found it "therapeutic" to play such a scabrous, belligerent character, whilst Moore responded to the exercise in the spirit of a naughty schoolboy, revelling in the excitement of dirty words and crude humour. It's definitely not for all tastes, but it perfectly captures the spirit of freewheeling anarchy that defines Derek and Clive at their best - one wishes the recording sessions for 'Come Again' (their 1977 album) had been filmed as well, if only to see Moore drunk and hysterical during the infamous 'My Mum Song'.<br /><br />All in all, a slice of pitch-black comedy history that needs a digital overhaul to drag it into the 21st century. Are you listening, Universal? | 1pos
|
I saw the cover. Obviously a cheep movie that is trying to make some money from the popularity of Peter Jackson's King Kong. Anyway - a huge gorilla in the lost world - cool! I knew it was going to be cheep, but I liked the idea. And the rating was still 5,8 so I thought it will be worth watching. I was wrong. Since it is the Lost World I expected some dinosaurs. Nope. Compared to this movie the TV series "The Lost World" look like a Hollywood blockbuster. No dinosaurs. Just a sloppy CGI giant spider, a couple of sloppy CGI giant scorpions, and a sloppy CGI giant gorilla, which you finally see for a couple of seconds at the end of the movie. I love B-movies, but not B-movies that pretend to be A-movies, if you know what I mean. If this movie was done intentionally stupid just for the fun if would be nice. Now it is just boring. And I guess a couple of days ago it had 5,8 rating because all the guys from the ending credits voted here. | 0neg
|
This is one of those movies that keep you watching despite a sloppy screenplay - why, for God's sake, does Korvo (Jose Ferrer) first attempt to gain control of Ann Sutton's (Gener Tierney) mind in the middle of a cocktail party albeit in an empty room into which anyone could have wandered and why, when Tierney discovers the body of Ferrer's ex lover, do two guys turn up from nowhere and call the police. Add to this Richard Conte as arguably the most unconvincing psychiatrist in screen history and we begin to see the size of the problem. Nevertheless Tierney keeps us watching as Ferrer is effective as the quack Korvo. | 0neg
|
This was one of my favorite war movies whenever it came on TV as I was growing up. One of the few Korean War films it's based on the true story of the fight for marginally strategic piece of land on the eve of the armistice that halted the conflicts combat. Realistic battlefield environment but in 1950's film style without graphic simulation. Gregory Peck is the commander of a company of 135 men who knowing that peace talks are being held and the fighting will soon be halted must still take charge of his command and follow his orders to take Pork Chop Hill. It shows the futility of war and how ground combat will become obsolete. Of course ground combat never did become obsolete. In the cast are Harry Guardino, Rip torn, George Peppard, Norman Fell, Martin Landau, Harry Dean Stanton, Robert Blake, George Shibata and Woody Strode. Director Lewis Milestone made a career in war movies directing World War I films Two Arabian Knights and All Quiet on the Western Front for both he won Academy Awards and World War II films Those Who Dare, Halls of Montezuma, Arch of Triumph, A Walk in the Sun, The Purple Heart, The North Star and Edge of Darkness. Cinematographer Sam Leavitt photographs a dark and gritty look at war filmed in black and white. It's reputed that Milestone was unsatisfied with the creative control he was given with picture and the final cut was not what he intended. As Executive Producer Gregory Peck is said to have had the original 20 minutes of the film cut from the theatrical final version because he wasn't in it and felt too much time would be spent before the star of the film makes his on first screen appearance. The film envisioned by Milestone was also not to end with a voice-over saying how important the battle really was. This is a good movie and I would give it an 8.5 out of 10. | 1pos
|
With two classic westerns under his belt (Ride the High Country and The Wild Bunch)and a reputation for being a rebellious non-conformist you would think Sam Peckinpah the ideal person to relate the story of the teen prodigy outlaw, Billy the Kid. You would be wrong. From start to finish this western is an aimless mess. Scenes are poorly paced and disjointed. It looks like it was edited on a beach. <br /><br />Kris Kristofferson is clearly too old and limited for Billy. As Garrett, James Coburn fares much better with a stylish and graceful performance that exudes a cool confidence despite being in conflict with himself. Bob Dylan supplies some fine music but his performance is an embarrassment. In minor rolls some of the great old guard (Slim Pickens, Katy Jurado, Chill Wills, Jack Elam, R G Armstrong) steal every scene they are in. <br /><br />There's the requisite slow mo blood spattering scenes of violence and in one scene Chickens replace scorpions (without the symbolism) in a gruesome moment of male bonding but Peckinpah for the most part allows Dylan's score to set the pace in scenes, rendering them sluggish and mawkish. <br /><br />At this point in his career it was clear Peckinpah had nothing left. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is a testament to how far and fast he had fallen. | 0neg
|
Boy, I thought seeing W.C. Fields and Mae West in the same movie would really be something! However, the only thing it turned out to be was just plain annoying. I could barely get past the first 15 minutes. <br /><br />West's "routine" gets tiresome in a hurry. All she does, scene after scene, is roll up her eyes and say something she thinks is clever and-or funny. Since she co-wrote the script with Fields, I'm sure she thought those lines were good, but I heard nothing humorous in them. The soft lens on her on every time is pretty obvious, too. What were they trying to cover up? <br /><br />Her reputation is far better than her performance.<br /><br />As for Fields, he was better off in his own films where he could ham it up on his own. He had a few amusing bits, but nothing memorable. | 0neg
|
Great. Another "wunnerful" Canadian film for the cognescenti and literati to gush and chortle over as they sip their Perriers and double lattes at the latest trendy film festival. Dahling... Didn't you think the message was so, well, messagy. It's too long. What could have been done in two hours mushes and slushes on for almost three. I still don't know what it was all about despite the "helpful" explanatory subtitles on the DVD. And although creative lens flare can be a useful technique, there is so much of it here that it looks like simply slovenly photography. But weren't we daring with that full frontally nude chase across the ice for ten minutes or so. I was impressed that neither the poor actor nor his willie didn't freeze solid! As a dutiful Canadian, I forced myself to watch this eternity of people humping and hunting each other across the ice. But I hated it. Hate! Hate! Hate! Why do we insist on making movies in this country? We're much better at wine and whiskey. And if you can't be dissuaded from enduring this frozen turkey, I suggest you keep an ample supply of both on hand for your three hour ordeal.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I have a confession to make: I hate "evil twin" stories. There have been, to date, 750,899 versions of the "sinister sibling" on American television alone. Add in the innumerable feature films that feature "terrible twosomes" and we're talking 4.5 million times that this hackneyed approach has been used. Even George Romero, an otherwise mostly original filmmaker, used the doppelganger (in his version of THE DARK HALF, Stephen King's hackneyed retelling of The Evil (br)Other story). Enough, already. Anybody who thinks this is anywhere near Tsukamoto's best simply hasn't got a clue. It's better than A SNAKE OF JUNE, but that's not saying a whole lot. How does it stack up against his earlier films? It don't. Period. | 0neg
|
Let me begin by saying that I enjoyed this movie. It was a light way (despite a few dark moments) to spend a couple of hours, but I wouldn't nominate it for any Oscars, nor would I compare it to the works of Shakespeare as a previous reviewer has.<br /><br />If you wanted to, you could speak as highly of any film. All this would accomplish is to dilute the praise deserving of the real greats (if you're thinking "Armageddon", stop reading NOW!)<br /><br />Let's call "Best Men" what it really is, a fun little flic. There's some gunplay, a car chase, a guy who gets the girl, a moment of revelation for a would-be lost friend, and a good helping of comic relief, with an ending reminiscent of Richard Gere in "Breathless". I enjoyed it, but just because a character is endearingly nicknamed "Hamlet", and there's a few (well acted) verses recited, "Best Men" is no Shakespearean work.<br /><br />Let's call a spade a spade but reserve the real praise for the likes of Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, or even Titanic. | 1pos
|
I first saw Quincy just under ten years ago when they showed it on BBC1 in the afternoons. My first memory was of the cops fainting when Quincy shows them the autopsy in the credits. To be honest my favourite character altered between Sam and Astin but I like the cast as a whole, the Danny-Quincy banter (always trying to get that recipe) that dynamic storyline and what have you. I always enjoyed how Quince solved complex cases, although he dealt with the dead it was similar to House or CSI probably more CSI. One episode springs to mind when they search for a boy who's been hidden underground in the desert, they search everywhere and it's by finding a rare flower that starts them off and finding the boy. Quincy dealt with issues as relevant today as they were in the 70's and 80's. Our treatment of people of different race, sex and religion. Quincy was someone who genuinely cared and played excellently by Jack Klugman. <br /><br />Of course, let's not forget that 'funky' soundtrack! | 1pos
|
I only grabbed this one because Christina Lindberg (of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE and SEX AND FURY fame) is in it, and I've got a serious hard-on for that chick. Unfortunately...she's not in it for long, and you only see her tits once, so what you're left with is a boring and un-erotic sleaze film.<br /><br />Swedish WILDCATS is about a bunch of sluts that work in a brothel. They do some un-sexy dances for their male patrons, and afterwards they do what hookers are best known for. Somewhere in this boring mess is a "love story" between one of the ho's and some guy she met at the park. Throw in a scumbag that the guy from the park works with who has seen the chick at the brothel and wants to ruin their relationship - and there ya have it...<br /><br />Like another reviewer mentioned - Swedish WILDCATS is pretty much an over-glorified chick-flick with a few tits and asses thrown in for good measure. There are definitely some smokin' chicks in this one, but the sex scenes are dull and un-sexy. The under-use of the ravishing Christina Lindberg is absolutely criminal - and everyone involved in this production should be shot for this unforgivable oversight. Don't bother unless you like dull romance films with a little bit (but not nearly enough) sleaze thrown in... | 0neg
|
This is not just any King Kong rip-off... this is a King Kong rip-off from the legendary Shaw Bros! Filmed in Shaw Scope! Shady Chinese guys try to find a giant ape in India. The "exploration" is wonderfully ridiculous. Then, just when you and your friends think you can't possibly laugh any more, amidst all the Chinese actors appears a beautiful blonde westerner! Raised in the jungle, she swings through the trees like Tarzan with a crazy scream. Her top is glued on... barely.<br /><br />Lots of bad, generic 70's music accompany all of this.<br /><br />When she shimmies up a tree, legs akimbo, the hapless Chinese explorer guy gets quite an eyeful.<br /><br />She can control all the jungle animals. The tigers, cheetahs and elephants all love to frolic with her. Except the snakes. One nasty snake bites her high on the inner thigh. Pretty close to the danger zone. What's the hapless Chinese explorer to do while she writhes in pain? Why stick his face down between her legs and suck the poison out, of course! The miniature sets are fantastically cheap. Not one of them would have qualified for a Godzilla movie. They don't help matters by offering lots of close-ups of the miniature trees and fake streams. You keep expecting a Lionel train to whistle by.<br /><br />Samantha (the girl) doesn't command much of any language, preferring grunts. She is so grateful to the hapless Chinese explorer that they make love in her cave. Cue more 70's music.<br /><br />Oh, and Samantha, raised in this harsh jungle since a child, wears a lot of make-up.<br /><br />The Peking Man changes size a bit, depending on the sets. He seems to range from 20 to 100 feet tall.<br /><br />If you enjoy campy trash, this is a must see! Our group has watched a lot of bad movies together but very few have given us as much joy as Mighty Peking Man. | 1pos
|
There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.<br /><br />The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.<br /><br />The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.<br /><br />Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.<br /><br />Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.<br /><br />None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses. | 0neg
|
there isn't much to say about ncis except that it is a perfect piece of crap, one of the worst shows i've ever seen in my whole life.. starting from the horrible soundtrack that gets on my nerves every time they play it.. i think the composer should get the prize of the best "torture masterpiece" on TV.. the characters are really dull, starting from the arrogant, antipathetic Mr knowitall Jethro Gibbs, to the dull sheepish McGee, the stupid, antipathetic DiNozzo, the freak Abby by the way there's always some freakish nerds in such shows who behind her weird looks hides exceptional genius and wit.. so classic! and so boring! the plot is far too simple almost childish, no suspense no real action, and full of clichés.. the principle character doesn't really do a damn thing, with a sick sense of humor, he just goes insulting people here and there showing what the show creators think is an exceptional power of character - the guy fears no one and behaves as if he were president of the United States (he perfectly fits in a context where Dubya is twice elected for president)and then all of a sudden, he miraculously finds the solution to the case!!! no effort, no logical proceeding, just like that! I have serious doubts about the taste of those who highly rated this show!!! | 0neg
|
With all due respect for Mr. Leary's capabilities as a comedian, this movie illustrates quite vividly that he is not an actor Hollywood has too much respect for. This movie is really, really stupid, and even Leary himself has admitted to being embarrassed about it. Bullock is on autopilot and all other characters are blatantly uninteresting. Only worth 3 points due to Leary's fishing-scene, that allows him to do what he is best at, comedy, and a rare performance by Yaphet Kotto. If you have no idea who Leary or Kotto is and thought "since Bullock is in it, it must be OK", you would be TERRIBLY wrong!!! | 0neg
|
THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Jimmy Sangster's feeble hybrid is a misguided attempt to fulfil two ambitions: First to remake THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) - the film which launched Hammer Studios to worldwide fame - with half the budget and twice the irony; and second, to promote Ralph Bates as their new 'youth-oriented' star. The film fails on both counts because of the cheapjack production values and the general air of mockery, and because Bates plays the Baron as an arrogant, dissolute youth with few redeeming features, completely lacking the ice-cold authority of Peter Cushing in his prime. Hammer could never appeal to the 'youth' market without falling flat on its face, and this one is no exception. Here, the Baron works his way through a threadbare cast-list, seeking spare parts to build a monster that ends up looking like a pro-wrestler! Naturally, the brain is damaged before he manages to sew it into the creature's cranium, providing an excuse for some lacklustre mayhem once the monster is up and running. <br /><br />There are minor virtues: Dennis Price enjoys himself as a graverobber who goes about his business with an unseemly glee, and the wonderful Kate O'Mara is upstaged by her own cleavage, but horror fans won't be amused by the film's rambling plot and half-hearted attempts at humor. Thankfully, the series bowed out in style three years later when Peter Cushing re-teamed with director Terence Fisher for the dignified swan song FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (1973). | 0neg
|
I wish the complete series would come out in Season boxes. I used to sit at home in my room every Sunday evening just before 7. Needing to watch this show. The UST between Kate and Geoff was mainly what kept me going, they are one of the best matched TV-couples I have ever seen. I liked the show less at the end when all the focus turned on 'what was happening in Coopers Crossing' in stead of the 'accident of the week'. Other than that I liked the series from start to end and whenever possible I watch every re-run there is on any channel I can get it... I think it's called an addiction :) I just bought the DVD with 8 episodes (the episodes around Geoff and Kate's wedding and of course the wedding itself) I can't get enough, I hope they bring out more episodes... PLEASE CRAWFORD PRODUCTIONS.... | 1pos
|
Between this CBS Made-for-TV movie and the similarly titled SciFi Original "Locusts: the 8th Plague," 2005 was one whopper of a year for killer locusts. It's bad enough we have our hands full in the Middle East, but now the U.S. Department of Agriculture has its hands full with locusts. Surprisingly, the CBS movie had much better special effects. But otherwise "The 8th Plague" was a better, if predictable, movie. The problem with "Locusts" is that it's not really a horror movie. It's almost like the producers said, "Let's figure out what would happen if we had to deal with a swarm of locusts and film it documentary-style." I expect blood and guts when I watch these movies, which there is very little of here. To be honest, this movie is probably a little better than the 1 I gave it -- at least the lady who plays Xena the Warrior Princess was good in this movie. And "The 8th Plague" is probably a little worse than the 4 I gave that movie. But it's the principle that matters. Maybe the CBS locusts and the SciFi locusts can get together in a future movie and have a throw-down brawl, a la Freddy vs. Jason, and we can really figure out who's badder. | 0neg
|
The original BASKET CASE is one of my all-time favorite B-movies, and has been ever since I first saw it as a kid on cable over 20 years ago. It's grimy, low-budget style, the completely off-the-wall storyline, the cheezy but effective splatter FX- everything about the original screams underground classic. And luckily director Frank Henenlotter proved to not just be a one-trick-pony, by proving he had the skills to be a truly noteworthy cult-horror director-with other classics like BRAIN DAMAGE and FRANKENHOOKER. But unfortunately, the beloved Mr. H had to go and f!ck up his streak with retarded nonsense like the BASKET CASE sequels. I hadn't seen either of the sequels in many years- and I recall not liking either of them-but I had this one laying around and figured I'd give it another chance to see if my opinion had changed over the years. No such luck. <br /><br />In this third and (thank Christ) final installment in the trilogy-the action picks up directly after the events of the equally stupid second film-with Duane spending some time in a rubber-room after trying to sew him and his deformed Siamese twin brother Belial back together. The brothers are re- disconnected during Duane's incarceration-and he is eventually released. Granny Ruth (from part 2) takes Duane to a friend's house with the rest of the freak-show brood to await the birth of the spawn resulting from the union of Belial and his girlfriend Eve. When a duo of bumbling cops kill Belial's girlfriend and kidnap his 'kids'-he doesn't take it too kindly, and exacts some splattery revenge... <br /><br />Granted-there are a (very) few scenes in this entry that are mildly amusing-but not enough to call BASKET CASE 3 enjoyable on any level. Honestly-I found both sequels to be retarded, un-funny, and frankly, unnecessary. When the series moved into straight slap-stick territory-I completely lost interest. I still respect Henenlotter a great deal for his early contributions to the B-movie horror world-but both of these sequels just straight-up suck in my book...3/10 | 0neg
|
**Possible Spoilers** Requiem is probably my personal favorite season finale. Unsure if the production would continue for more seasons, this finale was written in such a way that it could act as the series finale. Facing financial cuts of the department, Mulder and Scully are obligated to go back to square one 7 years from the beginning of the X-Files, to Oregon. Running into familiar faces strange things pick up with a double twist in both their parts. The last 5 minutes are worth the entire list price for the season set. Mark Snow's score for this stands out beautifully and Scully's last words are also worth the time (and money) spent watching every episode from the season one to this instant from start to finish. | 1pos
|
i first saw this movie in the mid 80's as referred by a co worker, and i scoured the TV listings for about a year until i found it, was not available locally on /through video, i thought this movie was fantastic, remember the time frame when it was made. the story contains truth through mostly folklore, as to the speech and language abilities of the actors of the day. even the comedic twists throughout the story, are never seen in todays productions,the production values for the era should be considered in video and cinematography class, again just a classic especially that it's in black and white.i wonder why the American film institute doesn't research these older films and have tribute during awards night, pick them via month of production or anniversary release dates. as a matter of fact i think i'll watch it today. | 1pos
|
I had some issues with what I felt were this movie's attempts at achieving emotional extremes through completely unrealistic portrayals of high school students, but overall I felt that the movie's many engaging elements outweigh those negatives. There were also some questionable elements which I think are positive but can't really decide. I'll start with the positive.<br /><br />The film generally employs a hand-held style of cinematography, which I think was a good idea; however, if you are watching it online as I was, this can blend with occasional choppiness to make it look like your whole computer screen is jerking back and forth. You can do hand-held without going the full Blair Witch!<br /><br />Danielle Panabaker, who plays the lead character Jacey, is exceptional. She really gets into the character, and her performance is compelling throughout. I like the way that Jacey wears glasses at home and contacts when going out -- I don't think I've seen a movie take that much attention to detail. And I don't think I've ever seen actors in her age range sell sex as well as she does in Jacey's brief romantic encounter with Brad. Also, I liked the scene in which she just kind of confusedly visits her teacher. We've all had days like that, where we wind up at the house of a trusted acquaintance, don't really know what we're doing there, and maybe wind up falling asleep on their couch. Clearly a lot of thought went into this screenplay.<br /><br />The film employs kind of a gradual-reveal style of exposition, in which we don't definitively learn that Charley is Jacey's baby until about a quarter of the way in. It was perhaps hinted at, but it came across as a genuine surprise--somewhat rare today in movies--that we start 5 months into the baby's life.<br /><br />The slow reveal also applies to the introduction of Brad to the film, which occurs maybe halfway through. What I found interesting was that the film had, up until this point, portrayed Jacey as intelligent and mature for her age. She hadn't really done anything to bother the viewer. But from Brad, we learn that she 1) hadn't spoken to him in several months, 2) nor had she told him about her pregnancy. It serves as a reminder that Jacey, though precocious, is only 16 and capable of erring.<br /><br />The idea of Jayce's atypical loss of infallibility is emphasized too in the story, by Macey. Moving now into semi-negative territory, I found Macey's going-wild subplot to be more than a little strange, but I guess that the purpose was to show the influence that Jayce's irresponsible behavior had on her younger sister. Anyone with younger siblings may appreciate that subplot, even if its depiction was a little over-the- top.<br /><br />It was refreshing to see Jane Krakowski in a role outside of 30 Rock. I generally liked her performance, except for her outburst in the first scene at her home, which seemed so overly dramatic that I could easily imagine it being a 30 Rock soap parody with Jenna Maroney cast as a character.<br /><br />But then there was the high school. Now, things got off to a good start, and I do have to give the movie credit for showing rather than telling: as Jayce first walks the halls of her new school, the camera pans to show the very revealing clothing worn by many girls. After this, however, they dispensed with realism and went a very generically unrealistic route. You can't walk into the restrooms at this school without seeing people either smoking or having sex, making no effort to conceal either act. A dress code is often mentioned but never adhered to. In real life, a dress code violation means that you get into trouble; repeated violations lead to serious disciplinary action. Finger-length shorts, for example, isn't just a recommended guideline: it's a rule, the breaking of which can result in being kicked out of school. For this reason, students generally avoid breaking dress code; when occasional violations occur, they try to be inconspicuous about it, so as to avoid getting in trouble. Paradoxically, it seemed as if the screenwriters could accurately write individual high schoolers (Jacey) but not groups of high schoolers. (A standing ovation? Really??)<br /><br />Most egregiously unrealistic, there was the the student body's reaction to news that Jayce is a teenage mother. At first, I thought that I was watching either a dream sequence or a Jayce's exaggerated internal paranoia, where everyone was conspicuously and audibly talking about her and, later, THROWING FOOD AT HER. Where did that come from? At what high school do kids start throwing food at someone just because she is a teenage mother? Answer: none. Even less believable considering that Jayce is beautiful and intelligent. I would think that her main problem would be receiving too much positive attention, being courted by lots of guys and worked into women's cliques and power struggles, a la Twilight or Mean Girls. Juno was a bit similar in this regard, as we had to believe that someone as smart, funny, and hot as Ellen Page's character would have only one close friend. Anyway, this was one extreme that I felt was contrived. but like I said, overall a great movie. 8/10 on a general scale, but 9.5/10 as far as made-for-TV movies go. | 1pos
|
As far as cartoons go, Scooby Doo is one of the weaker, sillier offerings, so why anyone thought they could make a 2 hour movie out of it is beyond me. What material did they think they were working with?<br /><br />Anyway, I would never have watched this movie in my wildest dreams, (even with Rowan Atkinson in it!) but my 5 year old son got the DVD. The script is stupid, the acting from Sarah-Michelle Gellar and Freddy Prinze Jr insultingly lackluster and the sexual innuendo ever-present and offensive. For example, at one stage, Daphne (Gellar) makes it safely through a dangerous tunnel and starts half-moaning 'Oh yeah! Oh yeah!' If you closed your eyes you could be listening to 'Debbie Does Dallas'! I'm not the sort of puritanical parent that flips out if my kid accidentally sees someone's bum on screen or something, but one thing I am getting sick of is Hollywood making kids cartoons into teen/adult soft porn. Kids go to these movies expecting to see a big screen version of the cartoons they like and instead are presented with sticky adult material. My guess is that the producers know there isn't much genuine material to work with, so they just go for the sex card. This may work for the 18 year old guys, but as the parent of a small child it is incredibly annoying.<br /><br />Overall, the movie was shocking! Badly directed, horrendously scripted and nothing but a vehicle for Gellar and Prinze Junior's US teen appeal. When Sarah-Michelle Gellar came to Australia's Gold Coast to make this movie she complained about the food in the area. Well Sarah-Michelle, I've eaten Gold Coast food and seen your movie, and I know which one I prefer to do!!<br /><br />Forget this film if you care about not offending yourself!!<br /><br />I rate it 0/10! | 0neg
|
After her promising debut, Love and other Catastrophes, made on a shoestring budget and employing mostly ex-Aussie soap stars, Emma Kate Groghan misfired with this Friends-style "comedy" - if you can call it that. While her debut embodied verve and a vitality borne of its low-budget, Strange Planet has the opposite effect, mainly because of its bigger budget. With more money, the sets and photography are better but the acting and story are substandard Home and Away fare with a touch of melancholic romanticism thrown in to evoke quasi-seriousness. The acting is okay at times but most of the actors can't really summon enough gusto to deal with the cliché-ridden script. The film is only really notable for the inclusion of Naomi Watts who coincidentally made the pilot for Mulholland Drive the same year. Visually, the film resembles an ecstasy-induced advert with bright tones and little else. One to avoid. | 0neg
|
In the opening of the film there is a scene of a modern steam-powered freight train leaving Calgary, and there the accuracy comes to an end. This film is supposed to be based on the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but it's pure Hollywood hokum. Nobody did their homework. There is the usual shoot-outs, gun battles, renegade Indians, "bad guys," sabotage, and the "romantic angle." None of these things happened during the building of the Canadian Pacific; the ever-present Mounties saw to it. In defense of the film it is a typical out-of-the-file story. Not good, but not that bad either. Randolph Scott is good (Randolph Scott was always good!) If you're looking for a Saturday-afternoon-matinée Western, this one will do. If you're looking for an accurate story of the building of the Canadian Pacific, forget it. | 0neg
|
Heart of Midnight is a very strange movie, and I mean that in a good way. Broadly speaking I guess it falls within the horror genre, but it draws upon elements from many different subgenres and works on many levels. You can take it as a haunted-house movie, a ghost story, a psychological thriller and a character study rolled into one.<br /><br />Jennifer Jason Leigh gives a superb performance as Carol Rivers, a fragile and sensitive young woman recovering from a nervous breakdown. When her estranged uncle dies of AIDS, she mysteriously inherits his deserted nightclub and, upon moving in, discovers its seedy past as a "massage parlour". From here on in, the story gets darker and more twisted, but suffice it to say that it contains many of the ingredients of full-bore horror: moaning voices in the night, taps dripping blood, secret passageways, beheaded rats, apples that ooze maggots and so on. For much of the film, we're kept in the dark as to whether Carol is privy to hallucinations and sinking into another nervous breakdown, or whether there is actually a dark force living in the empty nightclub with her.<br /><br />Heart of Midnight is not a perfect film. There are some plot loopholes and the usual budget limitations of a B movie, including a pesky boom mic that dips into the frame a few times. But it makes up for its flaws with a strong visual style and a convincingly claustrophobic atmosphere so thick you could cut it with a knife. Along the way there are several recognizable nods to films like Peeping Tom, Suspiria, The Shining and two Roman Polanski classics - Repulsion and The Tenant.<br /><br />Jennifer Jason Leigh really gives it her all in the lead role as Carol. She is an exceptionally talented and striking actress, and Heart of Midnight provides the then 25-year-old with a strong early showcase for her talent. Her portrayal of the frail but determined Carol is passionate, believable and always sympathetic. She's a horror-movie heroine of unusual strength and intelligence, which means we really root for her during this often harrowing nightmare. Peter Coyote, Frank Stallone and Brenda Vaccaro all lend decent support, but it's Leigh who makes this dark journey worth taking. | 1pos
|
Having some Mexican-Indian blood in me, I've always been interested in what I could read about the Aztecs and Mayans and others. But never did I achieve as elaborate a vision in my head, try as I might, as Mel Gibson has with the beautiful Apocalypto. Is it accurate? I've more than just strong doubts in at least one case, but like all good fiction, it probably tells more truth, despite its inaccuracies, than a dozen scholarly tomes. The movie is engrossing and, even more difficult, plausible and quite evocative. I would have bet any amount of money that this movie was impossible to make. And though some have complained that the film's ending involves an historical inaccuracy, I think there was more than enough reason to put it in.<br /><br />There's a strong story that reminded me of other Third World folklore I've read, only better. In a lot of ways these people could have been North American Indians, but somehow that's not much of a criticism. And Gibson's recent PR problems only highlighted, for me, how it took an Australian-reared actor to make an exciting film about natives before Columbus. Clearly Hollywood is incapable of even conceiving of such a movie, much less bringing it brilliantly to life. Hollywood has an agenda and very narrow perspectives. It's agenda has no room for illuminating the humanity of non-Westerners, and there's too much relying on the same old set of sensibilities and intuition. I think if Hollywood is up in arms it ought to be because Gibson is making them look inept.<br /><br />But as to this particular subject matter, there's no doubt in my mind that what fascinates most Anglos about the Aztecs and the Maya is the idea of human sacrifice. Gibson depicts the ritual as having an element of frenzy to it, and he may be right, but what is more convincing to me, at least, is his idea of what a village raid must have been like. His point by point reconstruction is pretty compelling, and I'm quite sure he could make some early American military raids on Indian villages so vivid and unforgettable that grown men would cry. I only hope he does, but as to this film, I would have depicted the human sacrifice with a nod toward a notion most Anglos find completely foreign, namely that these people understood that gain often entails pain, and they were willing to pay the price. Was it really so unreasonable that these people thought God might want them to create pain, and not just endure it, to gain His favor given that life entails so much struggle anyway? That willingness to endure pain clearly survives today, not the desire to create it in others, and that's the only point I would have added to this wonderful film. | 1pos
|
Great performances by Madeline Kahn and Edie Falco, as well as the rest of the cast push this fine independent movie. The story revolves around one day on Long Island in the lives of a half dozen or so people, connected by various relationships (family, school, work). From the depressed would-be filmmaker to the talentless, but ever hopeful, aspiring actress the movie finds a way to take you deep inside the characters without really letting you know much about their lives beyond this single day. The eclipse at the heart of the story allows for some great lighting effects on the black & white film. | 1pos
|
Poor Guy Ritchie wannabe tells the thin story of gambling addict Laura (Hjejle, in an annoying one-note performance) hooking up with hard-nosed debt collector Claus (Bodnia, a bit more softhearted than usual, but on autopilot most of the time - he should definitely resume working with better directors). Spang Olsen's direction is less incompetent than usual, but with the emphasis less on action this time, the film also suffers from many dull stretches. Nikolaj Peyk's supposedly "authentic" dialog is simply not funny. A bunch of good actors are wasted in bit parts (Erik Clausen in particular) and a highly inappropriate soundtrack, as another user mentioned, make for an unimpressive movie. | 0neg
|
Two female high school grads plan to get jobs and hang together, but bonds become frayed and paths separate after one of the girls ends up on an unintended journey of self-discovery. From the comic-book which takes a perverse delight in celebrating the geeky side of all of us, "Ghost World" is profane and cynical, but also surprisingly blithe and bright. I rather enjoyed it but realize it's not for every taste. Thora Birch and Scarlett Johansson are incredibly rich and vivid in their roles (low-keyed, deadpan, but not blanks); their love-hate friendship is convincing and blessedly free of melodramatics--even they seem to cherish the personality conflicts that come up, it may give them more ammunition. As for the ending, I'm not sure if it's ingenious or a cop-out, but it did leave me touched (in a bemused, nostalgic way). It's a movie with much to offer. ***1/2 from **** | 1pos
|
My view on it might be a little basis for the simple fact that I live in rural Wisconsin, about 15 minutes outside Walworth county.<br /><br />First I was actually offended that they're showing the town it took place in as wide spot in the road where all the woman have to do is whore themselves out, the men beat the women and work of cars, that is when they're not at the bar. The writer/director said in the featurette that he was making it as white trashy as he possibly could. I understand the making of another world to create this film but it had such a bad ring to it.<br /><br />The movie starts out strong but the pacing for the rest of the film wasn't great. The blatant stupidity of the police with blood evidence and dismissing getting a DNA test was frustrating and wholly unrealistic. The gore was good for the most part, even if a little over done. Some of the lead performances where great but the supporting roles really fell apart. The costume wasn't fantastic but was used effectively.<br /><br />Over all it wasn't great, I feel like I wasted some time and money. If you're really into werewolf films, I'd recommend it. If you're looking for a scary film, try something else. | 0neg
|
I can't say enough bad about this joke of a film. It has taken stereotypes to extremes.<br /><br />The writer obviously knew nothing about what the War of the States was about, taking only the false premise that it was all about slavery (and nothing else) and expanded on that as the main story line.<br /><br />The CSA seceded from the USA, not invaded it. The Constitution of the Confederate States also outlawed slavery. Something this film missed entirely. Just to name a couple of inaccuracies.<br /><br />This actually could have been a fun endeavor had they had not been so biased in their views of what it might have been like. This is worse than a Saturday night live script. And the fake commercials have imaginary products that are so revolting I could upchuck. The entire film in centered on what slavery would be like today in the writer's eyes.<br /><br />Don't waste your time as even the attempt at humour is sickening. | 0neg
|
The thing that struck me most about this program is that meerkats are more interesting than any Big Brother series. It has a distinct Big Brother style situation with cameras situated around a family of meerkats and it follows their everyday movements. The group is dominated by 'Flower'. The voice-over is totally hilarious as well for example; "Flower has been the only female in the family allowed to have babies, a) because she loves being the centre of attention, and b) because she's a psychopath" The program is what show like Big Brother and Celebrity Love Island want to be. The show is just a great piece of television, whether its the members of the family sneaking of to a different clan to have a quick nookie or to the young-ones fighting off elders for bits of scorpion!. | 1pos
|
You see the names: Robin Williams, Peter O'Toole, Eugene Levy, Rick Moranis. Wonderful actors, and very funny. You naturally assume that you will be spending most of your time rolling on the floor in uncontrollable laughter. Then you make one serious mistake. You decide to actually watch "Club Paradise."<br /><br />This movie is dreadful. It isn't funny; it isn't even close to being funny. You do not laugh. Instead, you struggle - and often fail - to stay awake during this interminable piece of rubbish. I won't even get into talking about the plot, such as it is, except to say that it matches everything else about this movie: it's dreadful.<br /><br />1/10 | 0neg
|
** HERE BE SPOILERS ** <br /><br />Blair (Prinze Jr) and Marshall (Lillard) are fighter pilots transferred to the Tiger Claw aboard the freighter Diligent, captained by Taggart (Karyo). They are given crucial information and orders that must reach the Tiger Claw quickly. The Kilrathi has captured a Navcom AI, and can now "jump" to the Sol-system and threaten Earth itself. And the human fleet is not in position to defend it. The Tiger Claw must find out what the Kilrathi plans are and delay them before they can jump into the Sol-system. Marshall and Blair, and their squadron of fighters led by Devereaux (Burrows), are central in the Tiger Claw's operations, but they are out-gunned and outnumbered by Kilrathi forces. Some non-conventional methods and tactics must be used and Blairs heritage may be a crucial part of them.<br /><br />A good sci-fi action with a nice sense in their battles. The myth of the story is nicely involved in the plot and the special effects are mostly good. However, there are a lot of plot holes and/or goofs (many concerning gravity or what should be the absence of gravity). The actors and actresses are good but not stellar, but Karyo however is very good as Taggart. Unfortunately, one must try to ignore all the goofs to enjoy this movie, and it is not all that easy, because there are so many of them. But in my opinion, it was very enjoyable.<br /><br />7/10 | 1pos
|
I came across this one by accident at the drug store for $1, and what a bargain! 1940's style animation - (think Casper the Friendly Ghost), with a few entertaining musical numbers. I think it's Bing Crosby doing Gulliver's voice, but didn't see his name on the credits. Some funny Lilliputians, including the King, really make this one fun to watch for the whole family. There are sword fights, and I was really intrigued by the animation for sea washing up on the beach at night. Gulliver is very life-like, replete with the shadows on his features to capture the "lighting" of the scene, which I found very striking for the time. Also, I think it's actually released in 1940, according to the credits. | 1pos
|
Come on!! For god's sake! IF you cant think of an original idea, atleast make a decent remake!<br /><br />Only good(being overly generous) thing in this movie is Ajay Devgan. Rest of the cast is idiotic. So is the action. It seems like Ajay Devgan gets a rocket up his butt whenever a bomb explodes nearby!<br /><br />my rating 3/10. Why three 4 for Devgan's acting + 2 for Neha Dhupia's body + 1 riya sen's exposure + 2 overall things - 6 for Sanjay Kapoor and Arbaaz khan<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
The Missionary is a film that tries to be far to clever for it's own good. It attemps to be funny but very rarely achieves it's aim. There are moments that you can see are Pythonesque , and that is more down to the fact that Michael Palin stars rather than the script but over all this film is just...well..Dull. It looks very dated ( even though it is set at the turn of the century ) it looks like it was filmed in the sixties instead of 1982. The story is un-inspiring and ends as it began, with a wimper. Even if you are a Palin or Python fan i suggest you give this a wide birth. I just dont have to much to say about this because it left me bored. 3 out of 10 | 0neg
|
I can't believe Maury has been on since 1991. The show started off like serious topics and guests like Jerry Springer had started off with before. Now, with Jerry having fights, chairs thrown and Steve and his security team, Maury is now the King of Trash. He has these dumb lie detector tests,paternity tests, cheating men and women and 12,13,and 14 year old want to have sex and get pregnant. I am so sick and tired of some of these trashy shows on television. Montel has Sylvia, Oprah has Dr. Oz and best friend Gayle, Tyra has Janice, Jerry has his Steve and what does Maury have, D. West. This show is a filthy piece of crap, women running away crying like babies and all these men running all over the stage celebrating that they are not the father of their child. Take this show off the air, please.<br /><br />Nothing but Garbage! | 0neg
|
The movie has a horror category.It justifies its horror category via use of dumb dialog, and acting that must be a deliberate spoof,characterization that borders on moronic. The references to the living accommodations were for an apartment but it looked like a motel room.I can't identify one redeeming feature of this movie. If I paid full theater price for this waste of film I would never go to another movie.Watching cartoons would be preferable.I was lucky because the DVD I rented was defective and only about fifty percent of it was viewable. Save your money by not bothering with this piece of junk. Does anyone with movie making knowledge approve of a piece of work before it is released? | 0neg
|
There should be a sub-genre in thrilling writing about the stories where somebody stumbles, accidentally, into witnessing a major crime but the perpetrator keeps countering each move with one of his or her own. The reviews on this thread keep referring to Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW, which certainly is the best known version of this plot, except for one element that is not in that film until very late. A better film to compare WITNESS TO MURDER to is actually THE WINDOW with Bobby Driscoll, Arthur Kennedy, and Paul Stewart.<br /><br />Difference between WITNESS and REAR WINDOW, of course, is that in the latter film Raymond Burr is unaware of why he is the center of so much attention by the police until he sees Grace Kelly's gesture regarding his wife's ring and the only person who can see it is Jimmy Stewart across the courtyard of the apartment buildings. Then he realizes who has been tipping the cops off about him. But that is about ten minutes before the end of the film.<br /><br />The situation in WITNESS TO MURDER is almost identical to THE WINDOW. Barbara Stanwyck happens to see a woman being strangled in an apartment near her's by George Sanders. But Sanders (like Paul Stewart in THE WINDOW, notices her and prepares accordingly. He (like Stewart) has nothing to hide when the police (Gary Merrill and Jesse White) show up. He is soon analyzing Stanwyck for them as a neurotic spinster who hallucinates. And he is quite convincing.<br /><br />The difference between Sanders and Paul Stewart in their comparative film parts is that Stewart killed his victim in an argument over business (Sanders was in a sexual rage). Moreover, whatever one thinks of Stewart's glib and careful killer, he is not getting deeper and deeper into crime out of any political or intellectual views. Put another way: if Bobby Driscoll had not witnessed what happened, but was sound asleep (and Stewart was sure of it), Stewart would have hidden the dead body somewhere, and he and Ruth Roman would have packed up and moved to another city. Roman's loyalty to him would have reassured that there wouldn't have been any problems on that end.<br /><br />But with Sanders he approaches the situation from a "spiritual" side that Stewart would have found incomprehensible. We learn (and it is a point that Merrill finds odd and troubling) that this suave, courteous, and intellectual man is a defender of Nietzche's "superman" theories (as twisted by the Nazis) and apologist for the policies of the Nazis in several books. His treatment of his initial victim, and his subtle and continuous persecution of Stanwyck are of a piece (he does not believe such inferior types should threaten him). Towards the end he even intends to make her death appear to be a suicide. Stewart felt Driscoll was a viable threat to his freedom and security, but he never has a speech suggesting the boy was a biological inferior.<br /><br />WITNESS TO MURDER is a good thriller, but it is not one of the all time great ones. Still it is a worthy picture, the only one where Stanwyck and Sanders appeared in together. So I give it a "7" on the scale, recommending it as an interesting version of the hunted turned hunter genre of thriller. | 1pos
|
If BRINGING UP BABY has rapid-fire dialogue and one crazy scene after the other, HIS GIRL Friday goes even faster and is 10 minutes shorter. A story not that un-similar to THE PHILADELPHIA STORY which deletes the scatterbrained socialites in favor for a gritty, urban setting, Cary Grant is fantastic in his role as Walter Burns as he tries to win back his wife Hildy Johnson (an equally brilliant Rosalind Russell in full comic mode) by literally throwing her back into what she -- deep down -- loves best: reporting and the breakneck lifestyle that comes with being in front of the news. These two are on camera often, and their dialogue together is like a frenzied waltz: trying to follow every exact word, gesture, and snarl is quite a task, boy, does it sizzle! What a shame that this wasn't up for any awards, as this could have easily won in acting categories. Completely ahead of its times, this is an interesting view on feminism thirty years before the term became public knowledge, and if one listens closely, a study in verbal sexual interplay. Which shows that making Hildy Johnson a woman was the best decision a director could ever do to enhance a story.<br /><br />A remake of an earlier film (THE FRONT PAGE, 1931), itself a film version of a 1928 play, HIS GIRL Friday was remade again as THE FRONT PAGE in 1976 and yet again in 1988 as SWITCHING CHANNELS, with Kathleen Turner nicely holding up in her portrayal of the role that cemented Rosalind Russell as a skilled comedienne, this time set in media TV. | 1pos
|
This is one of those movies that as itself is a gem. For those that have seen it, and "want to know more" I HIGHLY recommend getting the book the movie was based upon. The movie is like a "Cliff's Notes" version of about 5 chapters of the book!!!<br /><br /> Only complaint was that I think it was a bit TOO vague on the missionary selection process in the beginning of the movie - but did a great job avoiding the "dogma" aspect and staying true to the story.<br /><br /> Two thumbs up (even if their my own). | 1pos
|
When I saw the very first trailer, I was already sure that this film wasn't going to be one of my all time favorites. I went into the movie with rather low expectations, but still i came out totally disappointed.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I'm not a raging fan of the original books, to be honest I've never read one... I don't even who who the hell this Lemony Snicket is (and after watching this movie, i don't even care)!<br /><br />So, I'm not saying that it is a bad adaptation, I'm saying it is a BAD FILM. <br /><br />Right after the film boosts off, we can hear the gentle voice of Jude Law whining annoyingly about some kids, we don't even know yet. You better get used to this whining, because mostly that is gonna be what you hear during the rest of the movie. Then we finally meet those kids. Two little boys, a bit elder sister, with their mommy and daddy. Mom and dad dies right away, so the kids dig up their relatives all around the world, and ask them, to take care of them children. All of them answer "Yes! Gladly!", but the evil Count Olaf kills them one by one, to get his hands on the kids' legacy. Just when this monotonous method gets very tedious, the movie ends, and you can watch some very well made cartoon end credits (surely they wanted to make up for the rest of the movie).<br /><br />What the hell was this all about??? Who the hell were those kids, and why should we, or that Lemony Sicket guy care about them? And who the hell is Lemony Snicket, and why is it necessary for him to whine during the whole movie? Why should I sit through a movie, which has NO ENDING?<br /><br />This movie is a miserable attempt to ride the waves of the adaptation-frenzy.<br /><br />That's it. And the most unfortunate event about this movie, is that it succeeded somehow. I could tolerate all the stupidity, and dumbness in the movie versions of Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, but in this case they failed to put together a standalone movie.<br /><br />Even more unfortunate, that some of the staff really tried. Techincally, the film looks marvelous. The costumes, the scenery, the colors, they all come together really well, and we can see the hard work in it (I don't understand though, why a story with basically NO wondrous elements should get a so out-of-this-world scenery). I feel pity for this group of the filmmakers, for having to take part in a mess like this. They deserve better. Better than the director, the writer, and the main actor in this movie. Yes, I'm talking about Jim Carrey.<br /><br />I can't see why most people melts down from the performance he does here. It's hysterical. Count Olaf in Carrey's role is a raging idiot, with no real character, and a stupid fake beard.<br /><br />As far as I know, there's no attempt to make a sequel, so this movie remains a torso forever. A money-monging pile of crap. But if a sequel comes around soon, I'm sure it wouldn't be more either than an attempt to feed some fat producer. | 0neg
|
This movie was.... interesting. It was overall quite novel, but it suffered from a couple of draw backs.<br /><br />The first is that while the alien female cast is definitely attractive (and I am not saying the human cast isn't), but it appears as if someone had instructed them to try and act seductively while playing a part and they just end up coming across like the actors in the crappy porn movies my flatmates used to find amusing. This is generally OK, but it really gets annoying in some places.<br /><br />Also, if you were hoping for a "Species" or an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", you will be a little disappointed. The storyline in most places is fairly obvious, although there are a couple of features which make it different enough to make the film not a complete waste of time.<br /><br />Other than this, the special effects are certainly fair, the acting is decent (barring the notes above) and it's definitely watchable. It might not be a movie I would recommend to others as one to search out and watch, but if you have some time to kill or it's on TV there are a lot of other movies that are way worse than this. | 0neg
|
"Doc Hollywood" is an excellent film and very well done. The comedy is very good throughout the film and the characters are all very interesting. I personally, love small towns like the one depicted in the film.<br /><br />The cast in this film is very good as well. Michael J. Fox is excellent as always and rakes in a good amount of laughs in the film. Julie Warner is an excellent love interest for the film and looks fantastic in the film. Bridget Fonda looks better than ever and does a great job acting. Woody Harrelson does a fine job with his role, and plays a particularly interesting character. David Ogden Stiers plays a very likeable town mayor and does an incredible job with his role. The rest of the supporting cast is very good as well. Director, Michael Caton-Jones, adds another fine film to his list of films.<br /><br />I also feel I should mention the music in the film. I thought all the music was very likeable and very good choices. I especially like the title sequence and the song (I have no idea who the song is written/performed by).<br /><br />This is just a feel-good, fun movie. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone that likes stories about the small town lifestyle and romantic comedies. I hope that you enjoy the film as much as I did. Thanks for reading,<br /><br />-Chris | 1pos
|
The rights to this film were rescued from Disney. I dread to think what Disney would have done with the book. Thank goodness they never tried it!<br /><br />This book was one of my favourites, so I went to see the film in fear and trepidation. I needn't have worried. It is a beautiful film in its own right. Nothing was overstated. The emotions and nuances were captured perfectly by some wonderful performances, without the need to spell everything out in black and white.<br /><br />Please see this film. I haven't enjoyed anything so much in ages.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I couldn't stop laughing in this one. I thought the eye candy in this movie was awesome. Only problem I have is....I can't find a place to buy it on DVD. Probably a bunch of stick in the mud critics hated the movie....and the producers did feel it was worth trying to sell. What a shame. | 1pos
|
This so called movie is the dumbest thing i've seen. Jeeze Barney the Dinosour is better then this and that is a shame! All the actors were so fake! Of course of how MTV is they had to put sex,and nudity in it. I don't think THAT even made it interesting, it just made the movie even dumber then it is! Plus the filming work was terrible because at times it looked like the way they film in the real world series' which doesn't have that movie affect but then at times it did. Well honestly all I can say is that on a scale from 1 to 100 on the bad scale I would give it 120 or more. | 0neg
|
This is a good film from a number of viewpoints, including intellectual, visual and emotional, and it even has an intriguing plot line. Effective and smooth use of flashback allows the movie great latitude. I enjoyed it and recommend it. | 1pos
|
Who's bright Idea was it to make Harry Potter 6 as awful as what I just saw in the movie theater? They basically turned a great book into a PG rated Nightmare. I understand they want to make money but after watching this movie I want 2 things back. The $10 I spent on the ticket and the 2 and a half hours I had to spend in that theater. I understand about time and not trying to make another titanic length movie, but adding stuff that has not meaning for the 6th's book, Taking out a key point: the battle at the end, that what give this movie their WTF moments. I mean who goes to a school and just blows up the hall, please! I also don't remember Hargats house being set a flame. This movie was a study in what not to do as a script writer. I mean was I the only one that wondered who the heck was the big guy that they featured when looking at the death eater yet never told you what he's purpose was. I think the script writes should get on their knees and apologies to us all for this trash. This makes me fearful of what they plan for book 7, which they are cutting into 2 movies. If either one of them is PG I'm skipping them. over 20 people died in book 7 to make it PG would mean that all the fights and all the key points in the movies would be excluded. I can tell you as a fan giving it a 4 was being nice it doesn't rate that high | 0neg
|
After the sunsets a great comedy and I think Pierce Brosnans great. Don Cheadle was very poor I think but Salma Hayeks tops were nice. In After the sunset there is too much sex and nudity for the rating I mean eight year olds could go see that and Pierce Brosnan has his shirt off for like half the film. 30 percent of the film is shot of either topless men or women with hardly anything on apart from bra and knickers or a bikini! Sometimes sex scenes make a movie but in this case it just ruins it. The language is great though, not too much swearing but where there is swearing its funny.I love Pierce Brosnan, I think hes cool and the movies cast well. Woody Harleson is good too, he makes the film fuuny. Overall this is a great film, so get tickets and go see it, but a message to all the crew from After the Sunset - next time miss out most of the sex and nudity! <br /><br />From David Nicholson, Film Critic, Texas | 1pos
|
I thought the movie was quite good, capturing the high of being young in big bad wonderful world. The acting was believable enough for me, and also I thought the use of pop (and not so pop) music was done well. As for content, The Beach raises deep issues on how we deal with our own existence, experience, sanity and commitments to other people: there did seem to be more noble purpose than just speculating in the emotions of the viewer. Although many find fault with the film, I think - at very least - it deserves credit for the choice of material, and credit for having brought this material to fruition in the form of a Hollywood movie. | 1pos
|
I first saw this film during a one year term as festival director for the Golden Film Festival. I knew the minute I saw it that it was an award winner. I. Michael Toth has created a visually beautiful and thought provoking work that successfully combines the elements of cinematography and drama. The piece is well, conceived, written, acted and directed - imaginative and unpredictable while relatively straight-forward and highly engaging. I am very confident that this film will experience great success, and that I. Michael Toth will go on to make a significant mark in American cinema. If you love independent film, this is one that you definitely want in your collection. | 1pos
|
This movie is complete waste of time. Yup. Why? Oh, boy, where should I start? Bad acting? Lousy screenplay? Fact that movie is to late? <br /><br />Emir Hadziwhateverhisnameisić hated this role, he admitted it in some news interview, and that can be easily seen trough this entire move. I even felt sorry for him seeing how much he suffers acting in this movie. I doubt he faked his drinking... He is talented actor, but not even his talent couldn't make him even to try to act. I don't blame him. Sergej Trifunović is giving his best. Which means that he suck. Yup, Emir at least has talent, this poor sob doesn't... Only possible explanation why would anyone even consider him for (any) role is fact that he look like what other ex-YU nations see as a stereotypical Serb. Funny enough, Serbs see him as stereotypical Albanian... Toni Gojanović... is chosen for this role simply because he's Croat... Croatia have much better actors than him (is he an actor at all?), but he does seems to be trying, and since he's a "newb", we can look trough his fingers...<br /><br />Now, take a better look... Bosniak, Serb and Croat... and voilà, you have a generic ex-YU wannabe comedy... and that's it. It tries to look at war and reasons for war trough comedy but it just fail... there is no deep background story, there is no secret agendas, there is no comedy there is no nothing.. Movie was heavily advertised here as "Movie that put together Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks in hilarious comedy" and people wanted to see trough Karaula their youths and lives in pre-1991. Yugoslavia, but most of them abandoned theater before end because they have found foreign country and foreign army with foreign people and foreign stories. Something they didn't wanted or cared to see. Macedonia is foreign to Serbs, YPA is foreign to Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are foreign to Serbs. Famous scene at the end of movie where actors get out on stage and public isn't tapping is clear sign what public thinks about this movie. <br /><br />I thought that pathetic ex-YU ethnic humor has died in 1991. And it did. This is just zombiefied version if it, and it's not funny. It's sad. Strange thing I find is the fact that only in Serbia this movie was advertised like this is 1975, like we all live in perfect "brotherhood and unity" and that war never happened. Film had financial success in all countries of former YU, except in Serbia, despite big advertising campaign. Movie entered trough big doors, but it exited through back door, quietly and shamefully. This movie is wanting to look back at last moments of Yugoslavia, it is trying to say to us that it's not our fault, that we all were seduced by "drunken and selfish" leaders, blah, blah, blah... It could make some point if it was released during 1995; 1996; or 1997; considering that war and Yugoslavia were still "fresh" and all... but in 2006, this movie just doesn't make sense... <br /><br />Legacy of this movie is big. Yup, before this movie, many various EX-YU actors and directors were talking about making some new movies as homage to old partisan films... luckily, this movie showed that it would be just waste of money...<br /><br />I want my 94 minutes back. | 0neg
|
"Operation-Annihilate" is the final episode of the first season. It is an interesting episode for a variety of reasons. I liked how the show takes time to explore Kirk's personal life outside the Federation. More important, the program explores how personal feelings affect commanding choices. Kirk goes bunkers when he finds out his brother was killed by some strange looking creatures. I wished the story would have spent more time on Kirk and his family (his nephew comes aboard the Enterprise) but the original TV series never showed much enthusiasm for that kind of thing. But there are enough glimpses of Kirk's life outside the Enterprise to make the program interesting. A big part of the episode was filmed outside soundstages and the open spaces are a nice touch. | 1pos
|
I've been anticipating this film for a while since it is Thora Birch's first role since American Beauty. So, The Hole. The Hole has been hyped up as a horror/psychological film in which 4 students are locked down an old wartime bunker (-the- Hole) to avoid a boring Geography field trip. How does it fare?<br /><br />The casting is probably the jewel of this film. It's superb. The absolutely stunning Keira Knightley (Sabé from Star Wars Episode I) appears as Liz's (Birch) friend, Frankie. All the rest of the characters are complete unknowns, except the psychologist played by Embeth Davidtz (Matilda, Bridget Jones, Schindler's List), but they all act their parts excellently.<br /><br />This film really has the British 'feel' mastered. The sets are excellent, the locations are splendid, and the whole 'feel' of the movie is very realistic. The school really does feel like a British public school (A British 'public school' is like a 'private school' in the US.. one where you need rich parents to flash $$$ to get you in). The unnamed pupils seem extremely realistic.<br /><br />There are only three small flaws with this film. The first is that it doesn't exactly live up to the hype in the British press. I did not find this scary at all, but it was an extremely well done mystery/whodunnit. Horror? Nah, not unless you classify psychological thrillers as 'horror'.<br /><br />The second flaw is that the transitions between different parts of the film can be rather confusing. Often, the film bounds around past and present shots and be extremely disorienting in places. Unlike Memento, this disorientation is not an advantage. However, at the end of the film, you'll be able to tie all of the parts together and leave feeling quite satisfied with the story (a bit like the film 'Wild Things').<br /><br />Another minor let down is the music. Totally forgettable, has no place in the film, and it often appears at the most inappropriate times.<br /><br />I really do hope this is released in the USA soon, as Thora Birch is definitely not to be missed here.. and I think the stunning Keira Knightley is going to be getting some bigger roles from now on, she's definitely earned her stripes here. So, my big question, why has this not been scheduled for US release!?<br /><br />This is certainly not a Blair Witch Project clone, although this impression has been given by the press. Instead, this is a cleverly constructed and extremely well casted psychological thriller/mystery. | 1pos
|
A wonderful, marvelous, funny movie that I watch at least once a year. A true gem-the writing is great, the cast is perfect, and the arch, somewhat affected performances more than do the trick-that's who these people are! Arch, affected, wanna be know it all rich kid snobs whose currency in life is their intellect and class standing. The fact that the action takes place in a few small apartments only heightens the genius of this film-these locations represent the small world in which these young people's lives intersect, in how they dole out their verbiage, how much belonging to a small group of people can dictate the every day thoughts of each member of the gang. The kids have not yet lived enough to be fully forming the opinions they insist upon shoving down each others throats, and the comedy comes from their own inexperience and total lack of thinking other wise. This is like a high brow Breakfast Club, smarter and much more fun for those of us not into stereotype titillation. With out a doubt on of my favorites. | 1pos
|
There are so many problems with Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III that I'm not sure where to begin, so I suppose I'll try to limit my comments to the characters. I couldn't have cared less whether the supposed heroes of the movie lived or died. A more unlikable pair do you rarely run across. The guy was a sniveling idiot and the girl had even less personality. "Kill 'em and kill 'em quick" was the thought running through my head.<br /><br />Second, we've got the characters that make up Leatherface's "new" family. Who are these people and where did they come from? I would have thought that the Texas Rangers would have completely investigated the Sawyer family and discovered any relative who may have taken in Leatherface after the events of the first two movies. And, are we supposed to believe that the entire extended family is also made up of inbred cannibal serial killers? With a family as large as the one presented in these movies you would think that (even if just by chance) at least one member of the family would have some reservations about hacking up innocent strangers. I almost get the feeling that the makers of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III would have us believe that everyone in Texas is a nutty, chainsaw-welding maniac.<br /><br />Finally, there's Leatherface. I'll just say that he's a sad imitation of the original. And I know this has nothing to do with the character of Leatherface, but what's that engraved chainsaw all about? It's a completely ridiculous concept. | 0neg
|
This movie is a travesty. As far as sequels go, I thought Blues Brothers 2000 was bad in a 'way too little way too late' kinda way. But, holy sh*t, this was bad. First, it has nothing to offer hockey fans. The film was made by people who don't know anything about hockey. Take the horrible coach characters. The figure skating guy is unbelievable as a coach and totally unfunny as a queer. He ruins the 'hockeyness' of the film. Second, this is a very bad film and should be stricken from the memory of anyone who enjoyed the original "Slapshot" or any hockey loving Canadian. Yes, Canadian, Americans couldn't tell the difference between hockey and disco dancing with all those goofy red and blue streaks all over the place on Fox. This is likely why this movie sucked so hard...it was made by Americans. Man I would rather watch the other American Hockey travesties like the idiotic chimp plays hockey film "Most Valuable Primate" or even Emelio-chimp in "D2: The Mighty Ducks" (yuck!) or even those boring bumholes in "Mystery, Alaska" than this frozen turd. This movie sucks the frozen poop out of a dead Eskimo. | 0neg
|
How Come Replacement Actress Can Be Look Like Prostitute ? First Movie, Julia Stiles barely wears make-up, and straight short hair.<br /><br />then when with this movie's opening scene, the girl came out with Wig & heavy make-up with horrible eye-shadows !!! it's one of worst thing, you don't wanna see on sequel, that changes not just the character, the look !!! not just the look, the whole package !!! beside watching lovely, also a little bit uncomfortable looking Luke Mably. this movie just screws, reputation of first movie.<br /><br />Besides horrible acting and plot. music is unbelievably not suiting with each scenes.<br /><br />and since when all this drama's story based on power game and politics ? or just trying to copy version of "what a girl wants" ? | 0neg
|
Compared to the lame horror films that the major studios theatrically release these days, THE WOODS is superior and stands out. It easily deserves a wide theatrical but remains on the shelf for no logical reason. The film is a variation on a SUSPIRIA-type witch story and delivers genuine scares; not the trendy, superficial jarring jumps 'boos' that the reviewer above probably expects. Director McKee (MAY, SICK GIRL) delivers a deliberate pace and gradually building mood and atmosphere. Above all else, THE WOODS is character-driven with real acting! We not use to seeing that in a recent genre film. The photography and 60's period production design is flawless. THE WOODS has the true power to creep you out and you may never drink milk again! | 1pos
|
In 1981 whilst visiting California I had a vacant evening. And so free from visiting friends and amusement parks and not wanting to waste the evening looking at four walls of a motel room or watch the novelty of 24hour TV (remember this was 1981 and TV in the UK still closed at around midnight) I ventured out to the local Cinema to watch "Agency". From the TV trailers this promised to be an exciting story of the deceitful nature of advertisers who manipulate and lie so as to entice us, the unsuspecting general public towards the products. The trailer certainly worked; unfortunately the movie itself was as far from the mark as I was from home. The whole of the story had already been told in the 30 second trailer and there was nothing added to it. Robert Mitchum's character was not given anywhere near the scope to fulfil the potential that such a Hollywood movie idol deserves and the character of Philip Morgan played by Lee Majors could have been played by any of a dozen or more actors. <br /><br />To sum up - this is without doubt the worst movie I have ever endured at a cinema. Having suffered the 94 minutes (are you sure it was only 94 minutes - it seemed like an awful lot more to me), the four walls of the motel suddenly began to have a certain attraction - and as for 24 hour TV!!!<br /><br />If you ever get the chance to see this film do yourself a favour - lock yourself in your house and throw the keys out of the window, tape up your eyes, plug your ears or better still stay in your room and look at four blank walls. The overall effect is the same but without the hassle and expense of going out. | 0neg
|
WARNING SPOILERS: This review is from the point of view of one who would rather we live in a world without Mafias, organized crime, and gangs. From the perspective of crime itself, I can almost admire the cat burgler, the bank robber, or even the pickpocket, whereas I find organized crime to be vile, albeit efficient. Regarding violence itself, I much prefer the old-style, manlier ways of settling scores such as showdowns, brawls, and duels instead of use of hit men, goons, and sub-machine guns, which may keep the "head" alive, but which reduces the heart.<br /><br />In this vein, I found a great poignancy within the usual discomfort I have when viewing gangster films. Tom's assertion towards his end, "I ain't so tough," and his hospital apology to his family, showed me that the filmmakers understood this unmanliness, and that organized crime is about greed and cowardice more than necessity and triumph of will. Mike's lecture to Tom concerning Tom's lack of heart and brain also gives pause, so that (if you agree with the filmmakers) one can define very simply the typical gangster's actions. And there is little in the annals of true-life Mafia activity, whether Italian, Korean, Chinese, Negro, or what-have-you, which overthrows this.<br /><br />In all honesty, I found James Cagney's character to be over-the-top, in the usual Hollywood fashion (other examples: Joe Pesci, James Caan), and his mobster actions were predictable, for the most part. This jibed well with my disgusted side. On the other hand, Glasmon and Bright (the writers) explore some complicated issues which touched me greatly. This may be due to Bright's first-hand experiences with gangsters.<br /><br />First, Tom's "purity" while in a relationship with Gwen (Jean Harlow). This adult content surprised me, especially for a 1931 action movie, and one of the first talkies. When Jane (Mia Marvin) seduces a drunken Tom, their morning-after becomes not only a surprising slap in the face for all concerned (including the viewer), but also sets up the motivation for Matt's (Edward Doyle) demise.<br /><br />Second, Tom's relationship with his brother is very provocative. There is the usual macho posturing of right vs. wrong, but there are also undercurrents of gray areas. Who is worse: Tom, for bootlegging, or Mike for petty embezzlement? Tom, for being an enforcer, or Mike, for indiscriminate killing during wartime? Naturally, the case can be made that Mike's heroics pave the way for the free country which Tom enjoys, but this is never explored, merely left to conjecture. Quite pleasing, from both a cinematic and literary standpoint. The content of this counterpoint was present but not overbearing.<br /><br />Third, there is the possibility that Tom is sexually-oriented in two ways. I'm not in any way trying to foist such opinions on anyone, but it seems to me that Putty-Nose's (Murray Kinnell) butt is awfully close to Tom's face during the pool-room scene early in the movie. Also, why is Tom "not the marrying kind" and why does he harbor such obvious distaste for most women? It's certainly not due to his sweet mother, or benign sister-in-law. I'm not FOR these types of references or innuendo, but I merely point it out as possible.<br /><br />Fourth is the searing commentary on Prohibition itself, and how it was that a combination of governmental and temperance forces allowed opportunity to knock for those with little conscience (even if Paddy {Robert Emmett O'Connor} is made to be an honorable man here).<br /><br />These, however, are side issues to the film. The action itself is bearable and fluid. The making of the small-time hustler into sweeping gangster is not fully-explored, but merely assumed, and then there is an alternating mega- and micro-look into that crooked world. We see glimpses of thievery, crooked business deals, strong-arm protection and racketeering, cold-blooded murder, and revenge. Then, we are privy to the inner workings of mob mentality, the unbreakable friendships, the gun molls, the hideouts. Little attention is paid here to law enforcement, and the regular Joe and the media are fashioned to be in sympathy with the mobs, a likely by-product of the "wetness" which rumrunners brought to those otherwise-"dry" times.<br /><br />All in all, I enjoyed this movie, with its many messages, visuals, and vignettes. Cagney is a great actor, although this is not his pivotal work. Harlow is sultry in a minor role. Woods is extremely likable as Tom's compatriot. Joan Blondell brings some of her bubbliness to these drab surroundings. Donald Cook is wonderfully-old-school in his eye-rolling part. Beryl Mercer as Ma Powers also evokes some surprisingly-good emoting.<br /><br />Overall, I think you will enjoy this. | 1pos
|
This tries too hard to be a quirky romantic comedy, but in the end leaves you with just a slightly dirty, creepy feeling about the main character. The movie is rife with illogical leaps, inconsistent characters and a premise that simply makes no sense. This is, unfortunately, simply a Til Schweiger (popular German heartthrob) delivery medium -- the story was written so that he wouldn't have to step outside of the same role he always plays: a smirky, semi-jerk who, in the end, proves he really does have a heart if everyone will just give him a (2nd) chance to show it.<br /><br />If you really liked Kein Ohr Hasen (a better film, watch it first if you can), then you might like this, but otherwise stay away. | 0neg
|
I caught this on HBO back in 1989, and this was definitely meant to launch a television series. Mark Lindsay Chapman plays a reporter who discovers a plot by aliens/androids to begin a conquest of Earth. Unfortunately, he's branded a fugitive when he is caught killing one of the cyborgs who replaced his girlfriend. His trip takes him through California and Oregon, where he learned that while his girlfriend was replaced by an android, others that vanished with her on an airplane flight she was on are still human. The end had him on the run with a list containing the names of all people that were on the flight that his girlfriend was on in an effort to see just who from the flight could remember just what happened. Great premise, though a bit underbudgeted (what could one expect when it came to sci-fi on network tv back in 1986?), and there were many questions that were never resolved. Definitely should have been followed up, since we never learned if Chapman's girlfriend was alive (played by Catharine Mary Stuart) or how he would manage to convince the human race of the threats posed by the aliens. With today's budget, it'd be great to see 'Annihilator' retried. Nice mix of 'The Fugitive' and 'War Of The Worlds'. | 1pos
|
Most movie goers who have bothered to rate this, express their chronic dislike of this work due to Howie Mandell's presence herein; however, I must say that he is no more a harbinger of death to this film than anyone else.<br /><br />The performances found within this film are all adequate, with some better than others, but none were lacking such as to lessen the worth of this production. The dialog delivery was also adequate, but the dialog itself was trite, contrived, and slapstick in its execution. Mandell suffers more from poor direction than a lack of talent. Yes, he was an annoying element of his hey day, but he never outright bombed until this work. Christopher Lloyd is better than adequate, but his usual curmudgeonly charm is lost here. Cloris Leachman's performance is the only contributing factor which elevates this work, but she could not save it, alone.<br /><br />The story had a good basis which could have netted a great film, but the National Lampoonesque take on the whole premise is the leading contributing factor to this film's demise. The story was watered down and sentimentalized to the point of generating schlock instead of entertainment. There isn't one aspect herein which isn't contrived to suit the story line, including the domestication of the lead character and the time line wherein said domestication takes place.<br /><br />A young boy is abandoned by his bratling brother and left alone in the wilderness to be raised by wolves. After his rescue, his brother (still a brat) decides Bobo must learn to read and write...immediately! Intrigue ensues.<br /><br />Had this been treated with more care and a bit more seriously in the right places, this could have been a great comedy, but as is, this one fails on all levels: It does not teach, it does not ponder, and it does not entertain. As it stands, this work does show some serious moments, but they are in the wrong places; the timing is all wrong, and even those with no sense of cinematic timing can feel that the pace is out of step.<br /><br />All in all? This is nothing but sentimental, contrived schlock, which fails on all levels...though it DOES have heart.<br /><br />It rates a 3.8/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 0neg
|
The lost language of cranes" is a British TV movie based on the novel by David Leavitt. The problem when you see a movie adaptation of a book you have already read -- and loved -- is that either the adaptation is not faithful and betrays the book, or it is too faithful and just looks like a summary of the story. Very rarely a movie adaptation can remain faithful to the essence of the book but not so literal that it brings nothing new to the story; unfortunately, that's the case here.<br /><br />It tells the story of a family, the Benjamins, who have lots of secrets. Owen Benjamin, played by Brian Cox, is a closeted homosexual married to Rose (Eileen Atkins). Every Sunday Owen goes to a porno cinema, where he has anonymous sex with men. Owen and Rose's son, Philip (Angus MacFadyen), is also a gay man, but he has no problems with his sexuality. He's very much in love with Elliot (Corey Parker), a young American artist who was raised by a gay couple. The conflict starts when Philip decides to come out to his parents, making his father face his own desire and his mother confront her own prejudice.<br /><br />The most surprising fact about this British adaptation of an American novel is how little the change of place from New York to London affects the story. Indeed, this adaptation is so faithful to the original that whole dialogs from the book appear on the screen, almost unchanged. And yet, we get to know from the bonus interviews on this DVD that the porno cinema, which plays such an important role in the story, was a real problem in the adaptation because there were no such places in London, due to their laws. So apparently the screenwriter, Sean Mathias, had to "create" a porno cinema that never existed, appropriately called "the Fantasy".<br /><br />Among the sacrifices that had to be made for the sake of the length of the movie, the one I most regret is the use of the character Jerene, played by Cathy Tyson. In the novel, Jerene is a full and complex character, a black lesbian student who was rejected by her parents and develops a thesis about languages that are lost forever, like the little boy who, neglected by his mother, learned to communicate looking at the cranes from his window. In the movie, Jerene appears only to explain the title of the film and little else.<br /><br />If you haven't read the novel, you will find this movie a very interesting drama about a family having to face their hidden secrets, but without ever raising their voices, which is very British! If you already know the book, however, you may feel a little disappointed. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits