text
stringlengths 98
6.42k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This movie is a piece of crap. Period. The lighting is awkward. There is one noticeable blooper in every scene. There are plot holes left and right. The acting is awful. The budget is noticeably low. And for all these reasons, it's extremely entertaining.<br /><br />Basically, the movie starts out with three women being arrested for (according to the Box description) "Crimes they didn't commit. After this, they are all sent to jail. All of these 'crimes' are just a form of self-defense, and would most likely result in a fine, at worst. To believe that a woman defending herself from an armed robber is worth jail time is laughable. In jail (which is constructed of an old elevator gate, and could be pushed over without effort) they all are released under the promise they find the killer of "Nitro Jones" (horribly played by Juvenille).Not surprisingly, he is in the movie for less than five minutes, yet gets the lead credit. Awesome. Following that is a period of awful fight scenes, terrible dialogue, and stereotypes.<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst movies ever made, but it's a must see for this reason.<br /><br />GOOFS: One of the girls call's the character "Baby Boy" by the actors name "Skip".<br /><br />When Nitro says "It's hot in here" and touches his shirt, you can hear heavy feedback from the mike.<br /><br />The tag-line is "Bad Girls with Big Guns". Only one of the girls actually holds a gun in this movie, and it is only to take it away from a bad guy.<br /><br />The cover is obviously photoshoped and one of the girls on the cover isn't even in the movie.<br /><br />Outside of Keefer's (a lawyers) office, you can easily see that a biohazard warning has been spray painted off the building.<br /><br />The Hooker in the prison with the Angel's asks if they have anything she can smoke that's "Not a cigarette". Obviously, they'd have search all of them for drugs, so this question is down right unbelievable.<br /><br />The Fight scenes are sped up so they can be performed slower in real life. | 0neg
|
I watched season 1 and the beginning of season 2 in a weekend, and now I am addicted. Could Nico and Kirby together be any hotter??? They have amazing chemistry! I am in awe of the two of them together, it is crazy. I hope the writers of this show keep them together because it is hot! All three women are strong women who I can totally relate to because of my own career. This show is real good and I can't wait to watch it again. I think everyone who loved sex and the city would love this show. My friends have talked about this show since it was on, but I figured since i missed the first season it would be hard to get into it, but I was wrong. It is a great show! | 1pos
|
I first saw this movie on TCM, and I became enamored of this fabulous acting couple. I won't repeat the fabulous reviews of this film, but I hounded TCM to reschedule the movie, but alas. Then thanks to an amazon.com seller, I bought the video. I have watched it over and over. What fun to see Lunt running around in disguise and thinking he was putting something over on his wife. And Zasu Pitts as the maid, she's priceless!<br /><br />The Guardsman has also put me in touch with their biographies, what wonderful lives they led. They were Broadway stars, Lunt and Fontanne, they have a Broadway theater named for them. <br /><br />And 77 years later, the Guardsman still brings laughs to us. Thank goodness for them! | 1pos
|
This film was so derivative, the only pleasure we got watching it was trying to identify which movie a particular scene was most directly stolen from. The result is a formless mishmash with no character of its own.<br /><br />At every turn, there was something that didn't make sense - such as the two main characters entering and wandering around freely in an insane asylum (which was itself as clichéd as anything in the movie.) What, no security, no locked doors to keep the inmates in or intruders out?<br /><br />Rating: skip this one. | 0neg
|
I remember seeing this movie when I was about 4 years old and let me tell you that it was great. I was always renting this movie and I was always watching the TV show. It was one of the most fantastic animated adventure made when I was a child. I will always remember the thrill of seing Adora transform herself into She-Ra to save Etheria. It is so sad that it had to end. I really hope that one day a network will show it again to the next generation of children. | 1pos
|
Unremarkable love story between a well educated woman (Scachi) and a simple Scottish sailor (D'Onofrio) that goes on and on for almost thirty years. They lived separate lives but sometimes they get together and live passionate and feverish days of pure joy and lovemaking. A thin plot and cardboard characterizations and dialogues make this one a boring and peasant look upon the problems of the relationship of two diferent persons. Besides, D'Onofrio is completely miscast in the role of a Scottish fellow. I give this a 4 (four). | 0neg
|
This is one of two cartoons I have watched with Porky and Sylvester (the other being "Jumpin' Jupiter"). Personally, I thought this cartoon worked very well, with a new theme of horror (which is both funny and freaky) and the fact that Sylvester never speaks and is a great deal more of a coward than a hunter of Tweety (who is not in this cartoon whatsoever). Porky is an entertaining character here, who is especially heart-warming closer to the end. <br /><br />In this short, Porky and Sylvester have moved into a big, spooky house and Sylvester is terrified of his new surroundings. He has good reason to be terrified, as the house is populated with horribly murdering mice. Sylvester, as he is a cat who cannot speak, cannot tell Porky of the horrible creatures in the house and just stays close to his owner, hoping that they will not be killed...<br /><br />I enjoyed this cartoon for the originality of it and for some of the jokes, which, despite being very slapsticky, were quite humorous. I enjoyed the new character of Sylvester, whom I prefer to his character with Tweety, of which he is more famous for.<br /><br />I recommend this to people who like Sylvester and Porky and who like/don't mind to see cartoon horror. Enjoy "Scaredy Cat"! :-) | 1pos
|
I was in my twenties when this show was on and I loved it, too. It was quirky and different and I just wish it had been given time to grab an audience. Unfortunately, it came out before the viewing public started wanting something different from the usual detective TV show fare...that was so dull and predictable that you not only recognized the plot but could usually anticipate the dialogue. I always liked different though and remember how refreshing I found this show and its stars. It was delightful and introduced me to it's two stars Ben Vereen and Jeff Goldblum. It's sense of humor, for those that never had the opportunity to see it, reminded me of a show that came out several years later and was quite successful, Moonlighting. It was fresh and totally different and perhaps, in retrospect, that uniqueness is exactly what sent this wonderful show to an early grave. I hope that eventually some kind (and highly intelligent) soul does see the need to release it on DVD; I will certainly buy it. And I'd love to see it show up as a rerun...if some bright exec from TVland or Sleuth channels happens to be reading this. I think this show would weather the years well and that audiences today would love it. Sadly, it was just a show that debuted before its time. | 1pos
|
Sorry, but I have to say there was only one aspect of this film that was enjoyable, and that was the sweeping scenery. And these wonderful scenes were sandwiched in between the most absurd and drivel filled scenes imaginable.<br /><br />I gave the movie about 30 minutes and had to press eject. Too much pointless obscenity, nudity, and violence. If the plot made any sense I would have tried to stick it out. Perhaps a film critic and or film student would have enjoyed this (for reasons unknown to me or anyone else that could care less about such things), but I certainly couldn't.<br /><br />If you are like most people who probably rented this because of Dwight, don't bother. For everything he is credited for on this movie (writing, starring, directing and musical score), he fails - miserably. | 0neg
|
I try to be positive when watching a movie. I usually don't bring many expectations to the table. Generally, I can find something worthwhile in any movie I watch, even when the movie sucks ass. However, except for the ample cleavage, this movie totally sucks in every department.<br /><br />The acting is very amateurish all around, the writing is poverty-row (at best), the cinematography is quite poor in a lot of places (lots of out of focus shots), and the "special effects" are laughable. Plus, this movie has a couple of the worst child actors I've ever seen! Damn!!!! I wanted to smack them every time they appeared on screen.<br /><br />I walked into this with an open mind, but for all my efforts, I just ended up getting robbed of money and 80 minutes of my life that I'll never get back!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This movie was really bad, I think that the title fooled me because I thought that there would be at least more vampire call girls and more of a vampire acting but what I got was a bunch of boring sex scenes including a girl straddling a washing machine while some goof with glasses watches through a peep hole, a lady at a club watching the most horrible band in the world play with a guy playing a guitar with only one note and then she takes him back stage, or vice versa and straddles the guy. Then there's the red neck who gets ripped off by one of the call girls and goes after her at the head call girl's house and asks for his money back and they all seduce him instead. This movie was nothing but a compilation of lame skits, terrible acting and left overs from last years copy of Hustler and thats it. | 0neg
|
Since I get unlimited rentals from Netflix, I often mix in some stupid movies, sometimes because I feel like watching a lighter movie that doesn't require any thinking, and sometimes just out of morbid curiosity. It was the latter that compelled me to rent "New York Minute" starring the Olsen twins.<br /><br />"New York Minute" has gotten universally bad reviews from critics, but I considered that the mere fact that the movie starred Mary-Kate and Ashley invited ridicule from people who haven't even seen it. Despite a traumatic experience in my teenage years, when I was repeatedly forced to watch "It Takes Two" (an Olsen twins version of "The Parent Trap") by some kids I frequently babysat, I gave this one a chance. To my surprise, it was even stupider than it looked. Even stupider than the critics led me to believe. Even stupider than "It Takes Two." So stupid that I hardly know where to begin
The interchangeable Olsen twins play, you guessed it, twin sisters. Although they are identical in appearance, they have completely opposite personalities: Jane is the conservative, overachieving twin, while Roxy is a messy, truant punk. Eugene Levy plays a truancy officer who's obsessed with catching Roxy.<br /><br />Jane and Roxy are both taking a trip into the city -- Jane to deliver a speech for a scholarship contest, and Roxy to go to a concert -- and a predictable case of mistaken identity leads to both twins getting kicked off the train. While they're at the train station, FBI agents descend on a guy trying to hand off what turns out to be a computer chip with pirated music (leading one to wonder why they didn't just e-mail the files or something), causing him to slip said chip into Roxy's purse, resulting in a Chinese-wannabe limo driver chasing the twins through NYC to recover the chip.<br /><br />During the bizarre chase, Jane accepts a ride from the limo driver because she can't wait 3 hours for the next train, even though she has more than 6 hours to get to her speech. Then Roxy tosses the important chip onto a tray of food, which the dog proceeds to eat. At one point, the twins end up in a sewer, but the scary black people-turned-nice at House of Bling give them multiple free makeovers (despite Jane's tight schedule to get to her speech, she takes the time to try on half a dozen outfits and dance around in each one) and a cab to drive. Meanwhile, the truancy officer commandeers and subsequently wrecks a tourist couple's RV to chase down Roxy, but then gets promoted for busting the pirated music ring.<br /><br />It all comes together to create possibly the stupidest movie ever made. What's really sad about "New York Minute" is that it was supposed to be a vehicle to show that the Olsen Twins are serious actresses, but it ultimately just shows how undeserving they are of their fame and fortune. (1/10) | 0neg
|
'The Night Watchman' was the debut directional effort by that great master of animation, Chuck Jones. Typical of Jones's serviceable but rather dull Disney pastiches that characterised his early work, 'The Night Watchman' is an unbearably gooey little offering with a constant lack of energy that is sorely required to bolster the wafer thin plot. A young cat (a clear prototype for Jones's cloying early character Sniffles) takes over the post of night watchman when his father is too ill to carry out the job. Immediately, he falls foul of some tough guy rats who push him around and take advantage of the absence of any real threat to gorge themselves with food and have a big night out in the kitchen. Of course, the cat finally turns the tables when his conscience buoys him up for a big final showdown. Betraying none of the talent he would become famous for (and, let's be fair, this was his first film), Jones lays out the story in a straightforward, no-frills manner. The characters are all severely lacking in charisma, particularly the so-wet-you-almost-don't-feel-sorry-for-him cat, the animation is lumbering and predictable, the musical number is flat and the story doesn't build naturally, instead resorting to a tacked on and completely unsatisfying finale in which the cat does a too-sudden about face and metes out a workmanlike beating to each individual rat, a production line revenge that is less than thrilling to watch. Of course, Warner Bros. was still finding its feet as an animation studio and 'The Night Watchman' is not significantly worse than many of the lesser cartoons of the time but, other than its historical importance as Jones's debut, there's really nothing here that I'd recommend to the casual cartoon fan. | 0neg
|
Looking at some of the other user comments, I realize that many sought to extol the purported virtues of this film, professing Lucrecia Martel's artistic brilliance and method for capturing personality and conflict as demonstrated in this, her "ouevre," but as far as I'm concerned, these people must be blind, if not also deranged. This movie is abysmal. It's inert, without direction and a true chore to finish. The first hour and a quarter scarcely set the stage, with the duration moving no quicker or more palatably, and I'm more than patient with artistic efforts that appear to want for plot, but this was pointlessly plot less and otherwise utterly bereft of potentially other redeeming features. The bulk of the acting is mediocre to average, Martel's writing without flair or innovation, and the camera work and editing pretty much boring. Why Almodovar was willing to put his name on this work (and I'm convinced that it was his name and no more, based on the wretchedly lobotomizing slowness of the story, bloviating banality and clear absence of captivating content) is beyond me. And I would like to clarify that this dreadful film school fare should not even be included in the same paragraph, let alone be the subject of any direct comparison (unless it is a profoundly disparate one) to any of the following: Amores Perros or any of Inarritu's work, any actually-Almodovar-created work, the Cuaron Bro.s' Y Tu Mama, Salles' Motorcycle Diaries or Central Station, Meirelles' City of God or even the pretty but anticlimactic Carrera's Crimen del Padre Amaro. And I actually think that the scene settings, character list and cast had real possibility and promise: Mia Maestro (as the young Catholic teacher leading and incessantly lecturing the group of girls in choir practice in sanctimonious catechism-worthy restraint and denial of any sensation or sexual awakening, whom Amalia's friend Jose(fina) claims to have seen making out with a clandestine lover) is pretentiously chaste and overtly uptight but so comely and foreseeably coquettish that I would killed to have seen her character more developed or perhaps the explicit aforementioned trysts; María Alché is sufficiently intriguing, complex and coy that far more could have been done with her, apart from the dilapidated swimming pool and sneaking up on the tragically-boring Carlos Belloso/Dr. Jano; and, well, that's about it. Oh, I almost forgot, I will give Martel this: speaking from the somewhat limited experience as the son of a pathologist and a nurse, Martel DOES manage to capture how deliriously boring and maimingly monotonous a medical convention can be (otorhinolaryngologists no less, their motto would rightly be "fun with phlegm"), particularly when held in a craphole motel (think Leaving Las Vegas' witty "The Whole Year Inn"-cum-"The Hole You're In") and further exacerbated by a tediously planned dramatization of how to conduct a patient interview (a device Martel must have found brilliant since she devotes exponentially more time to this than anything else). Please, if you take nothing else away from my admitted logorrhea, synthesize this: this movie is awful, Martel likely a hack worthy of condemnation rather than scatologicaly-founded praise, and above all else, I implore you, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME! | 0neg
|
As a standalone movie "Highlander II - The Quickening" is definitely a bad one, with uninspired plot, ludicrous scenes such as the one with the accelerating metro train, and pretty bad acting performances. Maybe not bad enough to become an unforgettable classic of bad film making, but certainly awful and ridiculous all the way. However, this movie deserves a special place in the realm of modern disasters in the film industry, because as a sequel it is absolutely abysmal, out of place, and an utter disgrace to the first one (and to the whole series, which never recovered after the atom-bomb that this movie dropped on the plot).<br /><br />This flick could well be a warning for any director who wants to direct a sequel to any movie: if you're not absolutely sure about what you are doing, think again. This movie was so incoherent and inducted so many plot inconsistencies in the whole series that even the credibility of the first one came out irreparably damaged. It put a truckload of trite sci-fi elements in what was just a fantasy story, it denied everything that happened before... literally. The first time I saw this I was totally puzzled, I almost couldn't believe it.<br /><br />As a standalone movie (and if I felt like being generous), I would rate this a 2 out of 10. But as a sequel, this gets...<br /><br />1/10 | 0neg
|
I don't know exactly how many movies did Clint Eastwood make as a director and/or actor with basically playing the same role in also almost the same story every time, detective who makes no excuses and goes in hunt for a serial killer...sounds more than familiar? And 'Tightrope' is exactly that kind of movie, although atmosphere is a bit darker than usual in Clint Eastwood's detective movies, which is a very good thing because the more darker the atmosphere in these kind of crime-mystery-thriller movies gets they get more exciting to watch. Other than slightly different atmosphere, 'Tightrope' is same as every other Clint Eastwood's detective film, it doesn't matter what his character's name is, Wes Block or Harry Callahan, it's the same personality and work approach. Fans of 'Dirty Harry' could love this, everyone else who is into investigative-thrillers should watch this movie.<br /><br />7/10 | 1pos
|
The movie turned out to be really good. I went to the special screening last Wednesday at the Magnolia. The movie was... different, not at all what I expected. There was hardly any background music; the mood was set directly from the scenes and the characters. It's going to be released late spring, so I do not want to give too much of it away. :) It was a horrific story, a true story. At times I wanted (and did) scream out. Other times the theater was filled with a nervous laughter, followed by gasps. The movie made you feel sentimental towards the characters, showing glimpses of whom they were, inside and out the Center, but at the same time making you despise them for the terrible crimes that they had committed and showed no remorse for.<br /><br />Afterwards the director was there. He had flown in all the way from Brazil. When asked what his intended message of the movie was, he said "Message!? If I wanted to send I message I would go to the Post Office!" Also he stated that the destruction of the detention center, Carandiru, was an important step in their government. The place wasn't even a prison. I was a holding place for criminals before they even had a sentence. The place was only destroyed about a year ago. He just wanted to share it with others; I implied that it was for everyone to learn from instead of actually having to live it themselves. All in all it was a much enjoyable evening. 9/10 | 1pos
|
Beginning in World War II-era Hungary, two soldiers stay at a remote country home. The sexually frustrated soldier Vendel (Csaba Czene) concerns himself with myriad masturbation techniques while watching his commanding officer's wife and daughters. The product of his frequent seed spillage, Kálmán (Gergo Trócsányi), grows to comfort his country as a champion eater. While the International Olympic Committee refuses to recognize his sport, Kalman remains stolid and captures the heart of Gizella (Adél Stanczel), a fellow female champion. Their heir, Lajos (Marc Bischoff), has not inherited an ounce of his parents' impressive girth. This sickly lad lives a life of quiet desperation as a taxidermist. A disappointment to his corpulent father, Lajos finds a few lucky solutions to solve his problems.<br /><br />Following these three generations of fairly twisted fellows, TAXIDERMIA is light on plot but heavy on visuals. Visceral often to the point of being gross, few bodily fluids and orifices go unseen in Palfi's sophomore feature effort. Recommended. | 1pos
|
Richard Burton was always a wooden film actor and an overacting ham who just recited the lines in that horrid chain smoker's gravel voice of his. He was far too old for this film and looked like he was about to drop dead at any minute. All the other actors were too old and obviously unfit for their parts as well. This is a racist film, and it was made in South Africa in the apartheid era. This was a hugely controversial decision. Roger Moore, a Tory tax exile who should never have been cast as James Bond since he was already too old when he started, had no problems with funding apartheid throughout the 1970s. This is just a very bad, predictable and clichéd film by that hack director Andrew V McLaglen. To be avoided.<br /><br />0/10. | 0neg
|
So I got this movie recommended by a horror-film buff at the local videostore, and I somewhat appreciate that he told me about this movie. It has a good plot and great potential to do something with it. It has a good soundtrack with mostly electronic songs on it. But it felt too much like a student project film for some course on film-making.<br /><br />The main actor gets annoying fast and can't deliver dialogue at all. (Probably why they cast him in a serial killer role) And having the serial killer talk about what he's doing the entire length of the movie gets really boring and drawn out. I don't know where they got any of these actors, and I hope I'm not "fortunate" to see them in another film. The plot itself falls flat when the multi-twist ending gets pushed in your face and you feeel like screaming, "Oh man!" and feel ultimately disappointed. And if the main guy gives me one more Nietzsche quote, I'm gonna be his new killer.<br /><br />Overall, a good concept which goes dry and actors who can't act or speak so they speak over the action. And the quality is sub par if that means anything. 4/10 | 0neg
|
Literally one of the darkest of noir films, though not everyone's favorite it seems.<br /><br />THE ENFORCER is criticized in several comments posted on IMDb in part for its portraying cops learning code words such as "hit" and "contract", for the first time.<br /><br />The words are a minor springboard device which aren't crucial to the evidence. Eye-witness testimony is what the cops badly need to put the top man in the chair.<br /><br />The historical context loosely linking the plot to Murder, Inc. hardly diminishes the ability of the film to hold up as an edgy crime suspense drama some 55 years later. <br /><br />It's a movie with a great ensemble cast of character actors relishing the juicy dialog.<br /><br />Of course viewers today aren't going to drop their jaws over the cinematic debut of words that have long since become common in the colloquial lexicon.<br /><br />Especially when there are plenty of great lines in the film to enjoy, and even mimic over and over again:<br /><br />Such as Ted De Corsia's "He ain't human!", "I gotta get-out-of-here!" and "You know what to use. Use it!"<br /><br />And the meeting between the #1 man and his #2 man, whose repartee enriched with sinister gestures is well worth rediscovering:<br /><br />Mendoza- "I've been worked over by some of the best, and you're just what I'm looking for." Rico -"What? You want some more?" Mendoza - "I can use a guy like you!"<br /><br />Rico - "You must be nuts!" Mendoza - "I've still got a dime left. C'mon, I'll buy you a cup of coffee!"<br /><br />Mendoza - "Someday you'll realize I'm a great man. I'll make you a rich man." Rico - "I must have kicked you in the head!"<br /><br />Mendoza - "This is my first contract. I'm getting paid $500 for the hit." Rico - "You'll never have $500 as long as you live!"<br /><br />My favorite shock scene is when a hit man realizes he's about to be "taken care of" by an old crony, he makes a desperate break for it into the night, letting out a blood-curdling scream.<br /><br />THE ENFORCER is not presented as a bio or semi-documentary at all, really. There is no narration, no final moral. Bogey doesn't indirectly lecture the viewers, instead he's picking his own brain as Ferguson. <br /><br />Though he's a dedicated lawman, Bogey's not playing a preachy reformer as did John McIntire (Police Commissioner Hardy), quite admirably to be sure, in the 1950 John Huston crime caper classic, THE ASPHALT JUNGLE. <br /><br />ASPHALT JUNGLE and FORCE OF EVIL are also films with scenes of double-crosses and back- stabbing that I enjoy as much as THE ENFORCER.<br /><br />Relentlessly grim, and for the most part original, THE ENFORCER stands on it's own.<br /><br />The ending is a bit anti-climatic only because it wraps up so quickly after all the tension and flashbacks have reached the anticipated moment of the "pay-off", so I rate it a 9 out of 10. <br /><br />I had no problem with the way the story unfolds as we are given pieces of the puzzle. The flashbacks get better and better so my advice is stick with it. <br /><br />Underrated gem, deserving better than the reserved reviews and short shrift it often gets.<br /><br />Zero Mostel, Everett Sloane, Ted De Corsia, Jack Lambert etc. all contribute what are perhaps among their best, if brief, performances on film,<br /><br />TWO ICE-PICKS, WAY UP! | 1pos
|
This movie might have a directional setting towards the political and private life of India's Prime Minister, Indra Gandhi, nonetheless, its powerful and sentimental theme carries the audience with the subtle forces of life which all and sundry experience, at least, one or the other times in their married lives.<br /><br />Gulzar has excellently directed the movie while adorning it with passionately electrifying emotional focus during certain scenes. The musical score and songs are worthy of all praise. The hypnotically tranquil appeal of the song "Tere Bina Zindagi se Shikwa" speaks volumes about the meaningful and touching melody besides its filming against the gloomy backdrop of a ruined historical monument in a moonlit night. Much different from the rubbish artificiality of present day movies, the songs of this film exude a living originality to the flow of events. <br /><br />Sanjeev Kumar and Suchitra Sen both have given their lifetime best performances and Gulzar earned a big name with its release. It is definitely a must-see film. | 1pos
|
"Trooper Hook" is an engaging title, suggestive of a colorful robust cavalry Western, maybe something along the lines of those majestic John Ford numbers. Sadly, it's anything but that.<br /><br />The original story is by Jack Schaeffer, who wrote the novel "Shane." The book wasn't that hot, being essentially a cobbled together and unsophisticated old-fashioned pulp piece. It was made into a Western masterpiece by George Stevens, the director, and his crew.<br /><br />Well, Charles Marquis Warren is no George Stevens. His direction here and elsewhere is flat and uninspired. The script is of little help. After Sergeant Hook, Joel McRae, battles and defeats the Apaches, they find a captive white woman Barbara Stanwyck who has had a child by the Apache Chief, the camera-ready but modestly talented Rudolfo Acosta.<br /><br />McRae takes Stanwyck and her child on a stagecoach ride, along with various other passengers, some of them obviously derivative. (When, oh, when, will we see a stagecoach in dangerous country without a greedy banker?) They are pursued by Acosta and his band, who have escaped from prison. Finally, McRae sees to it that Stanwyck and her husband, John Dehner, who has thought her dead for lo these seven or eight years, are reunited. The only problem is that Dehner doesn't like the notion that Stanwyck has been getting it on with an Apache, nor is he particularly fond of the prospect of raising "another man's leavings." Well, en fin, Dehner and Acosta are killed and Stanwyck and her boy leave with McRae, object: matrimony.<br /><br />I suppose something could have been done with a plot like this, even if the Apaches in some ways are the usual stand-ins for African Americans. But it's a slow story with a lot of grumbling and no sparkles in the script. Whoever thought of casting the familiar and reliable, Viennese-as-all-get-out Cecilia Lovsky as a Spanish duena? She ought to be making Sacher-tortes, not tortillas. Barbara Stanwyck, a good and sexy actress ten or fifteen years earlier, looks steely. We're half an hour into the film before she has a line of dialog -- and not many after that. Joel McRae is almost unrecognizably aged and wears a mustache that makes him look older. It's not that actors in late middle-age don't belong in Westerns. McRae himself did a splendid job two years later in "Ride the High Country", under a far better director, and Gary Cooper was just about right in "High Noon." But, whatever your age, you need a good vehicle and a director who knows what he's doing -- and this ain't it.<br /><br />It's not an insulting movie. Its sentiments aren't wrong. And it's not outrageously sloppy. It's just plain dull. | 0neg
|
Finally, I got to see this legendary masterpiece on TV. When I first heard that there was an Arabian movie featuring the Western icon "Hopalong Cassidy"(William Boyd) and the Gothic icon Boris Karloff, the idea sounded like a disparate joke. (Actually, Karloff only plays a brief, minor role, being new to the silver screen at that time.) <br /><br />The script is very original. The shooting is excellent for the times. And the acting is so well done, you feel what the characters feel, and can easily read the actors' lips for practically every line. Unlike many silent-era films, you get the sensation that you are in this one.<br /><br />The comedy starts right from the opening scene, and I will describe it only to illustrate the unexpected silliness of William Boyd: He is in a night battle in World War I, and drops into a shell crater to avoid German gunfire. His 1st Sergeant, a bully and a brute whom he despises, had just fallen in before him, and is unconscious. Boyd tries to revive him until he sees who he is, and starts slinging mud on the Sergeant's face. He revives and they immediately jump into a fistfight in the mud. When a flare illuminates the night sky, they look up and see the hole is surrounded with numerous Germans with bayonets. The enemy was having a time watching them fight each other! It is an eye opener to see the future Hopalong Cassidy in a real cut-up comedy role, back when he looked like a very young cross between Marlon Brando and Jack Haley.<br /><br />I was very impressed with the nitty-gritty reality in this film about POW's of World War I, in an era when glossed-over heroics and reality-denial dominated war films. Moreover, there is often a timeless feeling, especially during the POW camp scenes, which gives the viewer a sense of closeness to the people of that era; and the understanding that people have at all times in history been, in their own way, "modern."<br /><br />The dual-based plot, (survival and escape, and later a pursuit of romance), rolls steadily through ever-changing backgrounds. The factors of comedy, action, danger, and romance blend harmoniously throughout. The relationship between Boyd's and Wolheim's characters develop from utter hatred, to enduring animosity, to forced survival cooperation, to mild mutual suspiciousness, to amorous competition, to strong friendship.<br /><br />Though this is a silent film from 1927, centered on World War I in Europe and Turkey, I have never had such a modern and timeless feeling from a silent movie. This results from the cool, timeless acting and characterizations, and the excellent directing and shooting.<br /><br />This is the first silent drammatic film my kids have thoroughly enjoyed, (until now only preferring silent comedic standards by Keaton, Chaplin, and Harold Lloyd.) | 1pos
|
I hated this movie. War movies are difficult to pull off as it is, at least historical ones, but this one fails more miserably than any I've seen. There are some okay moments. There's a few good moments between actors, and occasionally you can get the tension of the cat-and-mouse game of the two snipers. However, the rest is terrible. It's all war scenes, with one drinking scene and one sex scene. There's no chemistry between Jude Law and Rachel Weisz, and this is the probably the main reason why the sex scene is so weak and distasteful. It seems a little like a last-ditch attempt to say both "Look! These characters really do have a relationship! They're having sex!" as well as "Look! It really is hard for these characters! They're having sex on a tiny cot!" Not to mention an excuse to show Rachel Weisz' ass.<br /><br />This is two hours of my life that I want back. | 0neg
|
As co-founder of Nicko & Joe's Bad Film Club Show here in the UK, all I can do is stand on my chair and applaud wildly. A true, true instance of a great bad movie, it's come a very close second to Shark Attack 3, which is of course THE BEST bad shark movie EVER.<br /><br />The best thing about the film though is being able to see all of my favourite shark movies in the one film! Genius idea. So many times I've been stuck watching a movie like Star Wars and thought, jeesh, this movie is great, but it could do with a few Star Trek cut aways.<br /><br />There are moments of true hilarity and you have to admire the balls it takes to put a film like this out there<br /><br />Bravo, no, really, BRAVO. | 1pos
|
Maybe because I grew up watching SNL live during its first 5 or so years but I really got a laugh out of the Coneheads when they would do that skit on SNL. I admit I have not seen the movie in a while but I was just thinking about Laraine Newman from doing some reading about the group Devo (its a long story) and I just realized that she really got screwed not getting the role that she played on the TV show. I see pics of her on IMDb and she looks OK now, back in 93 she probably still looked cool, I mean why not use her as the kid? I mean there freakin aliens anyway so so what if a 35 year old plays a teenager. The teen in the movie Coneheads plays like the Marylin Munster type as the only semi normal one and her role is kinda lame except when she scarfs down the sub, that was funny, and Farleys reaction was about the best part of the movie. Well, I liked Coneheads but then again I liked Dragnet so I'm probably an Akyroid lover at heart that would watch anything he's in an enjoy it. | 1pos
|
Dark Tales of Japan is a collection of made-for-TV J-Horror stories, shot by popular Japanese directors. The result is a Twilight Zone style anthology that aims to please those who can't get enough of Japanese ghost films, but unfortunately it fails due to rather cheap production values, poor effects and a lack of genuine scares.<br /><br />In 'Would You Like To Hear A Scary Tale?' (directed by Yoshihiro Nakamura), which acts as a 'wraparound' story for the whole anthology, a creepy old lady boards a late-night bus and proceeds to tell a scary story to the driver (despite his not being too keen on hearing one). She's obviously a ghost, but isn't the slightest bit frightening.<br /><br />The Spiderwoman (also by Nakamura), follows a couple of magazine reporters who are writing an article on a mysterious monster that has been repeatedly sighted in the town of Ibaraki. The intrepid investigators track down the creature... and soon wish that they hadn't! A couple of creepy moments and some rather fun dodgy CGI make this tale just about watchable.<br /><br />Next up is 'Crevices' (directed by Norio 'Ring 0' Tsuruta), in which a young man finds out exactly why a missing friend has plastered his apartment with red tape: it's to keep out the creatures that lurk in the crevices! Lots of creepy atmosphere make this the best of the bunch.<br /><br />The Sacrifice (directed by Koji Shiraishi) is the title of the third story, and although lacking in scares, it is made watchable by the presence of the gorgeous Yû Yamada who stars as a young woman cursed by a creepy workmate, but who is ultimately saved by her mother (who sacrifices herself to a giant disembodied head with strange eyes!).<br /><br />Blonde Kwaidan, the low point of the whole film (despite being directed by perhaps the most well known of those involvedTakashi 'The Grudge' Shimizu), is a (mercifully) short story which features a Japanese businessman in Hollywood, who comes face-to-face with a blonde ghost. Yawn!<br /><br />Before the film is rounded off with another 'scary' story from the ghostly bus-lady seen at the beginning of the film, Masayuki Ochiai (director of the upcoming Shutter remake) delivers the fairly enjoyable Presentiment, in which a trio of ghosts scare the hell out of a poor man trapped in a lift. | 0neg
|
You know you're in trouble when you can spot continuity errors in the opening sequence of a film (check out the disappearing bra) without even looking for them. "Devil's Prey" is otherwise a well-shot movie, but it's just hokum of the ninth degree. The devil worshippers are a joke compared to the satanic cults in other horror films (and, although they clearly outnumber the heroes, they persist in attacking them one by one), and I hope Patrick Bergin knows that, after a role like this, his career has little hope of reviving. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
You'll want to see "A Holy Terror" if you're a Humphrey Bogart fan, but it would be incorrect to consider this a Bogey film. George O'Brien stars and portrays Anthony Woodbury, the socialite son of a father who legally changed his name twenty five years ago, and at the same time had William Drew (James Kirkwood) placed under surveillance. Adverse to publicity and never allowing a photo, Thomas Woodbury/John Bard (Robert Warwick) is seen only briefly on screen when he is shown going for a hidden weapon as Drew arrives at his estate home to force a confrontation. When Tony learns of his father's hidden past, he's determined to learn more about William Drew and the circumstances of his father's death.<br /><br />The film's most interesting scene occurs when aviator Tony literally crash lands his plane into the home of Miss Jerry Foster (Sally Eilers). She begins a cat and mouse relationship with Anthony, who begins using the name Bard once he reaches Wyoming.<br /><br />The plot of the movie gets muddied when William Drew asks his ranch foreman Steve Nash (Bogart) to bring Bard to the ranch unharmed. Nash has an underhanded side, and involves his partner Butch Morgan (Stanley Fields) in the endeavor. Since Anthony wants to meet with Drew, and Drew is paying Nash a thousand dollars to bring Anthony to him, there's no reason for Morgan to pistol whip Bard and carry out the request like a kidnapping. Obviously done as a dramatic element for the film, the tactic doesn't make much sense, other than to provide a reason for Anthony to arrange his escape in a dramatic ride on horseback, with a rather effective looking leap over Devil's Gulch that the baddies won't risk attempting.<br /><br />The astute viewer can figure out the payoff - William Drew and John Bard were once in love with the same woman, who married Bard. But Anthony's father was really William Drew, and on that note the film ends rather abruptly.<br /><br />"A Holy Terror" clocks in at just fifty three minutes, and that's probably a saving grace. The performances are rather stilted with not much more than the characters going through their motions. Bogart's turn as a bad guy is of some interest, building on the con man turn in his prior picture "The Bad Sister". It would be five more years before he gets his hands on a real meaty role as the villain Duke Mantee in "The Petrified Forest". | 0neg
|
It´s no good point in this movie. The worst movie ever. I don´t want to say more. If you like boring movies, watch this. | 0neg
|
Great great episode, i wondered when are they gonna make a tribute to movies like 'Wrong Turn' and 'Hills Have Eyes', and they really delivered it with 'The Benders'.<br /><br />I had no clue that this episode will be the one about deranged sick family who hunts people for sport, because its title 'The Benders' would suggest that it's about some supernatural beings who can maybe change their look, like shape-shifters or something like that.<br /><br />Anyway the episode is very well directed, aided by very good acting performances, specially from Dean and female cop who helps him find his lost brother who was kidnapped by the members of this sick family.<br /><br />Episode also tries to tell us that you don't need supernatural stuff and monsters to make a scary TV show episode or a movie, humans will do just fine ! <br /><br />9/10 | 1pos
|
I am a big fan of Jeff Foxworthy. The Blue Collar Tour movies and Blue Collar TV are hilarious. Unfortunately, this roast did not follow in their foot steps. I, usually, think Larry the Cable Guy is very funny, but not this time. His comments about Corky from Life Goes On were totally uncalled for. To make such a comment about a person born with Down Syndrome was in poor taste. His comment about Christopher Reeve sat badly with me, also. If I was a member of Mr. Reeve's family I would have liked it even less than I did. Several made comments about Jeff's 'clean' comedy, but they chose not to follow in his footsteps by repeating such words as f**k over and over. When will they learn four letter words are not what makes a comedian. This show put down others more than it did Jeff Foxworthy. It attacked those with Down Syndrome, Mexicans, gays and, of course, the South, as well as others. If you were a comedian on this show, you might want to take lessons from Mr. Jeff Foxworthy. This show fell short of the usual Foxworthy standards. | 0neg
|
I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1. | 0neg
|
I'm shaking my head right now as I notice the high rating for this documentary. I like crossword puzzles maybe like once a year but was very amazed by those who love it. I mean love it. Slamming their headphones when they find out they screwed up only made me laugh. It was interesting to see Mike Mussina talk about his experience with crossword puzzles. And perhaps it was interesting to know that some people can do them in under two minutes but what else can you cram in 80 minutes. It seemed like they just talked about the same old stuff for 60 minutes than they had the competition for 20 minutes.<br /><br />I guess you can say that I don't get it but others will. A decent documentary and you will learn useless things but for entertainment, it was way below average in my eyes. | 0neg
|
----- SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER ALERT -----<br /><br />This film is bad in every way! Normally i newer comment film here on IMDb, but this film is so extremely bad, that I gotta warn people against it. It got no story, you don't know exactly what the point is, is the main character good or bad and fast you don't care. The photography is boring, trying to become something and end up extremely pretentious. The symbolism is SO thick that you can have to use a big knife to cut trough it. Oh sweet Jesus. And the whole holocaust theme is simply pathetic. The main character, an old Jewish man, is so annoying, and everybody just adore him "because hes so magic" (blaaaahhh), so I actually cheered on the Germans. The use of voice-over is simply pathetic, and make the film even more pretentious. The scene where the nurse gets introduced says it all: You see the feets from a beautiful woman walking down a hall. The camera pans up and you see her sexy legs and you notice that she is wearing a nurse suit. The pan ends up at her ass and its a nice, sexy ass. When you see this pan, the voice-over say something like: "The nurse, her legs is so sexy, and her ass is the best". Duh... yes, that what we can see on the screen. Don't have to tell me like I'm an idiot. I feel sorry for all the Jews that died in WWII, but its still not an excuse for making such a horrible film. zero stars from me... | 0neg
|
This highly entertaining movie is about an assortment of odd ball characters who hang around an ordinary bar. There is no need for scripting the characters. They come as they are. There is a woman who hides a sordid past by claiming to have been a burlesque dancer for royalty. There is a mysterious professor who hangs around the bar all day reading the paper. There is the dancer/comedian. There is a guy who plays a marble/pinball game all day in hopes of reaching the stage where the machine lights up and spits out flags and sparklers. There is a not too bright, but lovable man who hopes to have enough money to marry the burlesque dancer.<br /><br />All in all this is very entertaining movie. The two most gripping characters are a former cowboy who spins tall tales. At one point, he claims to be 59, but then tells about his experiences across the U.S. that happened over 70 years ago. There is also one of the scariest, meanest mobsters ever portrayed. He looks so purely mean and plain that it is scary. I recommend this movie. It has all the appearances of being the original "Cheers". | 1pos
|
I actually happened into the first airing of the pilot episode by pure chance of changing the channels. I was in 10th grade at the time. I faithfully watched Magnum P.I. through its eight season run, and completely enjoyed everything about the program. When a teacher at High School couldn't get his door unlocked, we used to say to him "work the lock, Magnum. Don't look at the dogs" and he would throw the whole class out to "the bullpen" as he called "study hall". Anyway, I remember at one time CBS had "Wednesday's Heroes" Mike Hammer at 8pm, MAGNUM P.I. at 9pm and The Equalizer at 10pm. Anyway, after Magnum P.I. ended after season eight, I did not faithfully follow any TV show every week until "The Shield" premiered on FX! I have purchased Magnum P.I. DVD Sets for season's 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8. I enjoy watching the show as much now as I did when it originally aired. It is something to see that there were no cell phones and no internet information superhighway while the show was on. This is an excellent TV show from the 1980's that has aged fairly gracefully. | 1pos
|
To start off with, this is not a bad movie at all considering how little it cost to make ($6000? $3000? Something like that.) and was edited on a desktop computer. But, it's still pretty cheesy. The low-budget documentary format is clever, but doesn't really lend itself to being scary. The Blair Witch project is much, much better...much, MUCH scarier, and much more convincingly performed. The Last Broadcast is going to start making some dough now that it's riding on the Blair Witch's coattails, and unbelievably, some people are saying that it's better than TBWP. NO...FRIGGIN...WAY... The Last Broadcast is interesting and original, and it holds your attention well-- I'll admit that I was surprised by the ending and had to view it several times for it to sink in-- it was quite cool. Overall, though, the movie was a disappointment. | 0neg
|
I'll admit that when I first turned on ABC family at 8 I was a bit skeptical about this movie. It looked like a cute romantic comedy though and there was nothing much on other than an "Alias" repeat and a repeat of the Lifetime show "The Division" so I settled down on my bed to watch it and I was quite surprised at how good it was. The characters worked well, Sarah Rue(I don't know how she spells her name)and Carley Pope both amazed me with their talent. Brian A. Green was somewhat of a new face to me. I had never seen him before in a movie or anything so I was suprised with his performance as well. Overall a good expiernce for a "TV" movie, I think had it been released at the box office it would have been medicore, but TV movies are never as good at box office hits. | 1pos
|
I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.<br /><br />If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an "old-fashioned" type, then don't bother. | 0neg
|
Although this western feature has much big name talent, it however fails in quality. The plot is thin.There is too much unnecessary violence. Direction is poor. | 0neg
|
What I love about British comedies is that they're always looking for something new. They're never content with repeating the same ideas under the guise of new actors and story lines. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is one of those crazy new ideas. Richard Ayoade and Matthew Holness return to the '80s, look for everything that was bad in that decade's TV shows, for what was in need of a send up, and created this show which spoofs anything from A Team to Night Rider to Miami Vice.<br /><br />Garth Marenghi is a horror writer, a visionary, a dream weaver, or, as he puts it, an imaginer. He's really a mediocre novelist and a worse director and writer. But somehow he manages to get a TV show made with his publisher, Dean Learner, and actors Todd Rivers (the amazing Matt Berry) and Madeleine Wool (Alice Lowe). The show is awful, with corny plots, bad sfx, and a synth-heavy score typical of the time. Garth believes the show was so ahead of its time it could change the world. Unfortunately no channel bought it and Darkplace remained in his basement for nearly twenty years (except for a run in Peru).<br /><br />Decades later a channel decides to air the show. For this Garth adds a few interviews with himself and the crew. Many times they interrupt the action to comment on it. Obviously, these are the finer bits, with the serious way they discuss the show they made, incapable of realizing how poor it is.<br /><br />Alas, they only made six episodes. I can't understand why it didn't gain more popularity. The episodes are short and one will feel hungry for more. For this reason buying the DVD is a good idea. The crew created two extra interviews, each 30 minutes long, which are as amusing as any of the episodes and give a lot of insight into Garth, Dean, Todd and Madeleine's mysterious fate. This is the only DVD I've actually bothered to watch all the extras, they're all amazing and add a lot to the original show.<br /><br />Up there with the modern shows of its kind - The League of Gentlemen and The Mighty Boosh - this mix of humor and horror, of TV and movie spoofs is one of the most original and unforgettable shows made. | 1pos
|
The film, Cyborg was a relatively unimpressive movie. I explored that the realism within was quite lacklustre, with reference to when Van Damme's character escapes from the crucifiction cross - then began a mighty fighting scene, which was highly disappointing to the viewer.<br /><br />The antagonist was also quite disappointing on appearance and acting skills. His fighting technique was quite pitiful, and although so was Van Damme's, the slugfest was rightly won by the 'Muscles from Brussels'.<br /><br />To recommend this film to a friend, would make them believe that i was the enemy. The film showed glimpses of hope, but nothing progressed from it. A very disappointing film. | 0neg
|
Duvall is nothing less than superb in this movie. I don't recall him playing a more believable character ever before. The one disappointment in the movie was the church scenes. I belong to a Christian church with "enthusiastic" members and Pastors. However, they don't stand around screaming the same one liners the entire time and I don't recall ever being in a church that did. They usually have a message for the day and it is different all the time. I am sure some more research could have been done to make the church scenes more realistic. I might have had more compassion for E.F.'s situation had he gained more of my respect by giving a great sermon. | 1pos
|
The acting in this movie was so bad, especially with the killer. When he came charging at them at the end on the ATV, I was laughing so hard, my side hurt. They could not create a parody of this movie and have it be any funnier. I pride myself on seeing really bad films, but even this one hits a new low. Not even worth the bargain bin. What a waste of film and time. I hope they never work again. The only thing scary about this movie is if someone was duped to seeing it at a theater. The only thing that scares me is if they make a sequel. I can't believe they were able to gather together so my people that lack any talent. Just... bad. | 0neg
|
It's a good thing that the following year from That Certain Woman, Bette Davis and Henry Fonda got to make Jezebel and acquit themselves well in a drama of substance. It certainly showed that as a team they could do better than That Certain Woman and have it be the only film they would be judged on as a screen team.<br /><br />For such a noble thing Bette's been around the track quite a bit and gets a few more turns before the film ends. As a teen she marries a notorious hoodlum who is killed in a gun battle and she's trying to live it down. She's working under an assumed name as a secretary to wealthy attorney Ian Hunter. When exposed Hunter doesn't care because he's in a rather loveless marriage to the rather frigid Katharine Alexander.<br /><br />Bette likes him OK, but her heart is set on playboy Henry Fonda. They do get married, but Fonda's father Donald Crisp comes running after his son and gets the marriage annulled. Of course he can't annul what Fonda left to remember him by. <br /><br />Bette doesn't tell him about their kid and later Fonda marries socialite Anita Louise who is later paralyzed from a car crash. If you're a devotee of soap operas the plot can take any number of directions from here and I won't say.<br /><br />If That Certain Woman were made today it would be debuting on the Lifetime Channel. From what I've just described there's enough material here for a dozen soaps. One common thing I noticed in this film. The women are all noble and self sacrificing, especially Anita Louise. The men however are all dogs, between the lusting in his heart Hunter, the weakling Fonda, the tyrannical Crisp, even the reporter who tries to blackmail Davis, Hugh O'Connell. Now that's an article of faith to get on the Lifetime Channel.<br /><br />Bette and Hank do their best with it all, but there are enough tears to fill Lake Erie in this film and suds enough to wash the uniforms at the Great Lakes Naval Training station. | 0neg
|
I'm not writing any more plaudits for this movie, for most everything has been said about it before. Even a quarter century later, I weep everytime I watch Mr. Hurt and Mr. Hopkins in their roles. The great humanity of David Lynch and the producers has left us with an equally frightening and endearing vision of Mr. Merick.<br /><br />Sadly, there will always be elephant men, as long as ignorance and the impulse for destruction rule men and their domain. | 1pos
|
I'd never heard of this film until recently it was recommended to me as a pleasant but easily overlooked Jean Arthur film<br /><br />Jean Arthur's range is hardly tested in this one - she plays Carole a nice girl next-door type with the typical Arthur intelligence but without any of the more complex qualities, which in certain of her films drew such memorable performances.<br /><br />George Brent, as Fred Gilbert, is similarly untested in this film (as in most of his films) but is in the additionally unfortunate position of providing the comedy in the romance, initially through his health regime obsession and then his superficial attraction to Maizie (Dorothea Kent), (the latter also being the means by which an essentially simple story is sufficiently prolonged to allow a feature length gap between the boy meets girl beginning and the inevitable - this is 1930's romantic comedy - boy gets girl ending).<br /><br />A modern audience may not react too well to Fred's comments about a woman's role in business or his attempt at ruthlessly (in intent if not in effect) resolving his `Maizie situation' once the attraction has palled. However the main problem with this film is not that the women's movement has moved on 70 years since the film was made - 1930's comedies are after all, remembered for the strong and independent heroines and Fred is of course made to regret and reconsider his words and actions. It is simply that you do wonder a little just what Carole sees in him. Fortunately this film is saved from the romance being completely unbelievable by Carole's obvious recognition (and Jean Arthur's ability to convey) that she loves Fred regardless of his faults.<br /><br />What is slightly harder to accept is Fred's overlooking Carole for so long (at least once she is out of the rather scary suit and spectacles she wears in the film's opening scene). Even allowing for the fact that anyone can make a fool of him/herself when it comes to love, Fred's abrupt changes of heart, especially the first volt face when he decides to employ Maizie, left me a little puzzled. A nice clue is given in the scene where Fred follows Carole to the secretarial school and in response to he snappish `I'm busy' he sharply retorts, `I never saw you when you weren't'. However this is not explored fully nor given elsewhere as an explanation for his foolishness (at just 80 minutes long, an additional 2-3 minutes to deepen this rather more satisfactory explanation for Fred's behaviour would not exactly have overdone things).<br /><br />In addition to the main cast there is the usual nice support from Lionel Stander and Ruth Donnelly, Columbia contract actors, as likely as not to be in any Jean Arthur film of this time. I'm not sure why but Lionel Stander saying the word `bellicose' just cracks me up. There are some nice scenes between Ruth Donnelly and Jean Arthur, which are a rarity in a film genre where scenes between 2 women are usually about romantic rivalry and bitchy exchanges. This element is of course present in the scenes between Carole and Maizie, the latter being as unpleasant and manipulative as the audience needs her to be in order that we do not need to worry about her (or Fred's treatment of her) when she is ultimately dispatched (landing on her feet in any event).<br /><br />If you like 1930's Hollywood romantic comedy then this is a sweet, unassuming film, which, while not as memorable as many other films of Hollywood's golden age, is still worth a look. | 1pos
|
The original version based on the same story, El Bosque del lobo was a little spanish masterpiece but this movie is a pathetic waste. Bad acting (The lead female actress was last seen in another bad spanish production, Beyond Re- animator, a terrible sequel to the cult classic from the 80´s)and direction (take a look to his terrible boring first film, Second name), and more than dissapointing visuals, this film is good for one thing: curing insomnia. I will like to know why this Elsa pataky is a big new sex symbol in Spain. She´s petty but that´s it really. Her acting is one of the worst ever. And Julian Sands, who does remember him? Exactly. Where is John Landis when you need him? 2 out of 10. | 0neg
|
I love watching movies, and often times, I ignore documentaries, because I feel they're too dry. You see, they try to educate you or inform you, and I want to be entertained. Well, this did all three! I was fascinated with the women's personal stories, and would often compare theirs to my own. It was insightful to here about life back then, dispelling others into thinking that it's some sort of trend (tsk, tsk!) or some other backwards idea. If you want to get cozy with a bowl of popcorn and lend your ear to some tales of long ago, if you're straight and disbelieve that older lesbians existed, if you want to rid yourself of ignorance to find out more than "what lesbians do in bed", if you want to see fiction mixed gracefully with true life stories, watch this. You may have met one of these fascinating women and not known it. I was at a bookstore, and I heard a familiar voice behind me, thinking it was someone I knew. I peaked behind me, and there stood the Native woman who appeared in it. I was excited, but did nothing about it. If I wasn't so shy, I might have thanked her for sharing her story and for being an inspiration to the younger generation who heard it. | 1pos
|
I was excited at the prospect of watching Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag, thinking that it would be a genuine documentary. How wrong I was. The saccharine sweet narration can be rather vomit inducing at times, however in places it is delivered in a dull, lifeless monotone. The documentary aspect of the film is very shallow indeed as it simply glosses over things and never really actually educates or demonstrates anything, we are just treated to some very basic facts figures over the top of some visuals that are, admittedly, stunning.<br /><br />Some of the cinematography is excellent and I would love to be able to say make the whole experience worthwhile however it suffers from bad editing and staging and a lack of continuity making it obvious that many shots were filmed in various locations nowhere near Red Flag, and during some of the dogfight sequences it's hard to keep track of who is who as the aircraft keep chopping and changing between shots so you have no real idea who is flying what.<br /><br />There is an excessive amount of pyrotechnics used to stage various explosions making the whole affair feel rather fake and forced. Ultimately this isn't a documentary and it isn't a film. It doesn't educate and it doesn't entertain, and it feels like a huge missed opportunity given the access the film crew had to the Red Flag exercises. | 0neg
|
I first saw WWHTKB when it was screened in my hometown film festival two years ago at one in the morning on a Saturday. I had been watching movies all day for two days (thank you Jolt Cola and Continental Breakfast coffee) at this point, and WWHTKB stood out for a few reasons as one of my favorite movies from the festival. The main storyline, though contrived at points, kept a consistent mix of cynical humor and sarcastic wit with downright impossibly ridiculous situations and an extremely unlikely cast of characters - including "Bitch," the main character's abusive ex-girlfriend - that had me laughing out loud more than a few times. There were a lot of things outside of the main storyline that stood out as downright hilarious concepts, such as the fake John Travolta film, "Oh Shenannigans!" from which they show clips. Though these elements made me chuckle, they really don't stand out from the entire genre of late-teen-college-age movie as something original. What really stands out from the film is the high amount of action that happens within the scenes, but having no real interaction with the plot. For example two movie theater clerks poke holes into paper cups and get kinky with the popcorn tubs while two main characters talk about going out to the improv later that night. This is the kind of movie that is best watched with a couple of drinks and some good friends that you've gotten up to some fun with. I got to talk to the director at the festival, and ended up actually buying a copy of the movie. It has some of the most wonderful cover art for any movie that I've ever seen. A definite watch for one of those late night boredom releases. | 1pos
|
Brian Aherne stars as an aging stage actor. He is rich and famous, but very unhappy and tired. Most of this is because he's feeling that life has somehow passed him by--he's a relic of the past. His trophy wife isn't particularly interested in him and he longs for his long dead first wife and his idyllic youth.<br /><br />When he arrives late for the first rehearsal of his next play, the director (real-life director Sydney Pollack plays this part) is brash and obnoxious--further pushing him to long for the good old days.<br /><br />Then, suddenly, upon leaving the theater it's now 1927. He looks the same but everyone else is younger. And, to his great surprise, his old friend and wife are alive and full of life. You'd think that this would be everything he'd ever wished for, but Aherne soon learns that you can never go back.<br /><br />The theme of this episode is living in the moment and while this installment of the series isn't as weird or unpredictable as most, it manages to work well because of the nice leisurely pace that was created by Aherne. He glides slowly and deliberately through his role--instilling it with both class as well as sentimentality that I really liked. Not a great episode but also one well worth seeing. | 1pos
|
If sinking your teeth into over-ripe fruit is one of your pleasures, then Jamaica Inn should be your dish. It features one of the ripest and most ludicrous performances I've ever seen from Charles Laughton as Sir Humphrey Pengallan, and that covers a lot of territory. As the squire who is the full-figured mastermind behind a gang of murderous wreckers on the Cornish coast, Laughton sports the latest dandyish fashions, a false nose, false eyebrows which almost have lives of their own, a carefully coifed comb-over, a piggish over-bite and line readings that would make Bette Davis at her most mannered envious. Close behind in the ripe playing sweepstakes is Robert Newton as Jem Trehearne, law officer and hero, who roles his eyes almost as much as Laughton, and Leslie Banks as Joss Merlyn, the leader of the gang and the owner of Jamaica Inn. The only person who manages reasonably well is Maureen O'Hara who plays Mary, the plucky and beautiful niece of Merlyn's wife. Even she is largely confined to earnestly crying out for decency and screaming. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong. Jamaica Inn is so over-the-top it's a delight to watch, especially when Laughton is chewing the scenery. Hitchcock, making his last movie in England before leaving for the United States, supposedly became so bored during filming that he didn't care what the actors did. The story is a bodice-ripper by Daphne de Maurier; in fact, Maureen O'Hara's bodice gets ripped not once but twice. The time is about 1800. The place is Cornwall on the rocky coast. Jamaica Inn is a stone hulk of a building close by the warning light that shows ships where to avoid the rocks in the stormy seas. Someone with advance knowledge of ships with rich cargoes has been blocking the warning light. When the ships founder, wreckers work their way to the ships, slaughter all the sailors and take the cargo. Merlyn and his gang are the heavies, but who is the mastermind? Then young Mary, whose parents have died, shows up late one night at Jamaica Inn's doorstep to be taken in my her aunt, Merlyn's wife. At the same time we learn that the gang has a ringer in its midst, an officer of the law determined to bring justice to Cornwall and identify the mastermind. We also learn (this is no spoiler; we find out very early in the movie) that the mastermind is the effete, mannered Sir Humphrey. It all comes together with madness and murder on the wind, switching from Jamaica Inn and the rain-swept coast to Sir Henry's elegant mansion and his imperious demands. "Listen Merlyn," Sir Humphrey says, "I want money. I know what to do with money when I have it which is why I must have it. Do you understand? I must have it!" <br /><br />The movie looks great. There are crashing seas, stormy nights and coaches drawn by galloping horses. Jamaica Inn itself has that detailed, threatening look that Hitchcock achieved with the wind mill in Foreign Correspondent. Stone stairways go up and down, nothing fits well, shutters rattle in the wind. The scenery chewing isn't confined to the leads, either. The gang members get their moments, too, especially Emlyn Williams as Harry, an invariably cheery and dirty young man with a knife. The movie rises or falls, however, not on Hitchcock but on Laughton...and Laughton is so ripe he's spellbinding. You have to see him to appreciate his way with these words, spoken to a bound and gagged Mary, "We may be going a long way, you know. Nearer the sun, of course...the Isles of Greece. You're thinking that'll cost money, but I have enough. One must have enough. I always knew that to live like a gentleman, spaciously and with elegance, one must have money...and a few beautiful possessions, of course, like you, my deah." Sir Humphrey's last words bring the movie to a satisfyingly ornate ending: "Make way for Pengallan!" | 1pos
|
Great film! Some rather large plot holes that could have been easily avoided, if one were going to be honest, and at times the thing is frustratingly obscure and careless with logic. But Believers has a very creepy air, the acting is generally superb, and the ending is - if predictable a light year off - totally BRILLIANT. <br /><br />The movie plays like a very long episode of The Outer Limits (the 60s original, not the wretched colour revivals), and that's no bad thing. I suspect this movie played better outside of the US - American audiences tend to like everything explained with a minimum of ambiguity, and this movie has a very cavalier attitude towards plot information. Bad plot flaws damage the overall impact - the incredibly half-hearted search for the paramedics, the far too swift 'sex conversion' of the hero's buddy, the unexplained resurrection of a woman cult member, the badly answered question of why the paramedics needed to be kidnapped at all etc. But, ahhh, I've seen A-films that have made worse mistakes.<br /><br />Believers is most effective in the little details...the ever present loud speakers in the compound, constantly burbling propaganda you can only half hear, the glassy expressions on the faces of the cult members, the fact that these weird people are scary because they are NOT overtly evil. Perhaps more important is the fact that, like the Leader with the hero, the movie never tries to convince you to believe in what is happening...you can take it or leave it on one level or another. Comparisons with Jonestown are obvious, but the film's general tone owes a larger debt to the Aum Supreme Truth cult in Japan, with its' fetish for electronic devices and quasi-scientific esoterica, the usage of poison gas, and the idea that the charismatic leader holds a revealed "indisputable truth".<br /><br />Daniel Benzali is electrifying as 'The Teacher', creating a sort of Colonel Kurtz character. The Quanta Group's second in command, who appears at the start in the TV interview, and whose name eludes me, is also superb. Check out the deleted scenes on the DVD for moments featuring both men, both apparently improvised for the most part, that are better than anything kept in the movie. Puzzling omissions. The movie also contains one of the more chilling torture scenes in recent memory, in the shape of the electro-shock 'purging' of the hero. Devoid of gore, this scene is made frightening (for me at least) by the complete lack of emotion shown by the torturers. "It's for your own good" delivered in a weary monotone is far scarier than a truckload of Texas Chainsaw evil-chuckling over a victim.<br /><br />But *that* ending, a very erotic sex scene, the aforementioned EST torture moment, and a general air of weirdness and repressed hysteria, gives this film an edge. Well worth seeing. | 1pos
|
Wow I usually love your stuff, director Phil, but this was... painful to watch. You made a terrible film choice; does your long hiatus from directing have something to do with this turkey? Are you punishing yourself? <br /><br />The only reason I kept watching was to see the nuclear explosion. That too was a disappointment. Affleck, Freeman and Cromwell really all suck here too. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one in the theater.<br /><br />So get back to directing something that has a decent screenplay. Keep away from CIA writers and CIA approved plot lines and the whole terrorism thing. It's getting really old and the propaganda isn't working anymore.<br /><br />You have enough chutzpah, Phil. Direct something that explains how terrorism is really just the new boogeyman, to replace the cold war boogeyman. Something that explains where AlQueda really came from, or how Presidents can do business with a boogeyman's family with terrorist ties, but no one says anything. | 0neg
|
I found it hard to view the user comments on this film because of all the partisan ranting from demagogues of both parties. Therefore, I am going to try and leave my own political persuasions out of this review although I definitely have a viewpoint about what was happening in Iraq and the need for US involvement there.<br /><br />*** This may contain spoilers, although this is a simple documentary with no plot, so there ain't much to spoil.*** <br /><br />After all the hype about Michael Moore's slanted, biased, and intellectually dishonest film Fahrenheit 911, and all the celebrity hubbub about how George Bush is an evil so-and-so and our involvement in Iraq was simply about obtaining oil, I thought I might have a look at what the other side (who gets far less sensationalistic coverage in the national media) had to say about the whole situation. I had heard that this documentary was particularly brutal and difficult to watch, but I thought it was important to see just what was going on in Iraq before the US dismantled Saddam Hussein's regime.<br /><br />It was brutal, it was grotesque, and it was very difficult to sit through. We are treated to footage of people's arms stretched out across two concrete blocks and then being broken with axe handles; we see fingers hacked off, then the screaming, bleeding victim tossed aside to fend for himself; we see hands amputated surgically and tongues clipped outall these horrific atrocities committed by way of punishment in the name of "justice". We see torture, murder, and disturbing footage of women being publicly shot or stoned to death for "crimes" such as adultery.<br /><br />My problem is that the documentary, hosted by some boring, no-name yobbo in a suit and tie, frequently wanders from its supposed focus in favor of showing gruesome footage. At first it feels, albeit unpleasant, at least informative; however, as the film wears on, it becomes even more unpleasant, loses its informative nature, and begins to feel distinctly exploitative in tone. I found that shift in tone more disturbing than the film itself. The film ends with every videotaped beheading they could find. I had seen many when they were current news, believing it important to see what the enemy (terrorists and radical religious fundamentalists) was all about, but I just couldn't stomach re-watching these cold-blooded, grotesque murders again, presented as they were in the guise of "infotainment", and turned the movie off.<br /><br />In some ways this film shows some important things that were happening within Hussein's Iraq that folks like Sean Penn either didn't see or chose to ignore. It will make you appreciate living in a free country where you don't have your tongue cut out or your hands amputated for displeasing a mad dictator. The US got involved in Bosnia and Somalia based on concern for the genocide occurring there, how could we in fairness turn a blind eye to Iraq? Saddam Hussein actively and arrogant defied every UN sanction and action taken against him, including those he agreed to in order to end the war in 1991, but the UN clearly wasn't going to do anything about it, especially with corrupt UN officials making under-the-table deals with Hussein. Who else but the US would have taken steps to correct this injustice? These are all good points made in the beginning of the film.<br /><br />But the film's weakness is where it loses its focus on the reasons we went there and simply becomes a parade of gore, brutality, and murder. Although it has its good points, I can't in good conscience recommend it as a good, well-made documentary.<br /><br />Cheers <br /><br />Brent | 0neg
|
Randall Peltzer (the late Hoyt Axton), while going all around town trying to sell his faulty wacky inventions, accidentally stumbles on a cute little Mogwai at an antique china store. The owner refuse to sell it, but the kid sees dollar signs and sells it to Mr. Peltzer, telling him three things never to do to the creature. So back in Kingston Falls, the misguided inventor presents it to his son, Billy (Zach Galligan) telling him the warning that the Chinese boy imparted to him. Needless to say, Billy ignores all three rules and soon evil little Gremlins are all over town causing rampant destruction.<br /><br />This movie is greatness in every single way. With style, charm, and humor to spare, this film was among the top echelon of movies from the glorious '80's (Man that decade was GREAT to be a kid or teenager in).Never overtly slapstick comical, this film is still tongue firmly in cheek none the less and seeing the amazingly great Dick Miller is ALWAYS a treat. By the by, call me dense but I never realized that Howie Mandell did the voice for Gizmo. That's kinda neat. This was followed by a sequel that's just about every bit as good as the original.<br /><br />My Grade: A <br /><br />Special Edition DVD Extras: Commentary by Director Joe Dante, Producer Mike Finnell and Gremlins Creator Chris Walas, Second Commentary by Dante and Actors Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates, Dick Miller and Howie Mandel; Cast & Crews bios; 8 Additional Scenes (with Optional Commentary; Photo Gallery; short vintage featurette; Theatrical & Re-issue Trailer; and Trailer for "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" | 1pos
|
hey folks, <br /><br />this is the best show Robbie has ever given, his voice as gentle as can be, entertainment at its best.<br /><br />I've been a Robbie fan since the beginning, even when he was with take that, he was born to be a entertainer, he's got the talent from his dad, who's a well-known comedian in england.Robbie's comedic talent, his gestures, his voice, the whole charisma, has made him to what he is now: THE mega star! <br /><br />if you aren't a fan of Robbie yet, you will become after watching the show! you need to watch this! it's a kick in the head, as Robbie would say.<br /><br />kind regards, his no 1 fan | 1pos
|
Although 'Le trou Normand' lives on as Brigitte Bardot's film-debut, I think this view an injustice to the great French actor Bourvil. It's him, in the principal role of Hyppolite, who greatly carries this rather enjoyable movie to its end.<br /><br />Seventeen year old Brigitte plays a role she admittedly does not like: a not-too-sincere girl with a conceited state of mind. In spite of all that, the shape of things to come is clearly visible.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I've been a fan death note after the watching the 1st series of Anime; and I started reading the manga because the anime wasn't coming out fast enough. the overall the concept of Death Note is intelligent, exciting and has a great story. I was shocked to find that 75% of this movie's story was not from the manga. right from the start: Light's girlfriend dying? TV reporter Takada? where did they come from? aside from new characters, the part where Kira openly says he's the 2nd kira? these points made the movie less intelligent and also more predictable. the acting and direction of the movie was also poor. <br /><br />but the strangest part of watching this midnight on a Friday night was that every time Ruuk spoke - the whole cinema would laugh out loud. If you're a fan of the manga; don't bother watching this movie. | 0neg
|
Oh I laughed and cried. Maybe I went in to it looking too hard, but this made for TV presentation is a lousy and by-the-numbers knock-off ('Predator' for most part)
ah most of this cable ilk could be labelled so, but where it got me was how passé it was on delivering thrills and excitement. Yes, the story didn't draw me in at all (and does it get silly in the latter half) and the transparent characters would only annoy (not a good sign), so I was hoping they would up the ante, but it just smoldered along as it seemed to be running on empty and the macho dialogues were utterly pathetic. It didn't roll off the tongues, but felt forced and clunky. I just wanted some fun. No so luck. Hey one thing I couldn't knock though, even though it looks cheap however the CGI was competently executed and never overdone in any way. They even used some passable puppet designs too, and the main alien design works out well despite being a cross between 'Predator' (mainly the armour it wears) and alien from 'Enemy Mine'. Disappointing was that the action with these CGI beasties is cut-up and blurry, making it hard to adjust and the block-headed characters get plenty of time but in the end they aren't worth it. Brian McNamara was so-so, but the rest were largely forgettable, just like this whole presentation. | 0neg
|
'Big Brother' is without a shadow of a doubt the worst programme ever to have tainted our television screens. All it consists of is a group of people living in a large house far from the outside world but under the watchful eye of a C.C.T.V camera. The idea is to avoid periodic evictions from the house, whoever succeeds in this task will win a cash prize. Amongst the 'Brother' contestants, the most famous one was the now deceased Jade Goody (a girl who once thought East Anglia to be abroad!). Having a show like this on her C.V is nothing to be proud of. The show's title is named after the fictional character in George Orwell's novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'. I wonder if Orwell (if he were still alive that is) would be happy to find that one of his character's names is used as the title for such an excuse for a show, I think not! At least no one has to suffer this show any longer as the T.V stations have now come to their senses and taken 'Brother' off the air, though why it lasted as long as it did in the first place is beyond me. | 0neg
|
4/10 (it at least had good cinematography) or How to Win an artsy film prize: Make a film that's suffocatingly deep, allegedly meaningful, partially immersed in quasi-mysticism then throw in some contemporarily realistic elements in an exotic setting but do make sure the leading characters are offbeat in some way (in this instance gay & Thai.). Forget about any ideas of an engaging storyline, as that will be inconsequential in the face of the momentous acting. Then pray that Tarantino + the other judges had a very pleasurable time as regards their leisure pursuits just before & just after the movie's screening. Oh, and before I sign off... psssst.... what a protracted & most nonsensical bore this film was! IMO, the best Thai film is undoubtedly either 'Nang Nak' or 'Ai Fak' (And btw, just why hasn't the DVD been released with Eng subs for the latter??? Grrrr) | 0neg
|
Okay, so it isn't the Epic Finnish Movie Spectacle of 2003. It isn't Art with capital A.<br /><br />But who cares.<br /><br />Judging all measurements, this movie should be a turkey. The whole idea is so patently ludicruous that This Movie Just Can't Be Good. Shameless mixing of genres, unexperienced moviemakers, and, good heavens, Tony Halme.<br /><br />But surprise surpise - for some reason, this thing was watchable. *Very* watchable. Sure, it looks a bit cheesy here and there, might have needed some extra care at some times and places... but overall, the lasting impression I got was that This Isn't A Gigabuck Hollywood Movie But It Sure Looks Like One.<br /><br />But then again, I like movies that knowingly play with cliches of the genre, or genres in this case. Running jokes rule. And obviously the makers have had fun, which has to count for something...<br /><br />People seem to severely dislike the special effects - and I think this is unjustified, it's just amazing that they did it *this* good with *that* sort of money.<br /><br />And the plot wasn't *that* bad. Honestly.<br /><br />Cult classic material. Definitely.<br /><br />As a movie: *** As a parody of Hollywood: ***** | 1pos
|
I only watched Lion King II because I taped it from TV. I watched it twice and still wondering if it's made by the same group that did the first movie.<br /><br />It's quite a disappointment. The characters are not interesting any more. Their facial expression has too many changes in one second it's not natural. And I'm hoping it's just me, I found Kiara very annoying, probably because of her sometimes-nasal voice (that always gives me a fake-cry impression). Besides, unlike Simba, she wasn't given the chance to mature. She was the same spoiled little girl from the beginning to end. It's a good thing they want to have a princess instead of a prince, but it's easy to tell the plot is still highly underneath Kovu. It's strange to talk about character chemistry in an animated movie, but I found Lion King II lack the kind of chemistry the first one had. Probably the director's fault.<br /><br />The plot did mature a lot, though. During a great length of the movie I thought Zira was to live. She's not really a villain, just some poor old thing stuck in the thoughts of revenge for too long. But I guess little kids won't understand it that way, so Kira dies at the end. Given a plot like this, it's pretty hard to screw up the characters due to lack of complicity, but they did. | 0neg
|
I have never been so depressed in my life. The movie tells the story of a family--a very dysfunctional family. The type of family that you actually pray for a happy ending to the movie. At the end of the movie, things seem to look up as they move on with their lives, but I just have a feeling that Jack will become a juvenile delinquent, Alice's parents will be so self-absorbed her future will be dismal. The only ones with a possibility of a future without a lifetime of pain is Franklin & Nardia. I can see how some people will appreciate the pain of everyday life...but this was just too much to bear! | 0neg
|
For many viewers this film was spoilt by advertising, that showed a movie full of spying, hacking and big mysteries.<br /><br />Yes. Big mysteries.<br /><br />Left is one. How does a pretty smart guy lose contact to the "Reality", whatever that is meant? It is good, that this movie only had a low budget, that makes it possible to recognize the smallest change in acting.<br /><br />Simple plot, overwhelming acting, financial flop, just a terrific film.<br /><br />Thumbs up and 10 points | 1pos
|
Gregg Araki's THE DOOM GENERATION is reminiscent of everything from MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO to THE RIVER'S EDGE to TRUE ROMANCE to the experimental films of Pasolini, of Warhol (Morrisey), as well as of Richard Kern. The film reveals its thematic message when the most innocent and selfless of its three main characters asks the other, more self-centered, two if they ever think about the meaning of existence. Dismissing the very question, they reveal to the questioner an answer of sorts, one which suggests that we each create a meaning for ourselves, and are all existentially alone as we do so.<br /><br />While offering us a rather slight story of a pair of teen lovers on the road who encounter a slightly older bisexual who becomes their nemesis, companion, lover and protector, THE DOOM GENERATION offers a great deal of visual style and wit, and some genuine moments of suspense. In fact, the film's gory and discomforting climactic scene is perhaps the artistic highlight and suggests some real filmaking talent by writer/director Gregg Araki. This is probably not everyone's cup of tea, but is worth a look for those who like a film which challenges them to react to strong imagery and who don't mind transgressive depictions. | 1pos
|
Take Malcolm McDowell who dies quickly, rather like the plot of this film. He is the only star in the film. I did recognise Chris Penn but I don't know what I've seen him in before, possibly Reservoir Dogs. Wrestling fans may recognise a brief appearance by Leon White also known as WCW and WWE Superstar Big Van Vader. His fight scene is most likely the best and well organised fight in the whole film.<br /><br />This is a manga comic or anime film that has been made into live action and it was obviously a really bad idea.<br /><br />No script, bad story, really bad acting and some really bad fighting scenes. I really wish I hadn't bothered watching it. | 0neg
|
After watching this show, I would not recommend anyone to spent money to watch this on the big screen. I happened to have 5 free tickets to bring my kids to watch it. If you have not been reading news and do not know what is global warming doing to our planet, or where do polar bears live (besides the zoo), or how walruses look like, then perhaps this show will benefit you. Other than that, there was really no significantly new or interesting information that I gained from this documentary. The net result - an animal story about animals struggling to survive - non-dramatized. Not entirely bad, I did appreciate the skills and patience of the crew in producing this show. It was well done.<br /><br />By contrast, the "March of the Penguins" was a much more interesting and 'moving' documentary. | 0neg
|
This truly has to be the worst film ever, a bunch of five year olds would surely be able to write a better script, construct more realistic sets and props and act to a higher degree than the actors in this movie seem to have demonstrated and still be more understanding to historical accuracy!<br /><br />And can someone please explain the wigs? Surely not adding to historical accuracy (for any century!) or even 1984! Added to this the poor soundtrack which seems to suggest that the director, at gunpoint, forced some lonely spinster from the organ of a church in Dunny-On-The-Wolds, Surrey to sit down and construct (with a timescale of half an hour) the film score on a budget of £5 and a pickled egg!<br /><br />I can only describe it as one horrific car crash, so awful, you just stare in disbelief, knowing that you should look away and hoping that no one else will catch you looking! Poor Sean Connery, did he desperately need to pay the mortgage for another month?! Dire! | 0neg
|
The only good thing about this movie is that it featured attractive actors and actresses. While there were a lot of "jokes," almost none of them was funny; it was just minute after minute of unbearably awful dialog and sight gags revolving around "old people shouldn't have sex."<br /><br />I might have forgiven 'Surf School' for being an awful movie, but it's also one of the few that's managed to offend me on multiple fronts. Hey, it's 2005: you don't have to make five or six references in the script to how black your black character is, complete with Affirmative Action jokes. And I just love the gay guy wearing a red bikini, lisping about all of the beautiful boys while shaking his hips and petting other dudes for an entire agonizing scene! Yeah those queers sure are hilarious, aren't they? <br /><br />But maybe the worst part of the movie was the female lead, Doris. She starts out as a pretty goth chick, who doesn't talk much and loves reading (in the movie she's reading Sylvia Platt's "The Bell Jar.") Everyone thinks she's creepy and she's restricted to background action. But toward the end of the movie she's urged to "show her support" for the boys. How does she do this? Why, by getting into a tiny bikini, seducing the "bad guy surfers," and -as a fantastic final touch- transforming herself into a blond, of course! Suddenly she's the center of attention and SO much happier! Who knew the secret to happiness was to stop reading books and whore yourself out? <br /><br />I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with sexy female characters, especially in a beach movie. In fact, the gorgeous women and men in 'Surf School' were probably the only things that kept me from killing myself while watching it. But Doris's character does a complete and inexplicable 180 from a quiet intellectual to an oversexed exhibitionist, all in order to "encourage" a bunch of dudes who (with one exception) have been avoiding her for the whole movie.<br /><br />Sorry Joel Silverman, but that's not sexy. That's creepy as hell. | 0neg
|
If I had to select one film to represent Hindi Cinema, it would be Kal Ho Naa Ho. I don't really care if people say this is not the most influential or historically significant film.<br /><br />Kal Ho Naa Ho is the best Hindi Cinema has offered me. I have a special connection with this film and its believable characters especially Aman{SRK}. I regard this as his best role. Aman is the greatest character in the history of Bollywood. The main reason for it is the way he played with my emotions was unbelievable, he made me laugh out loud initially and during the climax he melted my heart and I cried with him. I've never seen and maybe will never see another more vibrant and colorful character. Kudos!<br /><br />The background score is also tremendously strong and emotional. Excellent score by SEL. The music/songs were awesome. My favourite of the lot was the title track sung by Sonu Nigam, which instantly became my all time favourite song before I even saw the film, just listen to its lyrics...Again PERFECT!<br /><br />The story is relatively very simple but the film does a superb job in showing it. People may say the last part of the film is too emotional and not required but I strongly disagree. This film gave me exactly what I wanted...Complete satisfaction. Perfect acting {by all}, Perfect music, Perfect story.<br /><br />In all, A Gem of Indian Cinema IMO and my one and only favourite Hindi film of all time. Enough said!<br /><br />Rating: 10/10 | 1pos
|
Someone at the BBC came up with the idea that they should make a programme featuring all five incarnations of the Doctor. A meeting was held, and it was decided that the programme should be made. There were a few problems. Tom Baker didn't want to know, and William Hartnell had gone to that great television studio in the sky. But with a little old footage and substituting Richard Hurndall for Hartnell, the problems were ironed out. And since Anthony Ainley was already doing for Roger Delgado what Richard Hurndall was doing for William Hartnell, there was no problem with The Master.<br /><br />Some old companions turn up too. These include Fraser Hines and Wendy Padbury; and a mature trench-coated Carole Ann Ford gets to shriek: "Grandfather! Grandfather!" like only she can.<br /><br />Of course all your favourite monsters turn up just to muddy up the reunion a bit, and the story is passable, considering the task set for the scriptwriters.<br /><br />The programme was made as a celebration of nostalgia. It does its job quite well. but as an exciting film, I am afraid it falls flat.<br /><br />Still it was nice to see some old faces, and I thought that Richard Hurndall was a good sub for Hartnell. | 1pos
|
This film alone was worth the price of the DVD it shares with "Plan 9 from outer space." See the locations used,hear members of Wood's "stock company" talk of him! See Ed Wood actually directing scenes from a Grade Z western!!And,it answers once and for all just what did Ed Wood use for the flying saucers??Who could ask for more? | 1pos
|
This action film concerning the transport of a laser gun talks itself to death. Crew and cast both show signs that they were caught in the Indonesian heat: the stunts and special effects are bad; whether a good guy or a bad guy, everybody's acting is bad ; there is no decent story; Ashley's directing is hopeless. The film is beaming something conceited like "what you can do in Hollywood, we can do at least as good", but of course the makers were wrong, they simply lacked the talent. They should have used the laser beam to obliterate this film. | 0neg
|
"Screams of a Winter Night" was made with student actors attending Northwestern State University in Natchitoches,Louisiana,a college that has since been abandoned,the neglected campus becoming a popular teen hang-out.It consists three genuinely spooky stories told by a young campers in an old cabin.The first one is about 'The Moss Point Man',a Yeti-like creature encountered by a local girl and her boyfriend deep in the woods.The second one is about a mute psychopath in an allegedly haunted hotel with the climax somewhat reminding me "The Blair Witch Project".The third story is about a sexually repressed girl turning psycho after an attempted rape.The strange,howling wind is becoming stronger and stronger...Creepy low-budget gem from late 70's without gore and nudity.It has some great scares and surprising twists.8 out of 10. | 1pos
|
THE EEL borders on dark humour when a man, who after eight years in prison for the murder of his wife, is released from jail. He sets himself up in a barber shop by the river and trouble comes knocking on his door and he can not seem to get away from it. Simple, yet effective, a very mature piece of work and pleasing overall. | 1pos
|
Story: In a world of relativism where anything goes and values are becoming personalized, this movie gave me a truly fresh outlook on old Christian and Buddhist values. In this movie, I saw the basic principals of goodness and value, which we all were taught as children, become relevant in the "real world" of that era-and most definitely more relevant today. Principals like "Do to others as you would have them do to you," "Turn the other cheek," "There is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend." I walked away from this movie changed, and excited to know that I had just seen a standard set for society today.<br /><br />Technical: The first time I realized that this was a low budget film was after I had watched it and heard the news from someone else. It didn't give away that secret during viewing. There were some problems with lighting and a really cheesy wheelchair. The music was a mix of Celtic and Far East, and I enjoyed it. I also liked how they chose to portray violence; they weren't graphic about it, but it wasn't whitewashed. There were also some new styles of filming which I found to be quite interesting. But, you'll have to see for yourself :)<br /><br />Overall a great movie. | 1pos
|
This is a very entertaining comedy. The dialogue is lightning paced and flows quickly from one character to the next without a break in between. Cary Grant is excellent in his attempts to keep his ex-wife from re-marrying and on the staff of the newspaper. Rosalind Russell plays the part of his ex-wife well, matching his banter in kind. This movie is worthy of all the praise it gets. One thing I realized while watching this film, a lot of the classic comedies are founded on good witty dialogue. Unlike most of the comedies made today which seem to be founded in silly site gags and bathroom humor. Given a choice, give me the classics any day. <br /><br />***1/2 (Out of 4) | 1pos
|
The movie was made by Juliano Mer, Arna Mer's son. Arna Mer, a Jewish woman who fought in the 1948 war dedicated her life to helping Palestinian refugees after the 1967 war. Among her feats was establishing a children's theater in the West Bank city of Jenin during the 80s. Using old footage, Juliano Mer returns to the refugee camp after his mother's death and after a devastating Israel Defense Forces operation, to check up on the kids who attended the drama group - Arna's Children, who have grown up under Israeli occupation. Some joined militant groups, went on suicide missions or were killed while defending their home. Though highly political, the film does not take sides and is not dogmatic, just humane and real. | 1pos
|
We all know that Tammy and the T-Rex is not meant to be in the IMDb top 250 but it sure as hell does not deserve to be in the bottom 100.Ill admit there are some cheesy and really what the f*** parts, but it is actually a entertaining film.This was recommended to me by a friend who likes movies like me so i watched this expecting the biggest piece of trash ever.Instead i got a somewhat good film.Denise Richards and Paul Walker play really good parts and though the plot seems very absurd, it not that bad.If your ever watching this just sit down and try and enjoy it.You might actually like it.<br /><br />7 out of 10 stars. | 1pos
|
There were some in the audience who couldn't believe that a film like Amos Gitai's Promised Land could be made, given its almost documentary like feel to an aged old problem of human trafficking for prostitution. I suppose those who feel that way would probably not take to London to Brighton, which like films such as Lilya-4-eva take an angle of child prostitution, and spun a different narrative out of it.<br /><br />Here, it's actually out of desperation - in fact almost all the characters here reek of it, in exploiting children on the streets and enticing them with significant sums of money in order to satisfy the whims of some rich clients. The film takes on a non-linear narrative in having its tale told, which leaves you pretty much engaged in wanting to find out just why two women are on the flight as per its title, leaving behind the city of London in double quick time, where we are introduced at 3:07am to Joanne (Georgia Groome) in thick makeup, being hidden in a stank toilet cubicle by an older lady of the streets, Kelly (Lorraine Stanley), suffering from one badly bruised eye.<br /><br />I suppose a modest production budget made this film look like a typical gritty English crime thriller, with the hand held camera bringing the audience into the thick of the action, either slowly drawing some sympathies from the lead female characters because of the lack of options made available to them, including being on the run, or presenting a sense of clear and present danger up close, especially when pimps Derek (Johnny Harris) and Chum (Nathan Constance) become inevitably close in catching up with the duo for an event they committed, kept closely under wraps.<br /><br />The relationship between Kelly and Joanne remain one of the highlights of the film, two women who have nobody else to turn to, trying to determine what their next course of action might be at every turn. We see how Kelly takes it upon herself as the surrogate guardian of Joanne, but I suppose only because of the immense guilt that she brought to the table, for having again out of desperation, introduce a young girl into her dark underworld. Those who have watched Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging would see how Georgia Groome makes an about turn from privileged child, to one roaming the streets.<br /><br />The other highlight which I had enjoyed was how thugs have the capability of systematically breaking down one's defenses, in balancing threats and carrots so as to gain some level of trust and obedience. Johnny Harris plays his role well as the pimp who constantly looks out for himself, of bowing to authority and pressure, while Nathan Constance as his chum actually had a lot more characterization going on for him instead. A pity though that it wasn't explored further, and had to be ended as it did in the film.<br /><br />London to Brighton has a sense of danger permeating throughout, in a sort of hunter versus prey kind of film, that will leave you on the edge of your seat as it builds up to its last act, in a story succinctly told in under 80 minutes. | 1pos
|
This is a beautifully made movie which brings Michael Winterbottom back to similar territory explored in his first two, and best movies. It's saubject matter and acting are wonderfully naturalistic, but it's cinematogrphic style owes more, with it's constantly moving camera and exquisite use of filters that make Lambeth appear more beautiful than it could ever do in reality, to the movies of Wong-kar Wai. It's the sort of movie that would be demeaned by having it's plot explained, like trying to explain Beethoven's Ninth symphony to a deaf person in sign language. Actaully, it's so beautiful visually and it's humanism is so deep that a deaf person might enjoy it. Please go and see it. | 1pos
|
I'm sorry for the people who liked it, but there's is absolutely nothing good about this movie. Actors are really playing bad, quotes are stupid (even when they try to have some scientific background), often in the movie we have these vomiting camera shot making circles around the characters (the bank scene is the worst scene I have ever seen in a movie, I laughed all along). So if this unreal scene was not enough, we have that strange bus driver who runs when the FBI agent tries to cut off the bomb.<br /><br />As I know we can find a lot of funny bad movies in the 80's, it's the first time I see a recent movie being so ridiculous.<br /><br />Everyone should see this movie at least one time in his life, really. All young directors should see it, and learn how not to do. | 0neg
|
I'm all for brainless action/horror movies with lots of gore and nudity. Unfortunately, Le Pacte des Loups tries to be more than that, which makes the entire movie unbelievable. After a short setup, the film starts with a shot of pretentious religious imagery. Two strangers arrive and then save some woman and her father. One of the strangers is a martial-arts ass-kicking spiritual Native American (HE HAS A F*CKING TOMAHAWK AND MAGICAL HEALING POWDER FOR GOD'S SAKE! YEESH.) stereotype and the other is a dashing daring French hero main-character stereotype. It should be noted that the two hardly talk to each other throughout the entire film, which makes the last third of the film illogical and stupid. In fact, all of the characters are pretty much one-dimensional. The acting is not bad (it's not amazing either) given what the actors had to work with. Onto the plot: The film is a horror film wrapped by French royal court and religious intrigue. But since the film is mainly a horror film, the other stuff is just mentioned in passing and thus the imagery seems pretentious. Especially when you consider that the main character is resurrected. (Also, at one point the Native American character is laid out with his arms spread in a crucifixion position in a room where there is religious imagery all over the ceiling. Hmmm.) Anyway, to sum it up, the plot is stupid and unbelievable and the film is filled with gothic and religious imagery. None of that would matter if the film was a brainless action film. Unfortunately, the martial arts was pathetic. Maybe I've been spoiled by the fight scenes of some recent films (e.g. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) but I thought most of the battles were pretty lame. There's a lot of dodging and slowmotion kicks. Nothing spectacular. The final battle was funny because the French-guy main character, who suddenly gained kick-boxing abilities in the middle of the film, shoots flaming ARROWS (HE HAD A FREAKING GUN!) at people and SCALPS a guy. As I mentioned before, the movie sucked because instead of being a normal action/horror movie (the action is horrible; it's scary if you consider wolves in a procupine suit scary) it tries to throw in religious themes (which isn't in the film enough to justify all the freaking imagery everywhere. Even the Native American character is part of the imagery.) Oh yeah, most of the plot of the 2 and 1/2 hour movie makes no sense too. There was a lot of gore and nudity, which is always good. But I'd have to say that this movie is utter crap. | 0neg
|
This, like ENOUGH, starring Jennifer Lopez, and others dealing with abuse issues are movies about what many women feel about wrongs done, and are a good way to work through the anger without actually having to go to jail for "acting out!" I am waiting for this one on DVD. | 1pos
|
The delectable Dina Meyer and the normally competent Lochlyn Munro co-star in this turkey made for The Sci-Fi Channel, about archaeologists unleashing an unkillable monster from an Egyptian tomb. Meyer looks great in black leather and shooting two guns at a time a la Tomb Raider Lara Croft while Munro simply looks like an idiot in an Indiana Jones hat about two sizes too big for his head. The movie goes nowhere once the monster is unleashed, which happens about five minutes in. At times, the creature looks like a poor man's griffin; at other times, it morphs into a bad copy of Inhotep from the first two THE MUMMY movies. The dialog is from hunger, as is the acting. Other than tuning in to get a look at the beautiful Meyer, this one is best skipped. | 0neg
|
I'm a big Robert Mitchum fan but even I couldn't sit through this one. Everyone acts as if they're asleep. They show the entire range of emotion from grim to grim.<br /><br />After the first half I gave up and fast-forwarded to the unsatisfying conclusion. This is the slowest moving plot you'll ever see in your life and as near as I could tell none of any of the character's motivations was revealed until the final scene. Since all these stars have done great work elsewhere I guess the blame lies with the director and the script.<br /><br />Just give this movie a pass and go watch ANY other Mitchum film. | 0neg
|
With all her money, why in the world didn't Anna Nicole think to buy that toothless cousin of hers some teeth? Even when she gave her a makeover she didn't think of that! Also maybe her dog would not have tried to have sex with stuffed toys if it had been fixed! But anyone think if that? NO! Movie stars make me sick, they could help so many people and do so much good with their money, yet most of them can think of nothing to use it for except for drugs, booze, and partying! Shame on them! Yet I do feel a great deal of pity for Anna Nicole, she thought fame and fortune would bring her happiness,and she had to learn the hard way that they do not. It was for people like her that Jesus Christ died for. | 0neg
|
If you are a maniac who watches movies constantly, you know that you have wasted some hours in your life by movies that have absolutely nothing to say, this debacle is such one....gone are 100 minutes of my life! The story is superthin. A rich girl Madame De Clèves (played by Chiara Mastroianni, and I never could imagine acting could be done in such a boring way) has been destinated by her mother to marry the boring (they definitely found each other!) François De Guise. But of course, our bourgeoisie-lady meets (huuuum) a popstar and falls in love.... Now excuse me and let me point out some critical things. a) the popstar, a certain Pedro Abrunhosa is a macho in Armanisuit who plays the most annoying Portugese rock you can imagine....his crapmusic is about 20 minutes from the movie! b) the popstar seems to be part of the high society of cultural life, so it happens that he plays for a few people who normally only watch pianoconcerts from Chopin. Since when is that cool??????????? c) Since when falls a bourgeoisie-woman for a popstar who is surrounded by groupies? I don't know if director Manoel De Oliviera wanted to be hip by using some popscenes but it only makes his movie ridiculous. And the worst is yet to come! Madame De Clèves cant decide and she asks the help of her friend who happens to be...a nun. The nun tells all philosophicalbullshit that can be told in four words "Do your own thing", but for this intelligent answer you have to see a picture from 100 minutes in where nothing happens. I absolutely don't wanna hear terms like "art cinema", this is just wasted money. God, even Woody Allen wouldn't like to see this garbage.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
If I was a foreigner and I heard that Americans were coming to visit my city, I would cringe if I had seen this show beforehand. The wife is not bad at all, however the husband... is an idiot. Representing America in a foreign country you should be the epitome of manners and etiquette. Instead, I see on the show when the idiot asks for more hot sauce in Mexico there was no please and no thank you, just an assumption and very little effort put in to speak the native language. It is great to see many of these places that I may one day visit but now, I have to make up for the ignorance and feigned appreciation of the Americans who ventured there first? Thanks... appreciate it. I would really like it more if 1) The husband at least was replaced... ugh how can she stand him; 2) The couple or maybe even single person.... yeah that would be nice studied up on the local culture and customs and language prior to visiting anywhere. And for anyone that doesn't know, # 2 above is an unspoken requirement for traveling to any foreign land. It is about respect for the people and the culture and the understanding that there is MUCH MUCH more beyond the borders of our country that is has a depth of history and culture much greater than ours. We are babies in the eyes of the world and I find that often, the uneducated traveler behaves as one as well. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />By far the worst Argento film I've seen. The story is plain stupid, although the story has never been the most significant part of the Argento parcel. This time his visions have lost it's edge totally, the splatter and gratuitous typical Argento-violence is there, but that and his infatuation with opera is the only thing reminding of his previous work. Acting isn't much, but you still see the occasional wonderful camera moves and he has always used music very convincingly. As a whole it is disturbingly lame production from such a grandmaster, whose previous Stendahl's Syndrome was just mindbogglingly powerful masterpiece. Hope his next giallo film has same grit his former giallo visions have portrayed... | 0neg
|
I don't know why this movie got so much criticism. I thought it was pretty good. Sure, the effects might not have been the best, but it was still a great movie. The original Jaws was one of, if not THE, greatest movies of all time. That's a tough act to follow any way you look at it. Jaws 3 also had some great actors, including Dennis Quaid and Bess Armstrong. You can say what you want, but I'll always love Jaws 3. | 1pos
|
SPOILER ALERT! This is one of the finest satiric cartoons ever made. I am convinced that South Park is the best show on TV (and the only excuse to turn on that disgusting Comedy Central [AKA The Beer and Sex Channel,]) but some people wonder if the movie is as good as the show. Take my word for it, it isn't. It's ten times better. In the movie, Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny see an R-rated film starring their favorite Canadian actors, Terrance and Philip. The movie is entitled Asses of Fire, and if I may quote Arthur Taussig, the title is the least offensive thing about it. In the opening scene of Asses of Fire, we discover why it was rated R. I won't give away one of the funniest parts of the movie, but I'll just say that I didn't know you could use that many obscenities in only three minutes. When the movie ends, the boys leave the theatre repeating all the words they've heard in the film. Not knowing what the words mean, they continue this behavior the next day at school. Their teacher sends them to the guidance counselor who subsequently calls their mothers. As those who watch the show may have guessed, Sheila Brosfloski, Kyle's mother, is outraged and begins a campaign to have the film banned.<br /><br />It's general pop-culture knowledge that Kenny McCormick is killed in nearly EVERY episode of South Park. One can naturally assume that his death in the movie would be the Kenny-death-to-end-all-Kenny-deaths. It is, but unlike his frequent deaths in the show, his death in the movie is a huge contributing factor to the plot. This may be a slight spoiler (if you can call the way in which Kenny dies a spoiler.) The boys end up seeing the movie again, and Kenny is killed while imitating something he saw in the film that may be too inappropriate say in this review. He is banished to Hell for skipping church to see the film, and we discover that Satan and Saddam Hussein are in a homosexual love affair. In this relationship, Satan is surprisingly warm and caring and wants to communicate with Saddam, but Saddam just wants sex. The conversations between these two characters throughout the film are hilarious. Meanwhile, back on Earth, Sheila Brosfloski's movement to have Terrance and Philip banned has spun out of control. Canada is blamed for all of the problems of America's youth, America is preparing to literally wage war against Canada, all Canadian-American citizens are sent to death-camps, and Terrance and Philip are scheduled to be executed. Back in Hell, Kenny listens to a conversation between Satan and Saddam. Bible readers know the seven signs of the end of the world. The fall of an empire, the coming of a comet, etc. We discover that when the blood of Terrance and Philip touches American soil, Satan and Saddam Hussein will ascend from Hell and rule the earth. It is now up to Stan, Kyle, and Cartman to save humanity from the horrors of every Christian's worst nightmare, and his boyfriend, George W. Bush's worst nightmare. This film is more than hilarious. I am convinced that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are the funniest individuals in America. This film is an animated musical, but parents beware, it doesn't bare the Disney family-friendly stamp of approval. The best songs in the film are "Up There," "I'm Super," "What Would Brian Boitano Do?," and the infamous "Blame Canada," which was nominated for an Oscar. The best voice jobs by the creators were Saddam Hussein (Matt Stone,) and Satan (Trey Parker.) I could watch this film twenty times every day and never tire of it. Caution: while this film is animated, it is certainly not for the kiddies. It is filled with vulgar language, but it is not gratuitous. The language used is the purpose of the film. The moral of the film is that no matter what words your children learn from a film, it is not the filmmaker's job to raise your child. It's an anti-censorship film. It is the up to the parent to put it into context and punish accordingly. I would recommend this film to everyone who is not easily offended or an extreme Christian, YOU WILL BE OFFENDED. If you're into satirical cartoons, or just want to see Canadians drop bombs on Alec Baldwin, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut is a must-see.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I expected a lot from this film, being one of the most ambitious Swedish films ever with tons of local media coverage and a genre I enjoy, but I was disappointed. It looks great and big (at least parts of it), but something is wrong with the acting or the direction (or maybe the script) because you never really get drawn into the story and you don't really care about the characters.<br /><br />Stellan Skarsgård is great (as usual) but it is a very small part, Vincent Perez is OK, I liked Morgan Alling in his role, but both Joakim Nätterqvist and Sofia Helin are really weak.<br /><br />I looked so much forward to this film when it came out (had read the books), but was very disappointed. Did not expect much for the sequel, and it really was not worth much either. | 0neg
|
I had some fun times with this film, even though it does not come close to any of the great werewolf pictures. The films strongest points are its gore and the werewolf suit. The kill scenes are gloriously splattery at times and the werewolf looks very cool for a low budget production. I was dubious of the idea of having it talk, but on the other hand hearing a werewolf rattle off cheesy lines and genuinely enjoy getting up to some carnage if fairly novel. No tortured heroics here, this werewolf is just a mean SOB. Richard Tyson plays the role with gusto and it works well albeit in a cheesy way. The film does try to have a bit more of a plot than just a standard teens trapped by a monster opus and it kinda comes off although it makes the film uneven in tone. There is the odd plot hole in there to chuckle at too. Acting wise, the film is OK. The main character and his girl both do pretty well and it is interesting to see a film with such a weak male lead, whose female pal is considerably tougher than he is. Nice traditional role reversal going on there. Sadly, the girl in it is closer to Bree from Neighbours during her goth phase than a convincing looking tough girl but I'll let that slide because it made me laugh. The teenagers at the beginning are appallingly obnoxious and disposable, but happily they are disposed of. The adults mostly do quite well and there is a brief appearance from David Naughton for horror buffs to chuckle at. The films flaws come chiefly from the tone, which varies between gruesome and joyously politically incorrect and a cheesy almost Scooby Doo or Famous Five vibe when the two leads are investigating the werewolf. Also, the ending could have been somewhat better, though it is still perfectly reasonable. All in all, this is a good weekend booze/popcorn film for undemanding werewolf movie fans, with some fine moments and an overall feeling of fun. Good times. | 1pos
|
There were a few interesting aspects, especially for the film's era. The scope was pretty (overly?) large - even if a lot happens off-stage. However, there were some pretty horrible bits of acting as well. PLENTY of material for the MST3K guys. For a while I kept thinking it was FAIL-SAFE but done as a subplot on the Love Boat.<br /><br />I especially love the 8 women to 600 men left in the polar research station who get RIGHT to the obvious point. As morally distasteful as it is ladies, we have a planet to repopulate and lots of men with needs...<br /><br />Short straw gets George Kennedy. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits