text
stringlengths 98
6.42k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
London to Brighton (2006)<br /><br />A harrowing story, a real descent into a little sliver of the streetwalking underworld of London and the perils of little rich girls who run away from home. I don't mean to make light of any of it--the movie pulls no punches, and adds some that go beyond the usual violence, too--but this is one of those recent stories where a terrible situation is imagined, and then filmed with awful realism. The two tracks, the plot with its significance, and the raw, visceral reaction to seeing anything so horrible, are both played out to the max. And acting is really first rate. The bad guys are really sneeringly awful, and the two key females, a full grown but struggling prostitute and a young girl who gets swept up in it all, are so believable it's scary. And impressive.<br /><br />And none of this is enough for a great movie. It makes for an intense experience, and there's no rule that says a movie has to be enjoyable (this is totally not enjoyable in the usual sense). But there is little here that reveals or probes, there is little of what you might call art, or nuance, or originality. It's not exactly a formula, yet, this kind of abuse in your living room, but I think it will be. There are several I've seen recently, the one that comes to mind is Julia. In both movies, young children are victims and it's difficult to really watch without detaching and looking around the living room and reminding yourself this is fiction, these are actors, don't worry.<br /><br />Terrible things happen in the world, of course, and worse things. But I'm not sure we need to see them, or should want to. It's like becoming an emergency room doctor because you are fascinated with suffering and blood. Movies should be like doctors, then (to stretch the metaphor) and have some purpose to them beyond wallowing. <br /><br />And beyond representation. Maybe it's a reminder of the truth out there, but if that's all, it's not enough, and it goes on a very long time. I think accurate representation is the simple motive behind the filming. The director (in this case with a short resume--I've never heard of him) makes it vivid, fast, and very real. In that sense he succeeded. But again, realism isn't really a great goal in itself. It can be a means to a greater effect, a higher (or if not higher, at least other, separate) intention, something that takes the viewer somewhere. Anywhere. | 0neg
|
Don Juan (errol flynn) is a romantic well know lover in spain. He has many storys about him. THis adventure involves saving the queen from a villion, which is trying to control spain. Don Juan wins the queens heart and saves spain. It's a funny romantic Adventure. The costumes are great, the director is great too. | 1pos
|
TV may be mostly a wasteland these days, but every once in a while, a fine original film shows up on the tube. `Dinner With Friends' is certainly in that category. It takes the viewer deeply into the relationship between two couples and within each. They were best friends until one of the marriages hits the rocks. We see each side of that split and how it affects the other couple. Initially, sides seem to be taken along gender lines, but that reverses as each member of the separating couple finds new relationships. Is it fatal to the other marriage? Watch and see. | 1pos
|
The horrors of the Nazi death camps is brought into sharp, stark focus in this brilliant movie. A horrific study of human nature. A deeply disturbing collection of graphic images. Intense acting and very unusual direction tells the story of the Sonderkomandos... those hapless inmates who where given the terrible task of loading the ovens with the copses of their gased neighbours, friends and family. Not suitable for a first date, but definitely a movie you should see with someone with whom you can talk openly afterwards.<br /><br />Watch it! | 1pos
|
Miscast? Maybe so but Lon makes the best of his situation and turns in a decent portrayal of the Count. Son of Dracula is an underrated Universal gem which is sadly overlooked because of people being prejudice to Chaney playing Count Alucard(Spell it backwards your in for a surprise). Chaney is seen as a nice guy monster who many say only works when under a Jack Pierce make-up job or as Larry Talbot. Chaney takes the role very seriously and actually creates a villainous character. All though Chaney lacks the thick Lugosi accent he has his mannerisms and creates mystery in his voice. It's sad that Chaney isn't praised for taking this risk because I think he knew his acting ability was going to be challenged by this picture.<br /><br />The plot here is actually quite clever, instead of having your heroes try to save the heroine from becoming undead, our heroine volunteers to become a vampire. Alucard arrives from his native Transylvania as a quest of honor at the Dark Oaks plantation. As soon as he arrives though the plantation's master, Colonel Caldwell, dies conveniently leaving his morbid daughter Kay the deed to the plantation in his will. Kay knows Alucard's true nature and offers her neck to him in order to live forever but she must agree to become the Count's unholy bride in return which causes problems because she is engaged to Frank Stanley. Stanley angered over the marriage tries to murder Alucard with his pistol but shoots down Kay as the bullets pass right threw him. Frank seems to be loosing his mind as he is arrested for murder when Kay's body is found in a coffin on the plantation. Only a local physician named Brewster and a Van Helsing type professor know the truth.<br /><br />The picture also is visually the best of the 40's Universal Monster offerings. Robert Siodmak is no Todd Browning but he understands the visuals of the vampire flick. There are some pretty clever shots in which Siodmak uses the shadows and lighting to his advantage.<br /><br />Besides Chaney 'Son' has a decent cast. Chaney regular Evelyn Ankers plays Kay's sister who is hesitant to believe in this vampire story. Louise Allbritton is perfect as Kay, she creates a mysterious disturbed soul. The best performance besides Chaney and Allbritton has to go to Robert Paige who isn't your stereotypical horror hero, when Kay offers Frank a chance to live forever he all most gives into her.<br /><br />Son of Dracula is different from the standard Horror flicks of the 40's and that is why it works and continues to stand out 64 years later.<br /><br />(The advertisement for war bonds remains intact. Leave it to the Count to stop Hitler) | 1pos
|
I found this DVD at Big Lots for $2. With badly photoshopped images of Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen (obviously from a Reservoir Dogs promo) on the cover, I had very low expectations. But I'll give this movie credit. At least the director has some idea of what he was doing. Unlike other crap films like "Cheerleader Ninjas" and "Tha Sistahood", this one could actually direct the camera in a way that didn't make you want to blow your brains out. But when saying the director wasn't doing hits off of a crack pipe while working is the best compliment to give a movie, that's still pretty bad.<br /><br />The story is basically about how corrupt the LAPD is. This corruption is basically revolving around a half dozen or so cops. That's pretty well contained, I must say. There's also a subplot of guys robbing convenience stores that goes nowhere. And another subplot of the main guy's love affair with a cop groupie. That one may be uninspired, but the sex scene is probably the funniest I've ever seen in my life. The two roll around naked under covers in the most awkward positions possible while the guy grinds his loins and gives the most painful grimaces is the history of man. Honestly, it just has to be seen to believed.<br /><br />Casting sucks. Dennis Hopper is in the movie for a total of about 10 minutes, and looks like he's in physical pain having to deliver the insultingly bad script. Madsen is in there for more and seems less affected, but he's no stranger to a bad script. I've sat through films with him that were much worse, so this is nothing new to him. The hot young cop who owns the nickname Cowboy (because, you know, they want to be original) looks about 40. One fatboy cop, who looks mid-thirties, has a non-touching scene with his "mother" of 45. The constant unexplained parties at fatboy's "mansion" have the same people who seem not to change their clothes for weeks on end.<br /><br />But the worst part of this film is the logic. Cops w/ bullet proof vests take shots like Superman without barely a flinch. Whenever there's a shootout within 20 square feet, nobody considers taking cover from the bullets. And why should they? Trained LAPD officers are known for being terrible shots anyway, right? There's also no sense in ballistics when detectives come around.<br /><br />Bottom line, this film may suck noodles but I've seen Madsen in worse (Against All Hope, Executive Target, My Boss's Daughter, etc). Unless you're a big fan of his, as I am, stay away from this film. | 0neg
|
Phenomenal is the only word for LIZA WITH A Z - did you notice that there were no spectacular sets or special effects, just an incredibly versatile artist accompanied by a dancing ensemble and an orchestra. Who of today's "artists" could do that? With all the negative news about LIza in the past decade or so, some people tend to forget that in the two decades after CABARET Liza was indeed a superstar of the first magnitude - if her movie career never really took off (remember duds like LUCKY LADY and A MATTER OF TIME?), she was still the Queen of the Concert Stage in the US and Europe.<br /><br />Liza was absolutely in her prime here - incredibly, she was only 26 in this year of CABARET and LIZA WITH A Z, and her voice was in great shape: rich, resonant and powerful - all the notes were there, big-time! (Check out some 1960s Minnelli recordings like "Come Saturday Morning" - her voice was much higher and sweeter then than we're used to.) And yes, there were certain brief moments when she looked (rather than sounded) like her mother, but she's all LIZA. I saw her on Broadway in CHICAGO in 1975, and caught her first "Post-Betty Ford Center" tour in 1985, and she was still brilliant (That's when she starting singing "When I gooooooooooooo - I'm NOT - going - like - El - sie!") and at an outdoor theater in 1992. What a performer! <br /><br />Barbra Streisand had MY NAME IS BARBRA - LIZA WITH A Z is Liza Minnelli's MY NAME IS BARBRA! Truly legendary performances by truly legendary performers. | 1pos
|
Aside from being a great, dark film, with a substantial plot line and a GIANT cast (Oldman, Penn, and Harris), this is an Oldman performance not to be believed. Mr. Oldman himself has been quoted as saying that "State of Grace" is HIS favourite performance. And, as usual, he gives a performance to be equalled by none.<br /><br />Sean Penn is marvelous, too, and Harris portrays evil incarnate.<br /><br />This film should be re-evaluated, and Gary Oldman should have received the Oscar for it. His portrayal of Jackie Flannery, a wild, violent young gangster with an ethereal tender streak - is simply phenomenal. | 1pos
|
In contrast to some of the reviews I've read, I thought this film was a poor effort on every level.<br /><br />I grew up in the North of England in the 1970s - was one of the first punks in Sheffield (where I understand the film is set) - and I don't see any authenticity in it. Just a bunch of caricatures meandering through a faux 70s setting.<br /><br />The plot lines were dreary and unfocused and the resolution ridiculous. Two lackluster juvenile leads and the remaining talent chronically under used. <br /><br />It fails- as most British movies do - to actually look like a film. It looks cheap. It has televisual sensibilities - and budget TV at that. The disco sequences really rock - not. Hard to spread out fifteen extras to make a room seem full I know.<br /><br />All in all it is rubbish. And its no wonder it was a flop when originally released. | 0neg
|
It took Vidhu Vinod Chopra 5 years to write Eklavya and its worth all the 1825 days of ink, paper, sweat and brains!<br /><br />Eklavya transports you to the vivid land of Rajasthan, where the Local Rana (Boman Irani, splendid) still considers himself the king even though democracy prevails. Eklavya, the royal guard (Amitabh Bachchan, however unbelievable it may sound this is his best performance till date. In some scenes, you can't look straight into his eyes! You deserve the Rolce Royce Mr. Bachchan!!) is endowed with the responsibility to protect and safeguard the so called king and his kingdom just like his previous 9 generations have been blindly abiding.<br /><br />Jackie Shroff as the Rana's cunning brother and Jimmy Shergill as his over-confident son fit the bill with perfection. Sanjay Dutt as Inspector Chauvhan is superbly refreshing and brings in the required humour factor.<br /><br />The film commences with a very unpredictable twist and climaxes with a very predictable one.<br /><br />What lies in between forms the crux of this miniature masterpiece. The plot is genuinely original, cinematography breath-taking, editing is swift and the background score sharply contributes to the ongoings.<br /><br />Where Eklavya loses its 2 stars is the slightly sloppy screenplay after the interval and the okie-dokie romance angle between Harshwardan (Saif Ali Khan, intensely controlled) and Rajjo (Vidya Balan, eye candy). You either make it piping hot or don't make them fall in love at all Mr.Chopra.<br /><br />Eklavya will blow you away with its plot and the way it is executed and elaborated by the director's witty creativity. Specially, the scene where a thousand camels run along the train kicking up a virtual sandstorm or when Eklavya plunges the cinema hall into darkness with only his ears alert at work.<br /><br />You will fall in Lav with Eklavya as soon as you take your first step out of the theater. Go catch this vibrantly entertaining Rajasthan Express which lasts only about 110 minutes and you won't come out unentertained. The message is clear and the medium of message couldn't be more entertaining. It certainly is Indian cinema at its best. | 1pos
|
The only reason to watch this is the world's first glimpse of Paul Douglas Valentine. Sure the lunatics like Ed and Lorraine Warren and Ted Gunderson add some side-splitting moments, but PDV sticks out like a sore thumb as the only person knowing what’s going on and able to play the audience properly. A true atheistic satanist, Valentine was obviously having fun throughout and clearly had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek more than once. The “satanic panic“ was a joke and should be just another silly footnote to the 80s. Sadly, the 21st century has produced a new breed of “theistic satanists“ who actually worship him as a deity. Now THAT is scary.<br /><br />And sad.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure I should state that I am family. | 1pos
|
You look. You experience time. You dream. Reality is a combination of all three. The Inland Empire is not Hollywood, the town of make believe, but you and your inner empire of thought and delusion.<br /><br />Movies are imaginary concepts, yet we all get caught in the net,like lost fish. Our knowledge of the real is not our five senses alone, but a mix of memory and wish.<br /><br />Intertwined with loss and hope. Loss of the past and hope for the future neither of which exist, except in mind.<br /><br />This is an expanded sit-com.<br /><br />A movie within a movie within a nightmare. Do spiders have nightmares? Do you have to be big or small to have emotions? A snail or an ape? | 1pos
|
My brother and I rented this as a joke and out of curiosity. I mean, how do you make a movie about a couple floating around in shark infested water for 2 hours? Well we find out, and its every bit as boring as you'd imagine. This movie doesn't mess around, within 10 minutes of the start of the movie they are in the water and lost. The movie then goes on to show them floating there, and trying to make it seem suspenseful at times. But when it comes down to it, they are just floating there, often times doing absolutely nothing, not talking or anything. A lot of sleeping.<br /><br />It was unbearably boring. I've seen bad movies, but none that leave me squirming praying to a God I don't believe in for it to end.<br /><br />This is all not to mention how stupid it is to make a film that is "based on a true story" that no one can prove. For all they know they both dived in, bumped their heads on a propeller blade, and sank unconsciously to the bottom of the ocean, where they died peacefully in their sleep. They only call it a true story to reel in the people with true story fetishes (such as I) to the theaters.<br /><br />How they made a sequel I do not know, and I'm sure as hell not making the mistake of renting it just for s's and g's this time around.<br /><br />Terrible God-Awful Movie. Run away (and hide). | 0neg
|
Like the love child of "Absolutely Fabulous" and every novel Jacqueline Susann's ever written, "Girls Will Be Girls" is an 80-minute festival of campy trash, hilarious one-liners, and bitchy, catty women. The only catch this time is that the women are all played by men.<br /><br />Evie (Jack Plotnick) is a washed-up B-movie actress who is decidedly not aging gracefully. She lives with Coco (Clinton Leupp), her more grounded friend who functions mainly as Evie's maid and abuse magnet. Into their lives walks their new roommate Varla (Jeffery Roberson), an aspiring starlet whose late mother Marla (also Roberson in flashbacks) was also Evie's most hated acting rival. All of them have dreams, of course. Evie's dreams involve drinking as many martinis as she can and then having plenty of sex with anyone available. Coco still pines for the hunky abortion doctor that operated on her many years ago. Varla hopes to become the actress that her mother couldn't while dealing with the advances of Evie's gorgeous but microscopically-endowed son Stevie (Ron Mathews). Of course, there are hidden motives galore, and more than one mean-spirited one-liner.<br /><br />The gimmick of this film, that all the women are played by men, is never as overstated as you may think. After all, the characters are all female, and they are treated in the story as if they are female. It's only slightly different than young boys performing the female roles in Shakespeare's plays. The camp value of the movie focuses not on the drag spectacle, but on the unrelenting melodrama and silliness of the plot, taking the elements of ridiculous films like "Valley Of The Dolls" and upping them to a level so ludicrous, they can only be considered comedy. That the framework of the film makes all of these developments seem perfectly natural and realistic is a credit to director and writer Richard Day.<br /><br />The actors are all quite game and in on the absurdity of their surroundings. Plotnick is quite humorous, dropping the most mean-spirited one-liners you'll ever laugh at, and the clips of Evie performing in the 60's stinker "Asteroid" resemble nothing less than Morgan Fairchild on quaaludes. Leupp reprises the role of Coco from his scene-stealing moments in the movie "Trick", and he imbues the character both with a humorous sense of bad luck and an immediately sympathetic personality. Roberson is not quite as spectacular as his co-stars, but he gives the naive, trusting Varla a great heart and a hilarious scene involving opera and cheese in a can. Even Mathews is great, all melodramatic soap hunk and hair product. <br /><br />While the movie receives high marks for style, including efficient and effective set design and a very nice score, it's a very loud movie in the sense that every scene is turned up to 11. While this works most of the time, even at the film's short running time, it tends to strain. The ending veers sharply away from comedy into deep melodramatic territory, and even though it is diffused quite handily, the film almost drowns in TV-movie-of-the-week sap before the mood lightens again. Also, some may find the hostile attitudes of some of the characters, mainly Evie and to a degree Coco, to be too off-putting for comfort. Evie, especially, is one of the most unsympathetic characters you'll meet in a film this year.<br /><br />Regardless, the film is hilarious and immensely entertaining. A high recommendation for anyone who likes divas, camp, or catty fun. And don't forget to bring the cheese. 8 out of 10. | 1pos
|
I'll admit that when I first started watching this show, at a friend's request of course, I thought it was vaguely interesting. I've always loved paranormal things, and figured a show called "Ghost Hunters" could fill my insatiable need to understand such things.<br /><br />Unfortunately that was not the case. Gradually I became more and more annoyed at this show and their methods. Mainly I have a few issues with how they handle things. First, some of their members don't seem to respect the ghosts, or spirits if you will. I recall there was an episode in which one of the members was trying to provoke the ghost into doing something by calling it names. Careful doing that, newbie, you might just get possessed.<br /><br />Another issue I had is that they rely on technology for EVERYTHING. They'll set up thousands of dollar's worth of cameras and other equipment around the place in hopes that they'll catch something. This may be scientifically proved to catch things that we have scientific proof of, but when you're trying to catch PARANORMAL things with EVERY DAY technology, you've got to know that you're going to get little to nothing. At least Paranormal State has the balls to use psychics, mediums, and religious methods, which are far superior to technology.<br /><br />Last issue is my main problem. They're rarely willing to draw a conclusion about a whole lot of ANYTHING. They use their "scientific method" to try to rule out regular happenings before they can draw a conclusion, but even when they do rule out everything else, they STILL aren't willing to admit it's paranormal. For example, if they had a camera get knocked over or something, they would test for ground movement, wind, drafts in the house, physical intervention, etc etc, but even when they rule that nothing normal could've possibly effected it, they only rule that it could POSSIBLY be paranormal, and that's being generous. Get my drift? If science can't explain it, then obviously it must be PARA - NORMAL.<br /><br />And whenever they DO find something they deem to be "paranormal", they don't do anything about it! I can't tell you how many times they've heard EVP's saying "help" or "help me", but they never do! They log it as just another phenomenon. Has it occurred to them that these spirits actually want help passing on, and this is their only way of asking for it? Nope, they wouldn't know. It's all about ratings and money.<br /><br />Ultimately I don't like how they go about doing things on this show, and I believe that ultimately their methods are causing them more trouble than it's worth. I'll stick with Paranormal State, thanks. | 0neg
|
"You really don't like women, do you?" ffolkes is asked. Rufus Excalibur ffolkes (Roger Moore) is an eccentric, misanthropic ex-British Army officer who has his own team of highly trained underwater commandos, ffolkes' fusiliers. He specializes in hostage rescue and anti- terrorism action, all immaculately planned and decisively executed. The bearded, curmudgeonly ffolkes favors Edwardian suits, does petit point and loves Scotch and cats. He's on a North Sea oil platform where Lou Kramer, a clever criminal (Anthony Perkins) who has hijacked the supply boat Esther which is moored below, has demanded 25 million British pounds or he'll blow the rig sky high. ffolkes got there because the British government could think of no one else who had a chance of thwarting Kramer's plan. If Jennifer, the production platform, and Ruth, a nearby drilling platform, which Kramer has mined are destroyed, a good deal of British North Sea oil production will go up in smoke with them. The plot is ingenious. But then, so is ffolkes. And he's prepared to be just as ruthless as the criminals. folkes has one advantage. His plans never go wrong. Almost never. <br /><br />But back to ffolkes and women. "I do not!" ffolkes answers. "You see, I together with my five elder sisters was raised by my maiden aunt. Both my parents died tragically in childbirth. Until the age of ten I was forced to wear my sisters' hand-me-downs. Then when I married I discovered to my horror that my wife also had five sisters, all unmarried and all expecting my support. I find cats a far superior breed." <br /><br />This clever, exciting adventure did only modest business when it was released, and was quickly forgotten by most. Too bad, because it's a well-made film which generates tension, has an unusual setting in the cold, stormy waters of the North Sea, and has some fine actors. Among the standouts are Anthony Perkins as the vicious, confident, and, of course, unstable Lou Kramer; James Mason as Admiral Sir Francis Brindsen, a stock figure at first but who, thanks to Mason's skill, turns into a character of barely noticed wry humor; and Michael Parks as Kramer's key henchman, possible lover and explosives expert. <br /><br />Most of all, the movie depends on Roger Moore, and he delivers a dynamic and amusing performance of a man of action who'd be much happier in an earlier age. His complete self- confidence in his planning and his talents would be irritating if it weren't so well acted and expressed in lines so well written. "I suppose you're one of those fellows who does the Times' crossword puzzle in 10 minutes," says an irritated Admiral Brindsen after ffolkes offhandedly explained the meaning of a coded message the Admiral had just received from London. "I have never taken 10 minutes!" says ffolkes indignantly. Moore is perhaps underrated nowadays, but I think he was expert in light comedy and in amusing adventures. In my opinion, he is the second best by far of the James Bonds. (I haven't seen Daniel Craig.) Even aging a bit in the last couple, be brought style and insouciance to a franchise that was slowly going off the tracks. And yes, I'm a fan of A View to a Kill. Moore made this picture between Bond films and he plays against type. <br /><br />The movie ends, as it began, with ffolkes clearly happy with his favorite companions. We had earlier met Mary, his tortoiseshell tabby. We leave ffolkes with an award from the British government, delivered to him in Scotland by the Prime Minister herself...three white kittens named Esther, Ruth and Jennifer. <br /><br />For those unsure how to pronounce ffolkes, we may have to dig deep into Hitchcock. "I don't get the double 'F'," says American reporter Johnny Jones to Scott ffolliot, a man he's just met as they speed down a Dutch lane after an assassin. "They're at the beginning," says ffolliot. "Both small 'F's." "They can't be at the beginning," says Johnny. Says ffolliot, "One of my ancestors was beheaded by Henry VIII. His wife dropped the capital letter to commemorate it." "How do you say it, like a stutter?" asks Johnny. "Just a straight 'fuh'." <br /><br />Fuholkes is a well made, amusing adventure. | 1pos
|
I saw the whole movie. Am Greek and this is a very recent film. I thought it could be good. After the first 15 minutes the film was like this : Every time the main character(a man) meets a woman , the woman attacks to him sexually and... The film was repeating itself, every scene was the same ... One of the actresses is very famous in Greek, and i like her in the "hot" scenes .. but come on... is this art ? Am really sorry that the director - whose film Loufa and Parallagy I can watch 100 times per day- made this movie. No story .. if in the same scenes the actors were more nude.. it would be porn. I am very open-minded... it reminded me of another movie Lucia y el Sexo, especially the scene in the water (blue sea and sex) but i cant really understand what was the purpose of this movie. Am really sorry for my bad critic, am not an expert. This is my personal opinion. | 0neg
|
It has been sometime since I have seen this television movie. It is an eerie film, imaginatively made considering the budget that this film had, which was not much. When we had fewer stations that we do now, films like this were still being seen in the afternoons on affiliate stations to ABC. This show, was part of the Tuesday or Wednesday movie of the week that ABC had. It was from this series that Duel, Directed by Steven Spielberg came from. Regrettably, many of these other films I think were equal to Duel, but these directors and writers from what I can see, never were able to come close to Spiebergs fame.<br /><br />Todays TV movies seem to be made with bigger budgets, but watching a film like Cold Nights Death shows what greatness can be done with a limited budget. The Tuesday and Wednesday night movies on ABC were not all good, but some of them deserve greater status than has been accorded them. These films remind me of the excellent B movies we have heard about that Hollywood made as a second feature in their heyday. Those in the 1970's who looked upon the 1950's as some great creative time on TV forgot about these films. Even in the 1970's when American films were some of the best ever, Film critics then were also not appreciative of what they had before them.<br /><br />Hopefully buried treasures like A COLD NIGHT'S DEATH, and other films will get their re release, either on TV, or on DVD's. Apparently this film is available on DVD to purchase, but many others may not be. | 1pos
|
..it would have won 10 oscars compared to this turkey! I have only one thing to say about this film. BAD!!! | 0neg
|
In the beginning the film was a bit boring but as it went on it got better and better. I find it quite amusing with a good end. I think it follows the style of analyse this, grosse point blank and other movies where a contract killer or mafia guy , in this case an undercover agent starts pursues therapy. If you liked any of these, go watch it. | 1pos
|
This show is unbelievable in that it lacks any perceivable value to anyone. It's perhaps the most value-less show ever to be seen.<br /><br />I don't say things like this lightly. I have seen "poor" and "pathetic" and said so. I've seen shows which may not be *MY* tastes but I could see where they may appeal to someone who is angry enough, drunk enough or high enough. I can even see where someone might stare at a lava lamp for hours. Yet this show is worse than them all. Finally a network has come up with a show with less entertainment value than the lava lamp.<br /><br />I've seen trashier. I've seen equally as stupid. I've seen more repulsive. Yet the Anna Nicole show is even lesser value. At least "trashy" or "revolting" are qualities which "shock" the sensibilities and appeal to certain groups. To each their own. Yet the Anna Nicole show even lacks these dubious appeals.<br /><br />This show is about not a clever commentary on "nothing" like Seinfeld. It actually *IS* nothing. A woman without charm, intelligence or any redeeming qualities going about ansolutely nothing of interest.<br /><br />Television has reached a new low with this one. I suggest anyone considering watching this move up a few notches and watch a good MLM infomercial or tune into the test pattern late at night. | 0neg
|
Point 1: Good action. Wasley Snipes delivers nicely. Great close combat moves. Point 2: Obviously not the biggest budget possible for this movie. And still a very good movie. Point 3: Action movies always have those unbelievable characters and actors who have been hired not so much because of how they act than what they look like and what they can do physically. No exception here. Point 4: Plot was simple and straight forward with a nice twist at the end. I'd say the script was adequate for a movie gone straight to video. Point 5: This movie delivers exactly what you expect from a movie in this genre. Period.<br /><br />Now that you judge this flick in it's context (B-movie), you realize it's really not that bad people say it is. Expectations are too high only because they see Wesley Snipes at the opening credits. Throw your prejudice in the corner and see this movie for what it is; Good clean above average action. | 1pos
|
High-octane A&C, their first starring roles and a really kinetic blending of musical numbers and comedy routines. Too bad this 90 minute dynamo wasn't sent to Hitler and Tojo. They would have tossed in the towel right away. One look at the sheer energy of the flying boogie-woogie couples is enough to light up a dozen defense plants. I'm sure it was great to have this kind of zippy support at home, but I'm afraid those eve-of-war conscripts were in for a lot more than the year of garrison duty the movie portrays.<br /><br />Nonetheless, note how the movie never loses its bounce. That's a tribute to director Lubin, the film editor(s), and the comedy duo that in 1941 was still fresh and eager to please. The crap-shooting skit is classic A&C, along with the "money counting" routine, and of course there's the Andrews Sisters segueing into their knock-out version of the classic "Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy". Even the inevitable romantic scenes are well handled without being draggy, (but just what is that over-sized thing perched on Frazee's head-- I'm still wondering.).<br /><br />In passing-- note how the class conflict of the Depression era is leveled out by the the common war effort and the spirit of one for all and all for one. Note too, how the patriotic screenplay favors neither blue-collar Alan Curtis nor rich playboy Lee Bowman in their competition for the lovely Jane Frazee. Still and all, Bowman must first lose his privileged arrogance before being accepted into the great American melting pot.<br /><br />Also, I was a little puzzled by the "Apple Blossom Time" number which seemed a throw-back to WWI with its GI's (doughboys) strolling dreamily down the lane to the romantic down-tempo strains. I expect the producers wanted a change of musical pace for variety's sake. That's understandable. But more importantly, I think the number reflects popular tastes from the 1916-18 period, such that it's contrast here with the boogie-woogie numbers provides an interesting glimpse of how the pace of American life had speeded up between the wars.<br /><br />Be that as it may, the movie remains a zesty blend of comedy and song with a larger than usual A&C budget-- (note the realistically crowded train station). I expect everything just sort of fell into place to produce what amounts to a happy accident that likely helped set the pace for the many war-time musicals that would follow. Even non-fans of A&C should enjoy this one. | 1pos
|
I can't say I enjoyed Slime City too much, but it does have an element of trashy fun to it. The atmosphere is similar to Basket Case, only trashier and on a lower budget. There are some cool death scenes early on, but then the pace seems to plod for ages. There's a good erotic dance scene from one of the ladies which some may enjoy. The only reason I would recommend Slime City to anyone is for the scenes at the end, which are priceless. The girlfriend of the guy turning into slime hacks his head off, and the head splits apart and his brain tries to escape by slithering across the floor. Seeing that she is in front of him, the brain turns around to slither in the opposite direction. She then hacks him up. <br /><br />If you can tolerate low budget trash this may be your sort of thing, just don't expect too much. | 0neg
|
If GO director Doug Liman collaborated with Pedro Almodovar on a remake of that film, you might just about get something equal to NOT LOVE JUST FRENZY. Set in the mid-'90's omnisexual club scene in Madrid, there's plenty of sex, drugs, betrayal, death and dance beats to go around. Those not used to movies with subtitles probably won't have the wherewithal to stick with this one, but veteran viewers of such fare as WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS?, WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN and AMOR DE HOMBRE know that the eventual rewards are worth it. <br /><br />Blond, hedonistic nymphomaniac bartender/actress Monica (Caetana Guillen Cuervo), sweet- natured Yeye (Ingrid Rubio) and vivacious activist Maria (Beatriz Santiago) are three flatmates looking for a fourth to let a spare room at their place, to stretch the rent with some extra dinero. Unfortunately, friendships and romantic entanglements will be the main things stretched past the breaking point, when Monica decides to rent the room to Max (Nancho Novo), Yeye's sexy, shady ex-boyfriend who has a secret he won't let get out, and a certain appendage he can't seem to keep...in his pants. <br /><br />Keeping the pot at a roiling boil are subplots including Alberto (Gustavo Salmeron), Yeye's gay "play husband" who is having an affair with a married bisexual, Alex (Javier Albala) and a mad infatuation with straight physique model, David (Liberto Rabal); Luis (Javier Manrique), a psychotic cop masquerading as a secret admirer of Maria's who has his own agenda involving Max, and Maria's own secret crush, Carlos (Juan Diego Botto), her cute student pal who lives right next door, and confides in her about his latest romantic involvements, clueless to how she really feels about him. <br /><br />Just for spice, add a lesbian madam named Cristina (Bibi Andersen) who also has Max's number; a coterie of drag queens so over-the-top they make the girls from PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT seem downright genteel; sex that just avoids becoming triple X-rated porn, prodigious drug use, more sex and a murder investigation that will turn everyone's lives even more topsy-turvy...if that's possible.<br /><br />This arch spoof of all the sex-drug-and-drama gay genre films seems at times like a mess, but the writing is tight enough that you can follow all the plot twists, without getting as lost as some of the characters seem to be in their own little worlds. And though the DVD box trumpets the presence of Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, you better not blink if you don't want to miss them. Not that it matters - the cast is engaging throughout, and in the midst of all the "Frenzy" of the title are some gorgeous and striking scenes, such as Monica flouncing down a busy city street in French Renaissance attire and sunglasses, and David in a nude rooftop scene (don't ask - just watch for it.)<br /><br />Overall, one of the better non-Almodovar entries to the canon of gay-themed foreign films from the last decade. | 1pos
|
this version aired in the 80's when i was just around 10 years old, i remember so well watching with my mother and loving it so much because we had the soundtrack with Robert Goulet singing...he kissed my mother at a concert in Edmonton when she was a young girl...tragic that the world only knows the gene Kelly version...he is not an issue, just the whole movie, all dancing and the singing is weak. i wish CBS had not destroyed the original...someone must have taped it on one occasion...please let us know if we discover one! the record is really very good and Peter Falk one can never go wrong. funny that made for TV can be so much better. | 1pos
|
I'm glad this film is finally being re-released. The trailer states it's "the movie you never saw," but quite a few of us did see it. I loved it in 1982 (3?), so much so that I went out and bought the S/T, which I still listen to (yes kids, on vinyl). Just saw the film again, and except for being a tad embarrassed that we wore such silly clothes back then, I think it holds up beautifully. Yes, it could have been cast differently. But the point was to drop the normal-looking, average joe and mary into a fantasy setting. IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK FAKE. The sets are gorgeous! It's based on what Vegas used to look like, before they tore it all down and put up that oversized Disneyland. The music is some of the best Tom Waits has ever made--I only just learned that Waits selected Crystal Gayle; (FFC had requested Bette Midler (after hearing her duet w/ Waits on "Never Talk to Strangers") having listened to this LP for 20 years I'm glad he did. There's not much to the story, (no back story, no character development), but there's not supposed to be. Doncha think FFC could've made that film if he'd wanted to? (and really, we've had 20 years of films that pick apart relationships ad nauseum). This film works the way it was intended to. Sit back and enjoy it, it's musical fantasy-realism, it doesn't matter that Nattassja can't sing. | 1pos
|
I would like to disagree with the above. I thought that the use of the remaining stills to recompose this movie, was brilliantly done. It was, indeed, obviously a labor of love, but now, we at least have SOME idea of what the audience saw in 1927...here it is, 2006, and I thought that for it's time, it probably WAS frightening. And Chaney's makeup is outstanding. The people of that era weren't used to those kinds of images on the screen, so I imagine that they were probably petrified by Chaney and his ghastly makeup, which, for its day, was superb, as I stated before. I'm clearly a Chaney fan, however, so, more than likely, I am truly biased.<br /><br />All in all, this was brilliant, I thought. | 1pos
|
This is the dumbest most useless movie ever! Its almost like the script came from toilet paper some guy used in a stall. It was so unfunny it was uncomfortable to watch. It is the complete anti-thesis of entertainment. I have seen better productions in college and on cable access. Just absolutely awful all the way. There is nothing redeemable from this movie. This quite simply has to be the most moronic film to ever hit the planet.<br /><br />The dialog was useless and did not ever look realistic. Its as if the actors are reading in monotone off of a cue card. The acting was deplorable. It should be viewed at acting school as what not to do. I think all together it is a pure waste of film, waste of space and waste of time in video store or cable station in the universe! | 0neg
|
No, I mean it, I am in a state of utter awe of this ability to continue producing grade-A results. This is a review of the PC version. All that appears to mean is that you can save at any time(with a few delectable exceptions), and are not limited to the well-placed(if arguably plentiful) checkpoints. In ways, this is less hard than the others(on the other hand, it is challenging, yes, also on the easiest setting, of the three for puzzles and four for action... yep, adjustable difficulty, so anyone can play this). It's about as long as the first one(in general, it takes a bit of inspiration from it... including in a way that I'd have preferred it didn't, but I understand that others did want that; you should definitely try to play the original one before this, you will appreciate it on another level), but the well-done puzzles seem simpler(that, or I'm getting better... and I tend to think it's the former, not the latter; meanwhile, this has the greatest riddle-solving system yet), if there may be about the same amount of them. On the other hand, this one may have about twice as many types of creatures. They are grotesque and nightmarish again, and this time, a few are downright bizarre in appearance, resembling nothing that we can recognize. All of the design is impeccably done. This again uses our own imagination in conjunction with the unnerving sights and audio to build up the psychological terror. The atmosphere is chilling, carefully established and maintained throughout, by the grisly sights and the incredibly well-done and meticulously crafted sound-side that is either shocking or hinting, never noisy or dull. This has amazing music, if there may be more lyrics than earlier in the series; then again, they are fantastic, and like the second, this does, as it needs to, distinguish itself(without deviating so much that we get alienated), they can't all be carbon-copies, they have to do something new. This hits the nail on the head in that regard. The plot is marvelous, if not as deep as that of SH2. I refuse to give it away. The story-telling is well-done(I swear to you, I was literally touched a handful of times during this, not only scared) with you finding details as you go along, and then the scripted, in-engine cut-scenes(there are no CGI ones in this one, and they are not missed), with a free cinematography(with that said, were there an excess of shots from below the protagonist, or was that just me?), a wide range of animations and rather articulated faces and the like(I do not personally find the introductory movie as compelling as the other two, perhaps that is only me... it might be the pop song, if I will grant that it's sufficiently sad in tone). This has astonishing graphics, and the lighting, shadows and weather effects(love the "grain") are brilliantly done. You now play as Heather, a teenage girl not afraid to speak her mind. I wasn't bothered by the gender in the least, and her personality isn't irritating(I've yet to come across a single obnoxious person in this franchise up to this point); however, her vocabulary, well, fits her age, and it does take away from the mood when something is called/described using words like "boring", "gross" or "yuck". Well, it didn't bother me enough to take me out of it, even briefly. All of the characters are credible, diverse and well-developed, and there are so few of them that you remember everyone and they all matter, none of them can be left out with no impact. Vincent is one of my favorites of all three games. The acting tends to be magnificent. This is instantly engaging and quite exciting. It takes a while before you realize what exactly is going on, without this losing any of its gripping tension. It is a cinematic experience with its strange, interesting and effective angles, and the dynamic camera that you can exert limited control over. The button for this can get you third person view, and that is invaluable in this. It won't work everywhere, still, it will when you have to, as the video-game won't always automatically do so. One thing I suppose one could say is that the enemies can be frustrating, to an extent not seen before this entry. And there are a lot of weapons, if not any that are superfluous. I've heard complaints about the Uzi... well, can *you* use it constantly? Besides, these are not about the combat. The lead now turns her head at nearly everything you can interact with, which at best takes getting used to, at worst is an annoyance. They split up Enter and Use into separate functions... not sure why. There are several endings and other things to unlock. This revisits areas from the previous incarnation, though they do new things with them. Several of your surroundings are creepy places to begin with, like a subway station and train. You now see the elevator as its moving, another of the countless eerie situations in these. It's all so abandoned, so close to quaint, and yet absolutely not. The interface remains unchanged as it should be, and once you are used to the directional keys(shouldn't take long), the way you move in this is rather intuitive, and you can get into this almost immediately. This does tinker with game-play mechanics a tad, all improvements. You can run a nice and fitting distance before tiring, for example. There are immense loads of brutal, bloody, strong violence and disturbing content, as well as a little sexuality in this - you should be able to figure out pretty quickly if you can handle it or not. I recommend this warmly to any fan of the other ones, and of other smart survival horror VG's. An acquired taste that ages like a fine wine, and that I wouldn't dream of doing without. Return to Silent Hill... if you dare. 10/10 | 1pos
|
Tho this movie was uneven, the quirky humor was invigorating. I rated it 7, partly because there were some concepts I had not seen in movies previously.<br /><br />The young leads were personable and presented their characters quite admirably. Their car itself becomes a personality in the show.<br /><br />You will find several actors you haven't seen in years. (Some shine in the light of this movie; others, well... 'nuff said.)<br /><br />The Music of "King Sunny Ade & His African Beats" was refreshing. The Juju Music was at the same time full of energy and joy... & was gentle almost like meditation.<br /><br />If you are looking for a pleasant diversion, strongly unique in places, I highly recommend it. | 1pos
|
Hey, of course it's the same movie as Executive Decision. Michael did it first and Hollywood thought it was such a good movie, they packed it with so called top stars and remade it with bigger special effects. Fantastic movie, great scenes even if some of them were re-used in other movies, but what do you expect from a lower budget film. Not only does Michael put in a solid and believable performance, but all the cast come together well to make this a great action/suspense movie not to be missed. Whether you are a die hard Dudikoff fan or a newbie to his movies, this one is yet another great offering from Dudikoff. Check it out and you won't be disappointed. | 1pos
|
A routine "B" western in the Lone Star series of westerns Wayne made in the 30's. What sets this one apart is John Wayne as a "Singing" Cowboy. This was the time of the beginning of the Singing Cowboy era in "B" westerns (e.g. Gene Autry). Wayne's voice is obviously dubbed. He sure doesn't look comfortable serenading the heroine or warbling a tune while riding across the prairie. Fortunately for all concerned (especially the Duke) this experiment was quickly ended.<br /><br />Anyone who wants to hear the Duke's "real" singing voice should watch the opening credits of "Cahill U.S. Marshal". | 0neg
|
Alterning elements from "Waterworld" and "Mad Max", this film is a pleasure to the eyes with beautiful sand landscapes from chilen Atacama´s desert. Besides, it´s a pleasure to the ears, with the outstanding brazilian diva Sandy and her voice. Go to see it now, but don´t forget to take a big glass of water before. I´ve got very thirsty at the end. | 1pos
|
I've got the feeling that somehow the director couldn't decide what kind of movie to make here: A psychodrama about the inner conflicts of a woman (concerned with her past) and/or the solving of the conflicts in a relationship *or* a simple slasher spiced up with some naive psychology. Or both.<br /><br />But the movie is still pretty impressive with great performances overall (especially by Allison Elliot - that woman has got more talent in her little finger than a lot of big stars do, and Richard Harris' son is great,too), an effective score which includes some cool songs (too bad there is not CD out - how canI get hold of "Rockets" or the song played during the end credits?) and interesting/atmospheric and very well done direction. But the Irish background of it all seems to be a little bit forced.<br /><br />Anyway, don't expect some kind of standard horror flick or you will be disappointed! | 1pos
|
"Snoopy Come Home" is the 2nd of the 4 Peanuts specials. In many ways, it's a unique Peanuts story (particularly for being a musical, dramatic and emotional motion picture). At the same time, its simplicity is extreme.<br /><br />This is an improvement over the previous "A Boy Named Charlie Brown" and a classic. There are many good things about it. The story is simple but solid, fun, dramatic and interesting. There is some nice score, such as the hilarious song "No dogs allowed" and the beautiful but sad songs "Do you remember me?" and "It changes".<br /><br />Unlike the first movie, here both Peppermint Patty and Woodstock appear, although Marcie is still missing. There is, however, a crazy girl named Clara who looks almost equal to Marcie, except without glasses. She's the one who names Snoopy "Rex". I call her "the terrorist", lol.<br /><br />Pepermint Patty's role is small here and, as usual, she's a tomboy. But she is surprisingly kind here. Really doesn't sound like her. Considering she's very quick-tempered and often unfair and obnoxious, she manages to surprise us here.<br /><br />Lila's role in the movie is minor. She is everything that Lucy and "the terrorist" aren't: friendly, sweet, kind and lovable. Lila was the original owner of the world's most famous Beagle. I think they should have found a way to make she and Charlie Brown meet sometimes, so that she and Snoopy had the chance to visit each other occasionally. Charlie Brown and Lila could even be friends...<br /><br />During good part of the movie there is a sad atmosphere: Lila's illness and loneliness, the Peanuts gang missing Snoopy a lot (mostly Charlie Brown, who is most sensitive about this). Like Charlie Brown, I hate goodbyes and I'd rather more hellos.<br /><br />The few things I don't like about this movie are when Linus and Snoopy hurt each other, the boxing match sequence with Lucy and Snoopy and, of course, the sequences with "the terrorist" (a real trauma for Snoopy and Woddstock) and most parts with Lucy. I just don't like Lucy, she's obnoxious, unfair and mean to Snoopy, Charlie Brown and even Linus. <br /><br />The artwork is extremely simplistic but perhaps a little better than in "A Boy Named Charlie Brown". Still, this artwork is clearly not at the level of "Race for your life, Charlie Brown" and even less of "Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown". <br /><br />The journey of America's favorite Beagle and Woodstock to visit Lila at the hospital is admirable, as well as everything they go through because of all those "No dogs allowed" signs (including one that forbids both dogs and birds, which is discrimination against animals).<br /><br />This movie isn't all drama, however. There are some comical parts, such as whenever Snoopy and Woodstock laugh. The laughter of both is hysterical to listen! And Snoopy's indecipherable growl-like speaking is always a full plate, as well as his characteristic signature with a footprint. Woodstock also has the loveliest whistle of all time - he really whistles beautifully!<br /><br />This should definitely be on Top 250. | 1pos
|
*****POSSIBLE SPOILERS*****<br /><br />Poorly conceived propaganda flick unites a classic cast to produce a truly bad egg in which they share virtually no scenes. To say that the story is muddled would be to give it too much credit -- I don't think it really has a story. At one point, the action being shown on screen is a flashback inside a flashback inside of another flashback... what with all the jumping around from story to story, it's hard to imagine that any audience could keep all this straight. <br /><br />With the unbelievable confusion going on in the intersecting plots (which basically center on a group of prisoners trying to escape from a colonial penal institution so they can fight for France -- yes, Bogey plays a frenchman in this one, believe it or not) it's not surprising that no drama or interest is created by the film's action. We already know who'll live and die because it's a flashback, so there's no suspense either. <br /><br />In a novel twist, Lorre turns out NOT to be a weirdo or a bad guy or a coward. When Bogey's character breathes his final breath, we can only sigh in relief.<br /><br />This movie was a rip-off, it wasn't even really a movie, and the audience only got to see a little bit of any of the stars. | 0neg
|
Anne Fontaine's movies always have some kind of strange relationships. In this particular one, a nice sweet girl, an insurance company employee, meets a strange vet who is quite mysterious ans fascinating, while a serial killer with a scalpel kills women in the area : we are just like Isabelle Carré (perfect as usual), because Benoît Poelvoorde is a pure magnet. We have always known him as a very funny comedian and it's quite a revelation to see him play this obscure character. Apparently, he was quite traumatized to play this part and he says in magazines he never will play that kind of thing again : that would be a shame ! | 1pos
|
In reading some of the non-spoiler reviews prior to watching this film, I was prepared for a deliberately-paced drama with elements of horror sprinkled in. What I got instead was a movie that was boring beyond comprehension.<br /><br />By "boring" I do not simply mean slow-paced. Most assuredly, there are many slow-paced films that are very interesting - "A Tale of Two Sisters", "Pulse", "Cure", and "Audition" come to mind. However, there are also many slow-paced films that are simply boring. "Sorum" is one of the latter.<br /><br />At no point during the first 85 minutes did I feel even remotely interested in what was happening. There was far too much "small talk" that contributed virtually nothing to the story. To be honest, the first 85 minutes could have been easily condensed to less than 30 without much loss to either plot or character development.<br /><br />When the final sequence of events took place, I could not help but feel cheated at the rather superficial treatment of the primary issues that the filmmakers were attempting to address - especially considering all of the screen time that was literally wasted during the first 75% of the film.<br /><br />I do agree with the positive reviewers here that ADD-ridden simpletons who need car explosions or lots of deaths will have difficulty sitting through this one. Unfortunately, the attention deficits of teenagers will never change the fact that "Sorum" is a poorly made film. Attempts to justify trash film-making in this manner is reprehensible. A bad film is simply a bad film. | 0neg
|
As reflected in its subtitle, "Stoked" is not an original idea about a talented individual attaining success then losing it. A formula for a different time place that works: during the 1980s skateboarding scene. Long before Tony Hawk reached the pinnacle of skateboarding prominence to become synonymous with the sport, there was Mark "Gator" Rogowski. Hawk, who is an interviewee, rolled in similar circles with Gator. They, and others like them, were at work in an era before the Gravity and X-Games were established, eventually becoming permanent TV offerings.<br /><br />With Gator as the focus, viewers get a back-story of when Extreme Sports was in its in infancy. Rogowski was among a capable few who took a hobby of countless teenagers to become a well paid performer. He earned money through merchandising and lucrative endorsement deals. Just as he reached the top, he slowly declined--personally and professionally--surpassed by an evolving skateboard landscape which beckoned higher skills. <br /><br />Viewers need not be skateboarding aficionados to be engrossed inside this dramatic profile, with an all too tragic conclusion. Too bad for the uninitiated, Mark Anthony Rogowski couldn't have been introduced under better circumstances. | 1pos
|
Hyped as The First French Sex-Horror Film "The Blood Rose" certainly delivers the goods.Lemaire plays an aging painter whose wedded bliss to gorgeous Anne turns to tragedy,when she nearly gets in a catfight with his former lover and falls into a fire in a pretty hilarious scene.She is of course horribly scarred.The great Howard Vernon plays a surgeon who may be able to return her to her former beauty,but he'll need a live victim to do it.So women are brought to the artist's château in order to get a face.The dwarfs,who were the painter's longtime servants,are charged with capturing the girls.Clearly inspired by Franju "Eyes Without the Face" "The Blood Rose" features lovely Gothic setting of French medieval castle, great-looking women and a healthy dose of sleaze.Rollin-esquire atmosphere is well-captured and the climax is fantastic.7 out of 10. | 1pos
|
Wildcat is a typical B-movie of the 40's. The plot is straight forward and largely predictable. For those not familiar with the term, wildcat refers to someone taking the risk of drilling for oil in unproven areas.<br /><br />While there are no major stars here, there are some recognizable faces. Richard Arlen made a career of B-movies and plays the lead here as an endearing hustler. His main antagonist is Buster Crabbe of Flash Gordon fame. William Frawley (Fred Mertz of I Love Lucy) plays an unscrupulous card shark, that eventually shows some heart. Toss in character actor Arthur Hunnicutt, who is best known as a crotchety old-timer from westerns and 50's TV. Overall, a decent cast that does a fine, if unspectacular job of delivering the goods.<br /><br />The dialogue is snappy in parts, but also lame in places. There are enough conflicts and action sequences to keep the story moving without bogging down. The characters cover a wide range. There is the flawed hero lead, the conniving femme fatale, a naive youth, a cold-hearted antagonist and loyal associates.<br /><br />While this movie is mildly entertaining, there is nothing spectacular here. While the movie is shot in the present (1942,) it has a western flavor to it. So if you enjoy any of the actors or just want to see a "modern" western, it's not a bad way to spend 70 minutes. | 1pos
|
Terry Moore stars in this tripe about a rich kid who fakes his own kidnapping in order to get attention from Mummy and Daddykins. But Terry Moore remains the only reason to watch. Let's see, what else? <br /><br />There are some cool Mercedes-Benzes..... um..... the palm trees in Beverly Hills are very pretty..... uh..... *zzzzzzz* - oh, sorry!<br /><br />Did I mention Terry Moore?! - yeah, I did. Well, that's about it. Let's review, shall we? The reasons to watch this movie are:<br /><br />1. Terry Moore, 2. cool Mercedes-Benzes, 3. pretty palm trees<br /><br />There. We're done. That wasn't so bad, was it? A bit of advice, though. If you are planning on watching this, get totally blitzed first. At least then you won't be able to remember it the next day. | 0neg
|
Korea's answer to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?<br /><br />Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from "I Know...", "The House On Sorority Row" and "The Faculty" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.<br /><br />Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!<br /><br />RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended. <br /><br />** / ***** | 0neg
|
This is one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. Why? Where to start, where to start?<br /><br />How about dialogue? At one point in the movie, our hero John realizes that they are being watched by government agents. DOH! They followed them openly right to the house Why the look of shock? So, what does he do?<br /><br />1 - Interrupts a conversation that sounds as normal as any in this movie<br /><br />2 - Writes "Keep talking normal" on a newspaper on the table<br /><br />3 - Puts his index finger to his mouth with the universal "shhh" sign (how does one "shhh" while talking normally?)<br /><br />4 - Next, a looong 15 second pause in conversation<br /><br />5 - Then this REALLY subtle line - "I'll be right back. Follow me. Keep an eye out" in a monotone voice; end of conversation.<br /><br />Other really bad parts include the trimmed border and visible hinges around the "secret" trap door and, my favorite, a hidden CD picked up in a different location than where it was hidden in an earlier scene. Since both places had flags, I guess I wasn't supposed to notice. I could list more, but it hurts my brain to think about how bad this movie was.<br /><br />So, the screenplay is bad. Cinematography is bad. DVD production is bad (what's with the Apache helicopters on the main menu graphics and not in the movie?). The acting is bad, but with this script, even Maria Conchita Alonzo and David Warner can't help it. The concept of the story is great, but the execution is simply horrible, the suspense is transparent (the sunglasses thing was SOOO obvious), and there is a lot of extraneous dialogue (keyless encryption). It wasn't a failure to suspend disbelief, it was a failure to get in the same universe with disbelief.<br /><br />Maybe someone will take the works of Dan Brown and do something similar to this movie and do it right. | 0neg
|
OK i love horror movies every one of them make me laugh even when they are not under comedy. But this movie is freaking amazing. it has guts gore and LAUGHS. the reason why i laugh during any horror movie is because how creative horror movies are with killings. this one was like super creative and awesome i love this movie every one who likes comedy needs to see this movie its awesome. Also all the actors are freaking cool and nice job pick hot chicks I'm just saying. One last thing "Horny the Clown" awesome name by the way. There is one more quote thats not listed thats pretty cool Horny the Clown: "Your my girl now, and I'm HORNY!!!!!!" Awesome line. | 1pos
|
"Meet the Spartans" is the only movie-movie after Scary Movie that was funny enough to keep me entertained. This has got to be the worst. The only funny part of the film was the opening titles, which was just so ridiculously awful that it made me laugh. Makers of the movie desperately in the need of easy money? Very likely.<br /><br />I really hope they stop making these money and time wasting, worthless peaces of dog sh*t. It seems that they're just repeating the same "jokes" over and over again and thinking that it still makes people laugh. Luckily this came out of the TV and I didn't need to waste anything else than electricity on it. I switched the channel after an hour of TRYING to watch it.<br /><br />Anyone who is interested in seeing this, stop being interested. Spend your money on something reasonable and skip this one. Ugh, even "Superhero Movie" was better than this, can you believe it? 1 out of 10 stars. | 0neg
|
This movie is about how important it is to live your life to the fullest. To live your dreams, follow your instincts, to resist social pressure, stay true to yourself, to become who you really are. Leading character Anna, a hard-working wife and mother of two daughters, has always wanted to be a writer. But her work, husband and two daughters have always stood between her and her passion. A sick daughter, an unfaithful husband, a demanding old mother, and her own social commitment make it hard for her to sit down and write her autobiography. Then dramatic events make her realize that she has only one mission: to be a writer, to finally live! ('Leef'!) Several different sub-stories develop and finally come together in a breathtaking, jubilant climax. Award-winning script-writer Maria Goos is at her best here, and so is director Willem van de Sande-Bakhuysen, who was terminally ill when the shooting started and who died shortly after 'Live! was completed. | 1pos
|
"She's Out of Control" was actually one of two light comedies released in 1989 regarding overprotective, single fathers and their fifteen year old daughters who have just started dating. The other was "Dream Date," a made-for-TV comedy with Clifton Davis and The Cosby Show's Tempestt Bledsoe. Considering some of the minor characters in "Dream Date" (including Pauley Shore as a brain-dead high school student who was convinced that the father is the devil) and it being predicated upon more slapstick humor than we saw in "She's Out of Control," it is a bit funnier in comparison, although probably geared for the more "wholesome" family film choice. But in the end, there is still something lacking (and probably at my age, I would no longer find it all that funny) in a tale of an obsessive, overbearing father trying to prevent his teenagedaughter from participating in the dating game.<br /><br />Be prepared for extra doses of Tony Danza, if you can. Here, he plays Southern California radio-show manager and single dad Doug Simpson, who's eldest daughter, Katie (Ami Dolenz)has just dropped her dorky vices (braces, magnified glasses) and gotten a make over. Now it seems, every boy in town is calling her or showing up at her doorstep to court her. And while this comes as a shock to her father at first, despite the insistence of his girlfriend, Janet (Catherine Hicks) that this is all normal for the girl and in fact, good for her, he is still unconvinced and becomes not only paranoid, but soon enters therapy.<br /><br />Doug's therapist, Doctor Fishbinder (Wallace Shawn), decides that his book would serve as a handy guide, which encourages Doug only to intervene into his daughter's dating choices even further. On the one hand this is funny (such as the scenes with him walking in on a party and then befriending her "misunderstood" boyfriend, which winds up costing him his Jaguar), but on the other, the repetition may start to weigh on the viewer as the story becomes insurmountably ridiculous (I'm not sure where Danza was going with the explanation about being involved in the lunch counter sit-ins when he is under the impression that Leroy might have come to pick up his daughter for a date).<br /><br />I would have to agree that this movie suffers from being too dated. That the appeal to audiences around the time of this film's release was probably the fashion, the music, even the actors themselves (Ami Dolenz for younger audiences and probably, Tony Danza, before he because more of a pop culture joke), things which are probably very cheesy by today's standards. Yet, I'm sure it is still a favorite among 80s nostalgics (although, I'll pass on this one). In any event, I think this kind of story much better done with Dream Date. Because it was a made-for-TV movie, it had to be sweet and concise. | 0neg
|
Doriana Grey should please Franco's admirers, leaving others alternately bored, confused, and aroused in spite of themselves. As with others of the director's films, there's a dreamlike quality to the proceedings, with wealthy and ennui-afflicted recluse Doriana strolling leisurely through her home or staring at the sky between sexual encounters played out to tranquil sitar music.<br /><br />Some of the actors seem to be playing their parts in a trance, as if hypnotized before shooting, like the cast of Herzog's Heart of Glass. The English dubbing, too, is mostly monotone, which only enhances, rather than hurts, the timeless, otherworldly atmosphere, with dialogue ranging from the seemingly lofty ("It is the destiny of all beauty to be destroyed") to the simply lewd ("Go down on me").<br /><br />The DVD, as of writing, has long gone out of print, but Franco enthusiasts are encouraged to look for this one through gray market services. The staring, frightening lust expressed in Lina Romay's eyes alone is worth at least one visit to her château. | 1pos
|
It tickled me no end to read some viewers comment that a Kashmiri Muslim girl fell in love and allowed a man to bed her in a span of 8 days romance. They thought it slightly implausible. This might have held true for some two decades back but not nowadays. We have to understand Zooni (Kajol) came from a fairly modern family (she was no village bumpkin) in the movie and the apple of her parents eye. More so because she was blind and her mother always encouraged her to look forward to her Prince Charming the day he arrived. She was this inexperienced girl full of ideas of romance and blind to boot and Aamirs winsome voice and poetry won her over and she just went into the relationship headstrong girl that she was knowing and accepting that there might never be anything permanent (she just wanted to live for those 8 days she was able to be romanced by the person she was besotted with) a very common occurrence actually in todays scenario.<br /><br />The story of a man torn between love and duty might be hackneyed but I sure as hell didn't know how it was all going to end and was eager to sit through the whole film and watch it to the very end. I don't know how some people thought the first 90 minutes was horrible and the rest even more so! I found the first half extremely entertaining and the second half was a pleasure to watch just for the sheer pleasure of watching two very high class actors perform as they never have.<br /><br />Kunal Kohli is an extremely sensitive director and while there may have been slip ups in pace here and there (it was an emotional rather than an action packed movie after all) on the whole the movie shows a director of competence and someone who has a very bright future.<br /><br />The cinematography is breathtaking and the supporting cast of Rishi Kapoor and Tabu adds to the movies worth. Rishi especially is brilliant.<br /><br />But the movies strongest point is the performance of the two lead actors especially Kajol who had the more author backed role. Kajol and Aamirs chemistry leave you wondering WHY they never acted together before. And they look so good its hard to imagine Kajols a mom and Aamir a divorced dad of two. | 1pos
|
This had positive reviews but i've run marathons that passed faster. I watched it with a friend and half way through felt compelled to stop it and apologise, which I've never done before. I eventually finished it but remain baffled by what anyone could think this movie has going for it.<br /><br />As mentioned elsewhere, the main theme here is able bodied people who want to become paralysed, or paraplegic. So if that's the single most mind blowing and fascinating concept you've ever heard of, then you probably still shouldn't bother watching this because it's not like they explain it. The characters dawdle along through tedious lives and pointless, boring conversations. None of the dialogue or actions are interesting or engaging at all. Occasionally things get a little animated, but it's usually difficult to understand why and always completely impossible to care in the slightest.<br /><br />Eventually I'm pretty sure nothing happens at the end but even though I just finished a couple of hours ago I can't remember much other than feeling very grateful. | 0neg
|
This is probably one of Alfred Hitchcock's worst films. He would certainly redeem himself the following year with the classic "North by Northwest."<br /><br />Other than breathtaking cinematography of the French Riviera, this film really has little to offer. <br /><br />It is said that Cary Grant came out of retirement to make this. Thank the lord that he didn't resume retirement after it.<br /><br />It's basically the story of someone copying the cat burglar techniques of former cat burglar John Robie (Grant.) There are chase scenes throughout the Riviera but the film is dull. We really reach the point where we don't care who the guilty party is.<br /><br />As in the fabulous "North by Northwest," there is an exciting climatic scene but even that fails to realize the emotions needed.<br /><br />Grant gives a fairly good performance but is hampered by the written material. Grace Kelly was still probably with a swell-head for her undeserved Oscar win, the year before, for "The Country Girl." The part of a rich, snobby, girl in the fast lane was good for her but she fails to capitalize on it. Her mother, Jesse Royce Landis, has some scene stealing scenes. Note that Landis appeared the following year in "North by Northwest" as Grant's mom. | 0neg
|
"Kate & Allie" wasn't just a typical sitcom. It has a certain level of importance in the History of Women on Television. Show creator Sherry Coben clearly wanted to tell the story of independent females making it in the city. And the program's producer/director Bill Persky was partially responsible for another iconic independent TV woman: Marlo Thomas' Ann Marie from "That Girl." You might say this scenario was one possible evolution of that character.<br /><br />Kate McArdle (Susan Saint James) and Allie Lowell (Jane Curtin) were two divorced women with kids, who were friends from school. Kate was a struggling travel agent with her daughter Emma (Ari Meyers) and a ne'er do well actor as her former husband. Allie was a Connecticut Doctor's ex with two: Jennie (Allison Smith) and Chip (Freddie Koehler) and presumably a decent alimony settlement. In order to help each other out, they all lived together in a sprawling street level duplex apartment in Greenwich Village. Kate had a bedroom, Allie had a bedroom, Chip, the lone bit of male representation, had his room and the two girls shared a room. What was the rent on this place in the 1980s? There was a slight "Odd Couple" element to the story lines, as Kate tended to be free-spirited and fun, and Allie typically was conservative and more realistic/pessimistic. Their ex husbands would occasionally appear but the focus was always on the two women, the issues they dealt with and the problems they faced trying to have careers and raise their kids well and even sometimes have a social life in New York City.<br /><br />The charm of the show was in the chemistry of the players. There was a real sense of family coming from the five regular performers and that helped to create a believability that came through on camera. Somehow though, when Ari Meyers left the program, the spell seemed to have been broken. In the episodes where Ari was no longer a part of the cast, the program seemed to lack something. Perhaps the writing suffered, and the story lines fell into more typical sitcom style areas. The setting also changed as the women moved from their homey/funky Village digs into some sterile skyscraper, and the show only lasted one season after Ari's departure.<br /><br />This was one of only two prime time series that were shot in New York during this era of television. The other was "The Cosby Show." "Kate & Allie" filmed at the iconic "Ed Sullivan Theater," which has been home to "Late Show With David Letterman" since 1993. | 1pos
|
I was excited to see the movie. Then I was disappointed. Much of the acting, especially the "known" stars, was quite cheesy. The writing seemed disjointed and the characters weren't funny. I especially was put off by the nastiness of some of the dialogue. The reference to defecate or not to defecate was gross. Occasional humor but too sporadic. | 0neg
|
STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh <br /><br />Gladiators was a hugely popular show at weekends on ITV when I was a bit younger. It was even filmed in my home city (Birmingham) and (cringe!) I actually remember going to see it with my family. As a younger viewer, it has a certain appeal but seeing it endlessly churned out nowadays on Challenge TV I am only able to see it for the rather corny and cheesy show it is.<br /><br />For some kids in the early 90s, the 'gladiators' with their superhero names (e.g. Panther, Saracen, Wolfman) and larger than life physiques must have seemed like great role models to look up to until the penny dawned and it became clear that many of them were just pumped up steroid abusers and in fact one or two even got found out and were penalized by the show's producers. The corniest character being the 'wolfman' who would frequently shock by getting aggressive with contestants or referee John ('contender reeeeeeeeady!!! Gladiator reeeeeeeeeeeeady!!! Three two one......wheeeeeeeeep!!!') Anderson before he did it so often it ended up becoming clear that it was all for show and the whole thing was basically just set up. The very premise of the show, wherein the main eventers were selected because of their 'ability' to carry on training for long periods of time without stopping and taking a break was rubbish because obviously the human body (male or female) can only carry on training for so long before they have to stop for a bit or risk dehydration, spraining ligaments or whatever.<br /><br />As a kid, the show had appeal, but as many other reviewers have noted, 15 or so years on you can just see it in it's true colours, cheesy, corny and now even a little dated. Amazingly it ran from 1992 to 2000 when really everyone had become disillusioned and bored with it around 1995. ** | 0neg
|
I can't believe how dreadful and boring this TV series is and am not surprised that ABC canned this show. Each episode wastes time in explaining how automan was created by some early tech geek played by Arnaz. Automan is a holographic creation played by a boring Swedish model. Along the line the same bad guys are hounded by the spectacular crime duo...yawn. Everything about this show is just tepid and dull. I can't see anyone staying up late at night and becoming excited about this predicable rubbish. | 0neg
|
I thought that this film gave off a somewhat one-sided look of Americans. And while that is probably no surprise, what got me was the constant examples of how we were portrayed. From the beginning, we're labeled as conniving swindlers who are just out to cheat people any way we can. From there we are given examples of pimps who seem to rely on foul language (however Americans do have some extremely colorful metaphors), prostitutes, crooked cops and truckers who are more goofy than anything. I liked the film, I enjoyed the plot and the action, and thought that overall, the movie was solid. It just nagged at me the way we were made to look. That's the filmmakers discretion, I know, but I just wanted a chance to say it. | 0neg
|
In the DVD commentary, Pascal Greggory and the director state that this is not a comedy about bisexuality, it is a comedy about sexuality and choices. This is so true. Alain faces the choices we all face. Does he choose the person who is more like a partner than a romance? Does he choose the younger, eager lover who offers little more than sex? Does he choose to pursue the yet-to-be-obtained intriguing person he has recently met? A few other peripheral choices also hover nearby. But even more basic questions are asked: Does he have to choose? Can he choose more than one option? Will any choice make him completely happy if it cancels out all the others? This film made me reflect on these questions and choices in my own life, which is exactly what a good film should do. I think anyone who is over 30 and unmarried should be able to relate to Alain, at least on this level. <br /><br />A few reviewers have asked why so many characters are attracted to the narcissistic, emotionally remote Alain, but in my experience, it is often just this type of person who has many people attracted to him. For some, he is a challenge. For others, he is safely unattainable. For yet others, he is someone who will hurt them (which they expect), or who won't be hurt too much if they leave him. Alain mirrors the other characters' loneliness back to them, and one wonders if any of them would be happy if they ended up being Alain's choice and if he could ever stick with that choice. <br /><br />If you're happily content in a stable, long-lasting relationship, then you will see this film as a comedy about things that happen to other people. But if your heart still has the capacity to lead you in directions you don't expect, this film will have greater meaning for you. | 1pos
|
I sat in the darkened theatre pondering this question: if the 7 teenagers in front of me were having such a great time, why wasn't I? Was I missing something here? Did I not get it? I came to the conclusion as the credits rolled, that I got it alright. It just didn't work. I glance at the kids in the rising light looking like they just got off a roller-coaster, and I understand. I'm not a teenager.<br /><br />This is more of a kid's movie than any of the so-called kid's movies I saw this year. Stardust was an adult oriented fantasy. Ratatouille had distinctly adult oriented humour that no doubt went over most kid's heads. Yet a film that is supposed to be adult, Die Hard 4.0, was aimed directly at the kids. And now this, the kind of movie I would have lapped up at 15 or so. It has everything I would have wanted back then: Gunfire, swearing, boobies, bad puns, lots of blood, increasingly gory deaths. Oh, and er, lactating hookers. This is a film that is decadent and racy for the sake of it, possibly to have it's pre-pubescent audience snigger at the use of a rude word. There are those who would frivolously use the word 'satire' to describe this film. Shoot 'Em Up does not even come close to being that deep. In the end, it just becomes a pale imitation of the folly it pokes fun at.<br /><br />The plot is non-existent. I expected this much, only I half expected for there to be at least a thread to hold it all together. I was wrong. Instead, it has different variations on that cinematic darling, the gunfight. We have gunfight while eating carrot, death by carrot, firing a gun with a carrot, gunfight during sex, gunfight while birthing, gunfight while parachuting and gunfight with no workable fingers with which to fire (that's where the carrot comes in again). Imagine if you will, an E! Entertainment special, Top 1001 movie gunfights and you have Shoot 'Em Up. It's trying to be desperately clever and winds up being desperately generic. Some are even pretty well constructed, but others, the majority, instantly forgettable.<br /><br />There's no character development to speak of, which again, I expected, but these people are literally made of cardboard. How can an audience be expected to be thrilled by a gunfight if they don't care about anyone in it? Furthermore, the script is so full of cringe-worthy lines, it's hard to see why writer Michael Davis may have thought he was being clever when writing them. Clive Owen's mythical charisma is lost on me. I see him at his best in small films such as Croupier or Children of Men in which he actually plays a character, but so far his blockbuster roles have been disappointing. His King Arthur was about as stale as they come and his deadpanning in this role feels forced and unenthusiastic. Paul Giamatti looks like he's having fun chewing the scenery, but chew the scenery is all he does and try as he might to be menacing, he falls short of creating any kind of tension.<br /><br />Director Michael Davis brought us some teen comedies early in the decade such as 100 Girls and Girl Fever, neither of which impressed me due to their complete immaturity and their utter tastelessness, compared even to the likes of Tomcats. Shoot 'Em Up has done nothing to change my mind about his work. Thanks to Girl Fever, I'll never be able to think about Clint Howard the same way again.<br /><br />So, to sum up, a gormless mess of action sequences, starring the 'almost James Bond' with less plot than a Michael Bay extravaganza and a large abundance of carrots. Movies need a certain amount of substance to survive. This had none. A waste of time and money. | 0neg
|
I loved this film. It was full of clichés and rubbish effects (the budget was so obviously spent half way through so the second half is more cardboard cut outs than CGI's) The square looking college journalist who's obsessed by UFO's can't get a break with her editor. Then, what a coincidence, a wrecked space shuttle pretty much lands her back garden. By the end, that square looking journalist has lost the specs, her shirt and her hair is hanging down. Then the brave tyke takes on the giant spider with a bazooka whilst hanging from a moving helicopter. Talk about multi skilled. (By the way, this was shortly after the spider had rampaged through down town LA growing bigger with every person it ate).<br /><br />This film was so wonderful, me and a friend have decided to write our own monster horror. If this can get made, then the studios are going to be snapping up ours. I fancy Spielberg to make the film "Budgies"... | 1pos
|
Turetskii Gambit / Turkish Gambit is a good movie, a loyal adaptation of the book by Boris Akunin (Although the makers chose to change the identity of the Turkish spy at the end - obviously to shock the audience already familiar with the book. Worked on me.) The acting, direction and cinematography are all praise-worthy. Close-ups, camera movements, and pans are all cleverly done. Special effects add to the pace of the movie, and the director succeeds in smoothly integrating high-tech tools with traditional storytelling methods. The one thing disappointed me was the omission of a large part of the story describing and narrating the siege of Plevne. The production somewhat fails to emulate the book in that sense, as the siege, related battles and their effects on the Russian army were not portrayed effectively.<br /><br />As a Turk with an interest in Russian history, I particularly enjoyed the film. The costumes, equipment and places looked very authentic. It was the most accurate depiction of Turkey and Turks in a non-Turkish film so far. I thank the gods that it was not a Hollywood movie.<br /><br />(SPOILER) I think, changing the identity of the Turkish Spy is a wise choice for the surprise effect, but it definitely weakens the plot of the story. Original spy (D'Hevrais) had a better background story, better reasons, and a better plan. | 1pos
|
The start of the film is a bit rough,character behavior, but as it moves it along it just gets more amazing. I have seen many Japanese anime movies, Miyazaki being my favorite. Mind Games raises the bar visually, not beyond Miyazaki, but for anime in general. I am amazed that this film has not toured the U.S, by now. Anyone who loves anime must see this film. The use of color is extraordinary and seems to build into ever more wondrous neon kaleidoscope. the story itself is also very well constructed, full of compelling characters, some suspense and a great ending. Life in the whale is such a creative element. I'm now trying to find a DVD copy of this film for my collection. If you have a chance, be sure to see this amazing film. | 1pos
|
I expected a lot better from this director but frankly this film is the greatest load of rubbish I have seen in a long time. Plot? What plot? Story? What story? For the life of me I cannot even guess WHY anyone would want to release this crap! | 0neg
|
I've had the chance to see this movie yesterday in Paris before I leave. From the trailer, I thought it's worth seeing as it looks like a good thriller/horror film. But I was so disappointed. The story line is somehow predictable. It lacks originality and you can easily compare it to a masterpiece of cinema (i'm not gonna mention the name, but i'm pretty sure you'll guess it). As for the cast, I think they were over-acting here and there, maybe due to the weak script and the empty moments where they look like not knowing what to fill the scene with. But hey, not everything is bad, you'll enjoy some good cinematography in some scenes, specially in the beginning. Unfortunately, i think it's a missed opportunity and as we say in french: Dommage, c'est raté! | 0neg
|
Because I really have to throw up. Back in the seventies, there was a genre called Blaxploitation. Most of the films were utter trash. This is one of the trashiest! This film is pure garbage. Have you ever seen a play in a black-oriented neighborhood? You know, that over-acting kind of acting, similar to what's found on Good Times (TV show), full of stereotypical pimps, hustlers, theives, welfare recipients and too tight jeans. Just plain horrible. A waste of film. | 0neg
|
Unless you are interested in twenty-somethings spouting nonsense which they consider profound, you will probably be bored after 10 minutes. While I'm sure the characters can all be found in real life, this movie could only hold someone's interest if the monologues were either hilarious or truly profound. Neither condition is met unfortunately. Actually, I found the film pretty depressing. The characters are all caught in their own Ground Hog scenarios with no wish to break free. The monologues really don't present any new ideas but rehash various conspiracy theories and so forth. If anything, the film demonstrates the need to move out of college towns and get on with your life. 3 out of 10 is generous. | 0neg
|
A hilarious comedy that pulls no punches and is miles away from being politically correct. Not for the easily offended - the girls talk about everything from abortion to suicide - but packed with laughs from beginning to end. You'll be giggling the entire film.<br /><br />The 'girls' are all great, but Jack Plotnick's portrayal of Evie in the 1970-ish B-movie "Asteroid" is priceless. I still can't keep a straight face when imagining him trying to say "as-tro-phy-si-cist." | 1pos
|
I think most of the reviewers on this site must have seen a different film to me as this is just a lame film noir tarted up with the odd mention of Hawksmoor and Crowley (mispronounced in the film). The Alan Moore/"From Hell" comparisons are totally unjustified, except in the rather simplistic thinks-it's-much-clever-than-it-is ending.<br /><br />The film is far too dark - almost everything is shot in red and black - the characters are dull and the story predictable. I had high hopes for this as a genuinely uneasy and different Brit flick (hell - just give me anything that doesn't have gangsters) but all the occult stuff is just window-dressing for what's actually a very straightforward film. Yes, it apes the mise-en-scene of "From Hell" - dabbles with its themes of cyclic time - and even has a lead character who could be Constantine from the "Hellblazer" comics - but it has none of the sophistication of Alan Moore's writing. Like I say, it wasn't lousy; it just wasn't a patch on how it had been advertised... | 0neg
|
I must admit, my first impression was it would be just for kids. I was pleasantly surprised just how much of a kid I still am! The Bee Movie was an adventure in honey heaven. The cheerful animation and very funny script kept me flying high to the very end! I loved this movie. It lifted my spirit and helped me to relate to my own dull working world experience. I see so much potential in this film for sequels and spin-offs. A clever script and comic timing that only Jerry Seinfeld has mastered, this film is sure to take you on a journey. It blends fantasy and reality so delicately they are both interchangeable. Seinfeld was at his best. I also have a new respect for the little buggers (bees)! I recommend this movie to anyone who feels trapped in their routine... set yourself free and see the Bees! | 1pos
|
This episode is one of the best of a mixed first season. When the Enterprise engines undergo tests by a warp field specialist Kosinski, his assistant, a being known only as the Traveler from Tau Alpha C, is inadvertently responsible for hurtling the ship across the other side of the galaxy. when a return is attempted they are pushed even further beyond into what can only be described as another place or time beyond what we know as space. In this realm thoughts become reality and we get a tantalizing look into Tasha's troubled past on Turkana 4, a pet targ owned by Worf and even a brief glimpse at several crew members fantasies becoming reality. The budget must have been huge for this episode! We also see Picard's dead mother for a moment in a touching scene too. This was an incredibly impressive episode for such a young show! When they realize the Traveler was responsible they unite to help the Traveler through good thoughts and feelings and the Enterprise is returned home. Picard does the proper thing and gives Wesley a commission to Acting Ensign for his help with the Traveler. Interestingly, the Traveler had earlier discussed with Picard Wesley's future would be an interesting one leaving the viewer to wonder what would become of this throughout the rest of the series run... | 1pos
|
After reading all the comments praising this movie, I went on a quest to find a copy of it. What a major disappointment! I gave it a 3 instead of a 0 only because Virginia Madsen is beautiful to look at, albeit she is a whore in the movie. The film is pure trash. Baseball is secondary to drinking, swearing, having sex, cheating, and being plain obnoxious. Petersen, whom I like as an actor, is too cocky in this and has very low moral standards. The guy that plays Joe Louis Brown is almost as bad, but not quite. The baseball action isn't bad, but less time is spent on the playing field than in the barroom or bedroom. How can this be called a baseball movie? And you just know how it's going to end, it's so predictable. Two guys come into the game in the last inning and win it for them. The movie would have been better if they had lost the game. And the wedding at the end was anti-climatic. I give each couple six months to a year before they get divorced. This is certainly not a movie to sit down and watch with your family. If real ballplayers are like these guys, then there are no heroes in baseball. A real poor example of sportsmanship and clean-cut living. How did this movie get to TV unless it was really late at night? August 10,2008. So many people have disagreed with me on this movie, that I decided to watch it again. I did, and it still stinks! Now that is my opinion. You may love the movie and that's fine with me. We all have different tastes. You can at least agree with that, right? To each his own. | 0neg
|
I read the book on which this film is based--"Bud and Lou", by Bob Thomas--when it first came out, and it didn't impress me much. It turned out that Thomas had relied for a lot of his information on Eddie Sherman, Abbott & Costello's longtime manager who had been fired by the duo and obviously had a major ax to grind. That was to be expected, and it's even understandable, but this movie is, if anything, even more one-sided than the book. Its main goal seemed to be to paint the two comics, especially Costello, in as bad a light as possible. Now Lou Costello was no saint; he was known to have a short fuse, he and Abbott fought bitterly on occasion and even went for months at a time without speaking to each other off the set, he gave many of his directors a lot of trouble and he had a habit of "appropriating" furniture and props that he particularly liked from the sets of his pictures. However, if you believe this movie, he was venal, nasty, stubborn, vengeful, temperamental and offensive 24/7. The script bears little resemblance to the real lives of the two comedians (Costello's daughter in particular was so incensed by this movie that she wrote her own book to refute it and the book it was based on); however, even if it was 100% accurate and Costello actually was the ogre the movie paints him to be, the horrendous miscasting of Buddy Hackett and Harvey Korman destroys whatever possibilities the movie might have had. Hackett bears somewhat of a resemblance to Costello, although he's taller and heavier, and Korman is about the right size and build as Abbott, but that's it. Costello was born and raised in northern New Jersey, as was Abbott, and both had the sharp, rapid-fire speech patterns and New York-ish accent typical of that area, though Costello's was more pronounced than Abbott's. Hackett sounds like a Borscht-belt Catskills comic, which is what he is, and Korman sounds like a classically trained stage actor, which is what he is, and neither of them even tries to come close to the way Bud and Lou spoke--Abbott's mile-a-minute carnival barker spiel, Costello's excitable sputtering as he gets more and more confused--which was central to the astonishing verbal byplay between the two and which, although they made it look easy, was actually quite complex, especially in the "Who's On First" routine. In addition, and even more damaging, is the fact that Korman and Hackett have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever, which is painfully obvious by their atrocious rendering of "Who's On First"; it's so embarrassingly, maddeningly inept--Hackett, for reasons known only to himself, speaks even more slowly here than he does in the rest of the movie, when the whole POINT of the routine was Costello getting more and more overwhelmed as the pace got faster and faster--that it should have been completely cut out.<br /><br />The film plays fast and loose with the facts--many bios do, but this one does more than most--and the performances by the other actors are nothing special. Arte Johnson plays Eddie Sherman, but makes no particular impression. Michelle Lee, tall, slender, gorgeous and WASPish, plays Costello's wife Anne, who in reality was short, stocky, swarthy, and in fact looked more like Lou Costello than she did Michelle Lee, and Hackett doesn't connect with her, either. The film makes some curious omissions; it doesn't mention, for example, that both Abbott's and Costello's wives were burlesque dancers, which is where they all met. While a case may possibly be made for leaving that out, less understandable is the fact that, although the film covers the team's career in radio and movies, for some unfathomable reason it completely ignores the fact that they had a hugely successful television series for several years (which is still being shown in reruns today).<br /><br />To sum it all up, if the one-sidedness, inaccuracies and omissions weren't enough to sink this movie, the almost criminal miscasting of the two leads is. This is a stinker of virtually biblical proportions. Avoid it. | 0neg
|
Miami Vice was a brilliant TV Series with great acting from Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas. Great story lines and amazing scenery, like Crockett's Ferrari Daytona. From Drug Lord's to Porn King. Crockett and Tubbs will get there criminals. Whether by boat, car or any other way you could think of. Sometimes it gets personal but their still professional. With Boat races, car chases, beach babes, shootouts and the best views Miami has to offer.<br /><br />Miami Vice Also shows the fragility of life. With life, death, love, honour and friendships tested in the mind boggling adventures of Sonny Crockett and Raphael Tubbs | 1pos
|
Once again, Hollywood, or a counter part depicts history through the eyes of the camera.<br /><br />The portrayl of the Inspector is so far from the truth, it is absurbed!!<br /><br />The physician to the royal family was never seriously considered as a suspect. <br /><br />Prince Albert never fathered a child from a prostitute.<br /><br />The real killer was a man by the name of James Maybrick. <br /><br /> | 0neg
|
When I sat down to watch this film I had a nagging doubt that Daniel Craig wouldn't be able to fill the shoes of his predecessors. Sadly for him they forgot to make a bond film for him! The start was drab and low key with no bond music, the opening seen was quite good but nothing new and the film then went from bad to worse. There were no good cars, stunts, women, gadgets, villains or exciting finishes. To add to this Daniel looked awkward with the women and clearly has never played Texas hold-em before. This card game was the only real story a lucky win from $5m to $30m against!! Not really Bond beating a world dominating villain?! And finally Bond is supposed to be cool and collected not a thuggish fighter... a truly horrible film... roll on Clive Owen and a decent plot.... | 0neg
|
If the title of this summary weren't self-explanatory, then let me begin my ranting about how clichéd this movie actually was. If one were to write a documentary about clichés, they could use this movie to supplement any single example of cliché that one could possibly think of.<br /><br />Lets begin by talking about the story line. The first-half, which dealt with a love story and father-son relations as dry as could be. While the father son relation between Amitabh and Salman was passable, there seemed to be absolutely no chemistry between Salman/Rani. First of all, they seemed to just rush the love story, deciding that it wasn't really all that important, as Salman wouldn't even be in the second half of the movie.<br /><br />The comedy in the first half wasn't great either. Parts were OK, but the writers obviously thought they did a better job than they actually did.<br /><br />The second half of the movie proved to be one of the most predictable and boring scripts ever. Its as if the producer deciding to bring in script writers from TV soaps and wrap up the script. Furthermore, the theme was unbelievably outdated.<br /><br />Question>What do you get when you mix a bad storyline, with a bad director, bad writers, a horrible theme, and an extremely outdated moral message? Answer:Baabul | 0neg
|
I'll keep it short and sweet, as many have already made accurate criticism of this film, and in general I agree.<br /><br />The film is a travesty, portraying Cromwell, inaccurately, as a 2-dimensional bully. This is compounded by terrible acting (as usual) by Tim Roth. The man just can not act! Here he spurts out each line like a child in a school play, relieved that he has managed to get yet another memorised line out of the way.<br /><br />Rupert Everett as Charles 1 was unconvincing, playing the part as a brute with no class. Charles was a Scot but there was not even the faintest hint of a Scottish accent here, and only the clumsiest inclusion of badly performed stutters. He had clearly not done his homework. I guess Alec Guinness set a standard for this part (in 'Cromwell') which may be impossible to surpass. But the difference is that Guinness was a good actor.<br /><br />Dougray Scott played Fairfax better, but it just got tiresome.<br /><br />As for the script, it was dire and lazy. Easy money. Don't expect any history lessons.<br /><br />I walked away from it half way through. Life's too short to waste it on this junk.<br /><br />This film demonstrates two things: Tim Roth can't act and Mike Barker (Director) can't direct. Just goes to show, it's down to who you know, not what you can do. | 0neg
|
This is the BEST version of this story, by far. Others have tried but failed. In my opinion, Colin Firth is the ONLY and BEST Mr. Darcy to have ever played the role. The rest of the supporting cast are fantastic and amazingly realistic. The pace of the story is brilliant without cutting out too much of the detail to the plot. (I think this might be a reason why this mini-series blows away all of the other tries at doing this story in movie format).<br /><br />A true classic! Grab some wine and cheese and spend a night or two watching this wonderful mini-series. You will want to own it in order to have more Pride and Prejudice evenings with the girls (or guys) in the future.<br /><br />A MUST have for anyone's DVD collection! | 1pos
|
My first brief acquaintance with "Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell" came when I watched the trailer. I watched the trailer and promptly put the movie back on the DVD shelf where it remained untouched for nearly twenty-one months. For some reason I still haven't figured out but already deeply regret, I decided to watch it after all even though I'd knew it would have the same painful effect as poking my own eyes out with a rusty spoon and pour sour vinegar in the badly infected eye-sockets. Yes, I am aware of the fact that I'm ranting on and on, but that's partly also because there's very little to say about the film itself. Apart, of course, from that it's a totally retarded and irredeemably awful piece of Troma crap with amateurish acting performances (praise the Lord most of the characters don't talk a lot), horrible dialogs and effects/monstrous creations that appear to be designed by kindergarten toddlers. Arguably, the best element about the entirely pitiable project is the enticing title, and then that is also for about 99% inaccurate. The lead girl is hardly a nymphomaniac, nor is she very barbaric and theoretically speaking there aren't even any dinosaurs. If I'm not mistaken, dinosaurs are prehistoric creatures and "Nymphoid bla bla bla
" is a post-apocalyptic movie. The monsters aren't dinosaurs but ordinary mutated pets (!), like dogs and cats. All the fans and Troma junkies who're claiming this movie ought to be interpreted as a nifty and ingenious comedy are full of lame excuses. No matter how underdeveloped my sense of humor may be, I know for a fact this wasn't comical. | 0neg
|
Tonight, FMC showed Cover Me Babe released in 1970, it's got Robert Forster as a student filmmaker, who's obsessed with the idea that "reality" might be more interesting than scripted productions. Especially seedy, sordid reality. He's inspired by the Lee Harvey Oswald shooting that was broadcast live on TV - his big idea is, essentially, reality TV! He tells his film teacher about how someday people's real lives will be filmed, and viewers will come to prefer it over anything scripted - very prophetic! A better movie than I expected, and apparently rarely seen, especially on TV - this version seemed uncut, with nudity intact.<br /><br />It's not worth any great expense or effort to seek, but fine as an easy diversion - interesting and prophetic, but by no mean a great movie. I can see why it was despised in 1970 - it's only value as a cinematic artifact is achieved by it being almost 40 years later now, and how eerily the film predicted the rise of "reality" entertainment. The very same things that Forster's lead character is hated for screening, those things now win awards and accolades and movie/TV career contracts. Forster's performance is metallic and makes him more unlikable than any film character I can think of outside the a-hole principal in Animal House - and at least HE was funny!<br /><br />So it's a curios at best, but with out-there and ultimately accurate ideas about media and pop culture, the kind of thing film buffs can appreciate. And (very) young Sondra Locke really isn't bad as one of Forster's long-suffering girlfriends, even tho there's never the slightest indication why she'd put up with his vidiot/savant personality and ways ------ | 1pos
|
This beautiful and moving film provides via a sensitively handled love affair an intriguingly subtle morality play.<br /><br />The owner of a restaurant saves the life of a German who is trying to commit suicide after being turned down - by the restaurateur's mistress.<br /><br />This character goes on to achieve power as a Nazi. He uses his power to save 1000 Jews from the concentration camps, and makes a fortune for himself in the process.<br /><br />He does good simply to benefit himself. Was it right to save his life? Had he died, so many other lives would not have been saved. His life is interlinked with the lives and deaths of other people.<br /><br />It would be unfair to elaborate further on this theme, as it would give away the plot.<br /><br />The film also returns to the idea of life and death with its theme of suicide; suicide being the ultimate way to take control of your own life.<br /><br />With all of these thoughts, it is still an entertaining and uplifting movie, with the most exquisite theme. Life and death are united in the English lyrics given at the end, which combine gloom and hope in the most extraordinary fashion.<br /><br />A fair bit of philosophy built into a simple and tastefully done move makes for good entertainment. | 1pos
|
I had never seen the movie before I went out and bought it the other day. It was an impulse thing I know. But there are very few musicals that I've seen and not liked. Also I have yet to see a movie with Donald O'Connor in it and not love it and him even more than I already do. It was my first Bing Crosby film and though I thought he was okay in it I have to say the only reason for me has to be Donald. I love his dance and song solo number of bounce right back. It makes me smile and laugh each time I see it. It's a cute movie and puts you in a good mood each time you watch it. SO I'd get it a 10. It's one of Donald's best. It's a must see. | 1pos
|
Yes, Benjamin Button is a good film and a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. It looks beautiful, sounds beautiful but we must all be really starved of good film-making if this movie gets people waxing lyrical. It's a great high concept idea, but what do the film-makers get really out of that besides the "life is unpredictable... you never know when change is gonna come" theme that permeates the movie. Well, dah, there's nothing that profound about that. Also, while Brad Pitt is gorgeous to look at, and a very likable movie star, his performance somehow left me a little cold - it doesn't hit any deep emotional chords, and while you could praise him for being subtle, he just doesn't have the everyman quality, that sense of human anguish anyone can relate to, that someone like Will Smith does. I wish he would just let go a little more like he did in Babel, and really show us the man behind the beautiful veil. David Fincher got gritty and great in Zodiac, but he gives in to style a little too much in Benjamin button - too many beautiful shots of Brad Pitt on motorbikes with sunglasses on, in front of a magnificent sunset. I wanted the whole movie to feel more real. Don't get taken in by the hype, Oscar voters! | 0neg
|
VITUS is a Swiss film,that has just been released to DVD from playing in ONLY a handful of theatres from July to October 2007. This my friends is a crying shame, they release violent, hate filled films in 2000 theatres,<br /><br />VITUS is a simple but yet complex tale of a child prodigy, a musical genius,whose IQ is 180. Our young hero would prefer to be a normal every day lad who loves playing the piano.<br /><br />As I said this lad is a genius, & how he achieves his goal is just wonderful.<br /><br />Swiss directer Fredi Murer directed with great care,Peter Luisi & Lukas B. Suters very intelligent screenplay.<br /><br />Vitus is played by Fabrizio Bursoni as a delightful precocious 6 year old then by TEO GHEORGHIU when he is 12.<br /><br />Teo himself is a very gifted piano player, who has appeared in concert halls in Europe & in the US. A bright future ahead for this young virtuoso. He is also a very good actor.<br /><br />The director picked the right lad for this role..<br /><br />Julika Jenkins & Uri Jucker are pitch perfect as the caring parents of this gifted young lad.<br /><br />The only known actor in the cast is BRUNO GANZ, one of Europe & Germany's finest & best actors,playing Vitus's grandfather. He is a grandfather every lad & girl wishes they had. PURE PERFECTION.<br /><br />He should be nominated for a supporting actor Oscar or Golden Globe,/ but he will not, because so few have seen the wonderful movie. The film should be nominated in many categories as well.<br /><br />SHAME ON YOU Hollywood---YOU LET THIS ONE SLIP BY. This is an excellent family film with superb classical music,played by a real 12 year old piano virtuoso. It may be boring for the wee ones,but not for older children.<br /><br />There are many very humorous moments,very few sad ones & a few exciting ones.<br /><br />I loved this film SO WILL YOU<br /><br />Ratings **** (out of 4) 97 points (out of 100) IMDb 10 (out of 10) | 1pos
|
Warning: Spoilers<br /><br />Two parts of the movie really irked me:<br /><br />1) When Gwen is trying to seduce Caleb, she says something about him trying "normal" sex first. For someone whose best friend is gay, that seems like a pretty homophobic thing to say, as if gay sex is not "normal," but straight sex is. 2) After the horrible things Gwen has to say about Kyle at the end, Caleb (who earlier professed how much he cares for Kyle) doesn't even bat an eye and still wants to be with Gwen.<br /><br />Gwen is a bad person, the acting is bad, the story weak; it's only good for admiring Ryan Carnes' and Scott Lunsford's hot bods. Just rent it and watch with the sound off. | 0neg
|
Clear and Present Danger is an exciting addition to the world of Jack Ryan, delving deep into the world of international politics. Nail-biting suspense and explosive action sequences add to the movie, with some truly awesome military special operations added to the mix as well. The inner conflict between acting CIA Deputy Director Jack Ryan and Robert Ritter is extremely entertaining, Harrison Ford and Henry Czerny play their parts impeccably, as do Willem Dafoe as John Clark, James Earl Jones as Admiral James Greer and Raymond Cruz as cool soldier Domingo Chavez. Do not miss this top-notch political thriller! | 1pos
|
This movie goes from joke to joke constantly and never misses a beat. I could not stop laughing the first time I saw it, and the tenth time I saw it, and the hundredth time I saw it. This movie never gets old. There is not one single dull moment. The movie takes off and never lets up, not even enough to let you breathe. There is something absolutely mesmerizing and hilarious about Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels' performances as the lovable idiots Lloyd Christmas( Jim Carrey) and Harry Dunne (Jeff Daniels).<br /><br />The movie starts out in Providence, Rhode Island with two guys who are down on their luck. They've just lost their jobs, are late on the gas bill(again), and make the best of a bad situation by returning a briefcase they've recovered to its rightful owner, an attractive woman named Mary (Lauren Holly). And Lloyd(Carrey), has fallen madly in love with Mary after driving her to the airport. It just so happens that Mary lives all the way across the country, in Aspen, Colorado (or is it California?) Sure its crazy and stupid, but they've got nothing to lose, so they take off in their 84' sheepdog. And let's face it, if we were them, we'd go too.<br /><br />Dumb and Dumber was not pretentious, the actors never made you feel like they were in on the joke. No, they played it with a straight face the whole way through, and that's really the best way to do comedy. Even when they aren't speaking, their body language alone is enough to elicit huge laughs. The reactions and facial expressions are perfect.<br /><br />The film wasn't warmly received by a lot of critics, but only because they couldn't lower their snouts long enough to realize that this was not another movie about dumb guys, but really a film about earnest guys. And they are pathetically funny just being themselves. They play stupid games in the car to pass the time, and sing aloud to keep from getting bored, and have crazy dreams of one day opening up a worm store.<br /><br />The movie plays out with a high spirit and feel good attitude that can't be matched. And the soundtrack is perfect; it really sets the tone and never feels out of place.<br /><br />Really, truly, without a doubt, the best comedy ever made. I will treasure this movie forever, and even when I watch it the 101st time, I know it'll make me laugh... and laugh... and laugh till it hurts.<br /><br />The film is well paced and has a spontaneous nature that lacks in most comedies. Behind all the stupidness, there is a real glow of brilliance. The fact is, more than all the goofiness and crazy antics, "Dumb and Dumber" is a film full of smarts, and that's what we end up admiring the most. | 1pos
|
And featuring the likeable clown from Freaks. What more could one ask? A low-budget Old Dark House mystery that is better than it needs to be, with sharp dialogue and engaging characters...can't go wrong!<br /><br />Why can't all B pictures be this good? | 1pos
|
I've seen this movie compared to Donnie Darko several times, most recently in another comment here on IMDb, however, they're nothing alike. Donnie Darko is a beautiful, thought-provoking film, while this movie just falls flat. It tries so very hard to be deep and depressing, that it ends up almost a parody of itself. The quasi-philosophical mumblings of the main character sound like they where stolen from a manga and none of the characters seem even remotely like actual people.<br /><br />My advice, watch "The Go-Getter" instead. It too has a young man who's lost both a parent and his way, it too has Zooey Deschanel, and unlike The Good Life, it has humor and it doesn't try to be something it's not. | 0neg
|
This movie was quite a deception for me.<br /><br />The dialogues on TV and theater were so much better. It's a hour and a half abusing on jokes about the language (mis-spelling Portuguese) together with a story that is "by all means" absurd and that's all. I know the situations around "Toni" and "Zézé" must be funny and unusual, but the script could have make more sense. But this is a reflex of our problem, here in Portugal: script writers (specially in comedy).<br /><br />The fantastics Marco Horácio and Maria Rueff were misemployed, reduced to characters with no contents.<br /><br />The level of humour should have been raised. Didn't happened and these two (good) characters deserve better. | 0neg
|
4 screens for this movie and 1 would have been sufficient.. this has to be one of the Worst movies i've ever seen. Save your money... it would have been a better flick if more answers had been given about samora or however you spell her name.. OK i'm trying to fill up space since i Must write a minimum of 10 lines of text.. the only good thing about the movie was i liked the view of the harbor from her house.. and the faces of the dead people reminded me of the movie Scream for goodness sakes.. there really was no suspense.. everything was predictable.. as i said sequels are rarely good.. i'm sure i'm making a mess on this review.. i just had to say why i gave it a rating of 1. | 0neg
|
Seeing John Malkovich and Greta Scacchi on the cover credits raised expectations, but this film was very disappointing in many ways. The director was apparently quite desperate to make this an "arty" movie, but the acting was very poor at times and the attempts at jokes were embarrassingly bad. I just couldn't believe that John Malkovich agreed to appear in such a low quality film.... | 0neg
|
The USS Nimitz and her crew find themselves flung for no apparent reason whatsoever into the past, D-Day to be precise. It's good for what it is, which is a pure escapist popcorn B-movie. Martin Sheen can't help but pale in comparsion to REAL men like Kirk Douglas and especially Charles Durning. Furthermore Martin shouldn't be able to be in any movie that the military is involved with, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, the movie is enjoyable enough, the ending was so very disappointing though.<br /><br />Blue Underground Limited Edition DVD Extras: Disk 1)Audio commentary with cinematographer Victor J. Kemper and David Gregory; 2 theatrical trailers; Teaser trailer ; 2 TV spots Disk 2) "Starring the Jolly Rogers: Interviews with The Jolly Rogers F-14 Fighter Squadron" -documentary (31 minutes) ; "Lloyd Kaufman Goes Hollywood: Interview with Associate Producer Lloyd Kaufman" -featurette (14 minutes) ; Poster & still galleries: Kirk Douglas Bio <br /><br />DVD-ROM: Zero Pilot's Journal<br /><br />My Grade: B- | 0neg
|
The film was shot at Ibsley (now no longer in existence either as a base or a beacon, though you can see the remnants) which was in Hampshire, and in 1942 an active fighter station. The group of airmen listening to David Niven recounting the story of Mitchell were real RAF airmen. The filming did not stop for the war. If the bell went to scramble, filming would temporarily be halted while those airmen would run to their spitfires, go off and fight the war, before returning and carry on filming as though nothing had happened. At the end, Niven was so impressed with those heroes that he sent them off to The Savoy in London for the weekend, ringing the manager with instructions to give them whatever they wanted: women, drink, food, making sure the bill was sent direct to him. Difficult to imagine our pampered "stars" doing likewise these days! How do I know so much? One of those unsung heroes was my adored uncle Peter Howard-Williams, who had been in 19 Squadron flying out of Duxford during the Battle of Britain, but happened to be at Ibsley when the station was chosen for the film. | 1pos
|
I've watched only 4-5 serials, so I don't have a lot to compare this<br /><br />to, but so far it's easily the worst of the lot. The overlap from<br /><br />chapter to chapter is too great (too much material repeated in the<br /><br />new episode that was seen in the previous episode). The acting is<br /><br />poor, especially Ralph Byrd (if he stood still for a moment, he'd be<br /><br />attacked by a woodpecker). The "comedy" of Smiley Burnett is<br /><br />nothing to smile about (he's even worse here than in the Gene<br /><br />Autry movies). The character with the most brains in this serial is<br /><br />actually the 12 year old kid, played by Lee Van Atta. And perhaps<br /><br />most of all, has anybody seen Dick Tracy in this film? I must have<br /><br />missed him, because no one in this movie even remotely<br /><br />resembled the comic strip character. Low budget is not enough of<br /><br />an excuse for low tech here. At least the director could have put a<br /><br />watch on Ralph Byrd's wrist, & pretended it was radio controlled.<br /><br />The two low budget jungle serials I watched with Phyllis Coates<br /><br />("Panther Girl of the Congo" & "Jungle Drums of Africa") were way<br /><br />better than this, & so was a low budget jungle serial with Clyde<br /><br />Beatty ("Lost Jungle"). Not that those were great serials, but they<br /><br />were better than this one, so tells you something about Dick Tracy.<br /><br />If you'd like to watch a better crime serial, I recommend "The Green<br /><br />Archer." That & the serial I'm in the middle of now, "Captain<br /><br />Marvel," are far superior to Dick Tracy. I rate it 3/10. | 0neg
|
Denys Arcand's new film STARDOM is a very funny satire of the celebrity obsessed times we live in. Jessica Pare plays Tina Menzhal, a girl from Cornwall, Ontario who becomes a supermodel. Along the way we see how the media reacts to her and her relationships. The film is funny throughout with wonderful supporting work from Dan Aykroyd, Frank Langhella and Thomas Gibson. Although Arcand goes too far sometimes, the film is overall and excellent satire of modern life. | 1pos
|
Swarms of mutant grasshoppers crack windows. Sometimes, sometimes not.<br /><br />Swarms of mutant grasshoppers threaten to smother the children of *coughs* plot elements.<br /><br />Swarms of mutant grasshoppers blot out the sun and threaten all life on earth.<br /><br />All their mutant billions are miraculously killed in a few seconds by fiddling the power lines of the Midwest.<br /><br />It is difficult to describe the jaw-dropping awfulness of Locusts nor is there any point in attempting the job. Gotta be seen. It is the Plan 9 of the current generation and is very highly recommended. | 1pos
|
This is the first film i've failed to sit through.My head ached, my eyes hurt, and boy did i feel sick! After 20 mins i had to give up. It's a shame that such a top rate cast was let down by the insane camera-work and direction.Quick cutting has it's place,Natural born killers and the Bourne trilogy are enhanced by it because it furthers the story, but you are still able to actually focus on the characters.This rubbish is so quickly cut you are't given the chance to appreciate the acting or follow the plot.The director should definitely never work again. Unless you are a depressed masochist avoid this at all costs. | 0neg
|
This movie left me amazed. In my opinion it is one of the best films of all time. Some reviewers here have criticized the film for being historically inaccurate. To those reviewers I say, if you don't like the film, why don't you watch another film about the 15th century Mayans................. Oh wait, I remember. There aren't any. You'll find many films about England, and France, and Austria. And some other Eurocentric Epic, but hardly anything about any other Civilization in the world, and for them to knock a Director that actually had a little vision, to make a movie about another part of the world is disappointing. Its easy to get on the Mel Gibson hate bandwagon.<br /><br />But, back to the film.<br /><br />Visually stunning. I felt like I was part of the adventure, incredibly stunning camera work. The acting? The actors weren't acting as Mayans, they became Mayans. Every single performance was convincing.<br /><br />The Violence? First of All, I couldn't finish watching Sin City simply because it glorified senseless violence and I hate senseless violence, and yet its on the top 100 list-go figure. This is not the case with Apocalypto, the movie is about people that were abducted to be SACRIFICED, gee, I guess there won't be blood, or violence. I happen to think it was used appropriately.<br /><br />//SPOILERS Purpose of Film? Someone said this film is meaningless. This is not accurate. Opening quote: "Before a civilization is destroyed without, its destroyed within". The Film is about a Society that has become Depraved. A society that had become so corrupt, and insensitive, human life become worthless. Historically inaccurate? I think not, Aztecs, Canaanites, Carthagians,etc, etc. Again, something Never explored in films.<br /><br />Finally, Hope. Never giving up.End of Old era, New Beginnings.<br /><br />All in All, this Film is groundbreaking. People are always complaining about Hollywood being predictable. When a movie breaking new ground appears, its booed off the stage.<br /><br />;-) | 1pos
|