text
stringlengths 98
6.42k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Slow. Lifeless. Joyless. Passionless. Boring. Am I leaving anything out?<br /><br />Oh, where to start the post-mortem on this one? Well, one could begin with Sir Ben Kingsley. If ever there was a less-interesting, passionless performer, I've never heard of him. Good actor? Absolutely. But not for this part -- he never should have been cast. Obsessed by his young student? I don't see it. He waxes poetic about her body, then never even touches her breasts. He claims to love her... yet he seems half-asleep. Maybe it had something to do with that transorbital lobotomy a while back -- that might explain the baldness. Does he ever even SMILE at her? Does he even seem to CARE?? If you turned the sound off, and couldn't hear the lame dialogue, you might think he detested her instead. I think the only look of happiness on his face was a stupid, s**t-eating grin, when he inexplicably shows up at a dance club to observe her. And from that point on he seems so pussy-whipped that we lose all respect for him anyway.<br /><br />It's almost as if Kingsley was emulating Brando in "Last Tango in Paris." But that was a different movie, about a much different relationship. For an audience to care about a movie like this, the characters have to care about each other. They at least have to appear alive. In this case, they aren't, and we don't. Where are William Holden and Kay Lenz when we need them?<br /><br />And what possible reason would a beautiful creature like Penelope Cruz have for falling prey to a bald, geriatric college professor? Because he's a wise old man? Because he's on TV? Because she needs a father figure? We're never given a clue into what makes her tick -- that's the problem. It's a superficial relationship at best. One actually longs for the Jeremy Irons remake of "Lolita." And at least Clint Eastwood's "Breezy" had moments of lightness. And it had Bill Holden. This doesn't.<br /><br />There's a reason we've never heard of the director: she's of the glacially paced, cinema verite, documentary/neo-realist European variety -- probably lesbian -- who considers emotion as dirty a word as characterization. Dennis Hopper almost saves the day -- he's the only alive thing in this dud -- and then he dies! What a treat for the audience. And what an ill-advised, pointless and unnecessary plot point. Who green-lighted this script? And don't try to tell me the great Nicholas Meyer actually wrote it. Meyer, of the classic "Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan" and "Time After Time"??? He must be on massive doses of Prozac these days. Or maybe he's the one who underwent the lobotomy.<br /><br />And don't try to convince me this lackluster snorefest was once a Philip Roth novel. The great and hilarious Philip Roth, of "Portnoy's Complaint" and "Goodbye Columbus"????? "Dying Animal" is right. The book must have been written in his "Human Stain" period, after he lost his sense of humor. Well, at least this dead-on-arrival adaptation doesn't break the streak: a good movie has never been made from a Roth novel. And probably never will.<br /><br />I'm giving two stars here, strictly in honor of Penelope Cruz's tits, which we see several times, thankfully -- though they're obviously not photographed by anyone who seems to care. And if we saw her ass just ONCE -- which we don't -- I might have given it a 3. And I'm not even going to get into the melodramatic plot twist at the end. If the director finally decided to go for some kind of drama, it was too little, too late. Nobody really cares about a tacked-on movie tragedy after two hours of monotony. All the characters could have been killed in a terrorist bombing and the audience probably wouldn't have really minded. Actually, that might have made a decent ending -- at least it would have woken people up. Or better still, kill them off in the first act, and put them out of their misery. Either way, senseless violence would have been preferable to another brain-dead, heartless, monotonous line reading (Dennis Hopper, as I say, is the one exception: he gives a funny, passionate, inspired performance).<br /><br />On a technical level, there are also an incredible number of annoying, shaky, hand-held shots that serve absolutely no purpose, other than to distract. Couldn't the producer afford a tripod that day? Wait, don't tell me -- the director thought it was "art." <br /><br />Welcome to European, no-talent, amateur-hour hell. Close the door on the way in. And watch the flames. | 0neg
|
This video is probably the worst film ever made. I have a feeling that the director and script writer wanted to make the worst film of all time.If that is the case they did it. Now a 36 foot ape that is in Korea. It kills jaws,flicks off a helichopter,does the disco,and gets killed by annoying soldiers that stick thier gun barrel right next to the lens of the camera all with out making a noise mind you. I think the ape doesn't have a voice box or tongue.It's seriously the worst film ever. I have this film at my house and i paid $10 for it about 13 years agon when i was 5 cuase i liked king kong and stuff right so i thought hey looks good. when I got home and put it in i couldn't watch more then 5 minutes of it. A 5 year old i tell you couldn't satnd it Barney is better this peice of poo. | 0neg
|
Beauty & the Beast is still one of my favourite Disney films. It has a feisty, book loving heroine, a gorgeous beast, entertaining support & a vile villain. Plus enchanting songs & colourful, detailed animation. My favourite character is Chip, the little teacup, who has a vital role to play. Alas, the gorgeous beast is eventually replaced, but that's for sake of the fairy tale. What we didn't need was a new musical number. It's just an unnecessary filler in that spoils the pace of the film. Be sure to watch to the end of the credits. There's a wonderful dedication to Howard Ashman. The voicework is fantastic & best of all, the film is in classic 2d. It's a shame we see less & less of that style nowadays. With notable exceptions like Ice Age, 3d animation lacks the uniqueness & charm of traditional films. CGI doesn't have to flaunt itself. It's the story & characters that truly matter. 8/10 | 1pos
|
Okay, so this was not as explosive as the first "Beverly Hills Cop" movie, but it still had enough energy to succeed. Eddie Murphy is great here. His portrayal of Axel Foley in "Cop II" is just as hilarious as the character was in "Cop I." Look for appearances by Chris Rock and Gilbert Gottfried. They are funny, too. It is a must-see sequel. | 1pos
|
I was VERY disappointed in this film. No, that's not quite true. I didn't have great expectations for this TV movie, but it did not even live up to those meager hopes for a decent disaster flick. The characters, for the most part, were uninteresting and whiny and unsympathetic. The special-effects are not exceptionally good-- no better than most films today. And the story was lacking in excitement and depth. <br /><br />In addition, the lack of destruction was 1) rather unbelievable, and 2) annoyingly sparse. After an earthquake in a city that is mostly unprepared for such an event, one would think there would be a great deal more devastation. Like ASTEROID, GODZILLA, VOLCANO, and to a lesser extent, DANTE'S PEAK and ARMAGEDDON, AFTERSHOCK has relatively little in the way of physical damage. Now, far be it for me to want total devastation and loss of life, but really, can't we get a little more than a few toppled and cracked old buildings? I realize that special effects are expensive, but to me, the directors and script-writers of these films don't seem to want to make any effort to make a truly "disastrous" film.<br /><br />(One last point, NY City seems to get picked on a great deal in disaster films: AFTERSHOCK, DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON, GODZILLA, FAIL SAFE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, and others such as DIE HARD 3, and THE SIEGE.) | 0neg
|
The tagline of this film sounds interesting, but also shows the movie's thin plot. 'I shot my wife. Prove it.' Ultimately, the film is smart and witty and keeps you intrigued the entire time as you try find a way to do what the tagline asks you to. However, that's it. Naturally, Anthony Hopkins can do now wrong and 'newbie' Ryan Gosling does really well. Together in a scene, these two are awesome. <br /><br />What I like about this film is that it totally focuses on the Hopkins/Gosling story-line. In many other films like these there's always that the policemen/attorneys (in this case Gosling) fall in love and then mess it up/ruin their marriage because the case is tearing them apart, you know the drill. There's always some sub story-line involving romance. Gosling finds romance in this movie with Rosamund Pike's character, but it doesn't evolve into another story-line. It doesn't take Willy Beachum's (Ryan Gosling) eyes off the price and even when it falls apart, he doesn't appear to care much (it's all about getting Crawford behind bars) or to feel a need to make it right. I like that. I mean, I love romance in films, but this movie shouldn't be about that and it's not. <br /><br />Also, the fact that Ted Crawford (Hopkins) is in complete control over everything and everyone in this film astonishes me. This man plays roles like these so well! He just keeps you glued to the screen. The way he is in charge of Willy for (almost!) the entire film is just enjoyable to watch, making the end of the film even more enjoyable when the story comes out and the roles change. <br /><br />Another reason to praise Gosling for the way he portrayed Willy Beachum. Anthony Hopkins is a legend. He is what draws people to theatres and he is one of the most brilliant actors of all times. Plus, he portrays such a strong character here that I can't help but praise Gosling for holding his own in a very strong manner. Scenes with Gosling are entertaining to watch. You feel drawn to him in almost the same way you feel drawn to Hopkins, even though Willy is in a dark place for most of the film and is hardly in control. Gosling's got great timing.<br /><br />The story-line might be a little thin and fragile, the outcome is worth it. The movie surprises in more than one way, not in the last place because of the pretty much brilliant performances of both actors. Gosling is going to be big. <br /><br />8/10 | 1pos
|
This flaccid remake of Hitchcock's excellent thriller 'Dial M For Murder' dumps not only that great title but numerous chunks of the clever plot, and replaces them with twists of its own that are either predictable or old hat. Michael Douglas takes over from Ray Milland as a slimy rich chap married to unfaithful Gwyneth Paltrow; he blackmails her lover (Viggo Mortenson) into murdering her, but both his scheme and the movie go chronically wrong. The only good bits here are derived from the original play and Hitch's film, but it doesn't make a lot of difference as they're drowned in a stew of padding, unnecessary additional scenes and needless peripheral characters. Possibly the most visible blunder is that the murder set-up is far from perfect, although that's rivalled by silly plot holes like the one in which Douglas goes to Mortenson's apartment to retrieve his wife's wedding ring, thereby removing evidence of a connection between them, but neglects to do anything about the six-foot-wide painting OF HER FACE. An improvement on the original in no way whatsoever. | 0neg
|
In my opinion, this is an excellent holiday special which is very hip and hilarious. However, I couldn't bear seeing Marcie (voice of Peter Robbins) having to boil all those Easter eggs herself while Peppermint Patty yelled at her so she would do it right. In addition, the thing that really makes this special worth watching is the score, especially "Linus And Lucy." When that song is performed, I always get warm and tingly. I would have to say that's my favorite song of this special. If you ask me, Charles M. Schulz was a really good artist. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent Easter special which is very hip and hilarious to everyone, especially all you fans of the comic strip who have not seen it. When you see it, prepare to smile and have a good time. | 1pos
|
I love this movie!! Has a very concise plot and the most awesome soundtrack and artwork I've ever seen!! Definitely one of my top animes. I've seen hundreds but this one tops them all. Go buy/rent it!! I vote 10. | 1pos
|
Although this movie boasts a great cast (including Hugh "Ward Cleaver" Beaumont, Alan "Alfred the Butler" Napier, Nestor "Indeterminate Foreign Guy" Paiva, and John Agar, the patron saint of cheesy '50's sci-fi films), it isn't much of a movie. The real standout, and the guy who really makes the movie is Dr. Frank C. Baxter, Professor of English at the University of Southern California. His tedious and pretentious introduction to the film, complete with halting delivery and awkward gestures gives the movie an element of risibilty that raises it marginally above mediocrity.<br /><br />What was Dr. Baxter even doing there? He was a professor of English, not a scientist, or even a social scientist. His lone qualification, apart from large bald head and round rimmed glasses, seems to have been a stint as narrator of a series of classroom instructional shorts on science. But whatever may have been the rationale for his being there, I'm just glad he was there. As the good Dr. Baxter himself would say, "Down, down, down...." | 0neg
|
Many years ago this reviewer subscribed to fantasy-horror magazine 'Starburst', then in its infancy and rivalling 'Fangoria' for its lurid colour photos of blood, guts and exploding latex. One such issue covered new release The Monster Club, and to this 10-year-old it looked utterly brilliant, with its gallery of werewolves, vampires and ghouls. There was even a woman with a melty face! <br /><br />Yet if pre-teens had actually been allowed to see it, they might have found it less impressive. The monster masks alone, fashioned by freelance designer Vic Door, who also worked at a milk processing plant, are laughable when compared with those from the Mos Eisley Cantina just three years before - lending understandable succour to the myth that they were made by producer Milton Subotsky's milkman.<br /><br />Amicus Studio's death-rattle, and a homage to the 1970s glory years of its portmanteau horrors, if The Monster Club has accrued a certain cult status it's mostly down to its sheer awfulness; yet, bafflingly, The Monster Club, adapted from Chetwynd-Hayes' 1976 novel of the same name, does in fact boast a highly experienced and occasionally impressive pedigree.<br /><br />In director Roy Ward Baker it had the man behind cult horrors like The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires, The Vault Of Horror, Asylum - and, most famously, Quatermass And The Pit. As a screenwriter, Amicus co-founder Subotsky had also penned a number of culty items, including I, Monster and Dr Terror's House Of Horrors. Cinematographer Peter Jessop had shot the schlocky likes of Frightmare, Venom and Schizo. But most importantly, it stars a real horror triumvirate of greatness:- Vincent Price, John Carradine and Donald Pleasence - along with veterans from past Amicus films Britt Ekland and Geoffrey Bayldon (here reprising an earlier role as an asylum keeper).<br /><br />This may have been made in 1980, but tonight they're going to party like it's 1973. To a frightful new wave soundtrack supplied by UB40 and BA Robertson who sings "I'm just a sucker for your love." Oh yes, a strange concoction indeed. But ranged against the likes of classic Amicus anthologies such as From Beyond The Grave (another Chetwynd-Hayes miscellany) even its dubious cult status is unwarranted - although the song "Monsters Rule OK" is pleasingly jaunty, and you do get to see Vincent Price and John Carradine disco dancing.<br /><br />In keeping with the Amicus tradition, the film features a handful of not-very-creepy tales, plus a 'comedy' story for light relief, linked by a story-within-a-story - here played out between Price's vampire Eramus (his fangs are retractable when not in use) and horror writer Chetwynd-Hayes himself, played by Carradine. After necking his favourite author, Eramus ferries him to his members club by way of an apology, where they're subjected to forgotten new wave bands ("down at the monster club/a zombie and a ghoul can do the monster dub"), along with "every kind of monster you could ever imagine... and some far beyond the imagining of mere mortals" - which is just not true, unless you're actually incapable of imagining a one pound joke shop mask.<br /><br />Price also inducts him into the arcane mysteries of monster genealogy, handily illustrated on a wall-chart (scroll away at leisure): "A vampire and a werewolf would produce a werevamp, but a werewolf and a ghoul would produce a weregoo. But a vampire and a ghoul would produce a vamgoo. A weregoo and a werevamp would produce a shaddy. Now, a weregoo and a vamgoo would produce a maddy, but a werevamp and a vamgoo would produce a raddy. Now, if a shaddy were to mate with a raddy or a maddy, the result would be a mock." Once we've waded through that gibberish (and how it must have pained the eloquent and mellifluous Price to utter it) we sample the delights of a stripper who takes her performance all too literally, and are told three tales, the first and most atmospheric of which is about a 'shadmock' (the lowest on the monster food chain) who possesses a deadly whistle - the Roger Whittaker variety, not the referee's aid.<br /><br />In the second, a vampire dad foils a vampire killer with... "a stake-proof vest!" The final story concerns a remote village of human-munching ghouls. Having convinced the author of the inherent humanity of his kind ("there is nothing sadder than the agonised grief of a tender-hearted monster"), Price counters that the 'real' monsters are humans. And to that we must add, jaded screenwriters. | 0neg
|
This is one of Bruce Willis' finest films yet. He plays a tired old cop who is handed the menial task of driving Mos Def, a criminal, who has to testify in court. Little does he know, he winds up running into very much trouble. Although one might think that this movie cannot be suspenseful because it takes place within the radius of 16 blocks, many twists and turns occur which make it very interesting. <br /><br />Mos Def also delivers an outstanding performance through the use of his accent and his hilarious anecdotes throughout the movie. He adds a lot of depth to his character and to the movie as a whole. Thus, the audience is able to sympathize with him. Overall, this movie was excellent and I would highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a great fast paced thriller. | 1pos
|
"Dream Demon" features some imaginative visuals and clever camera shots, but is doomed by its terribly confusing, almost indecipherable plot. When it's all over, few answers have been given to the viewer and the rules of the dream-vs-reality game are never explained. This picture remains a blurry enigma from beginning to end. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
Kelly MacDonald has that quality about her that pulls the male ego into wanting to protect her. I felt it in "The Girl in the Cafe," and I'll never forgive Javier Bardem for keeping his vow in "No Country for Old Men." "The Merry Gentleman" could be titled "Who will Protect Kelly?" Will it be the cop, the hit-man (Keaton) even her "born-again" husband?-they all want to protect her. Her husband is insane, and the cop offends her every time he speaks. Cold-blooded murderer Logan (Keaton), seems to win her heart with coughs, wheezing and repeating twice "I found a girl under a Xmas tree." Keaton's minimalist dialog even has him wheezing for her to quit talking and leave the hospital. If he charms her with any more silver-tongued devilry than that, it must have been edited out. I thought the ending worked; the part that was missing was 'What did she see in him?' | 0neg
|
A 'fun' arcade game it may well have been in it's day, but one cannot play Moonwalker today without feeling dirty or somewhat guilty. Based on the 'movie' of the same name, Moonwalker is just as weird, bizarre and outrageously self-glorifying as Wacko Jacko himself.<br /><br />You take on the role of a suspected pedo, dressed in a white gangster suit, who must rescue children (hidden in closets, drawers, garbage cans) from the evil Mr. Big. Upon being rescued these kids respond joyously with 'MICHAEL', knowing that they are now safe with the King of Pop. You need to rescue all the little sprogs in every level before you meet the end-level boss. But some children are too well hidden.<br /><br />And who IS this Mr. Big exactly. The Jacko of 1989 fighting against a child-napper, who's motives for stealing kids is unknown in the game, seems prophetic in a split-personality kind of way. Just like in Thriller where he played a ghoulish, inhuman beast, eerily foreshadowing the future.<br /><br />The gameplay itself is ludicrous. As you (moon)walk across the various levels (some generic, some inspired by his 'classic' music videos) you'll encounter baddies like gangsters and zombies and your amazing way of killing them is...dancing them do death. Seriously! It's not Jesus Juice, it's Jacko Jamming! You hit the special attack button and Jacko will suddenly yell 'OW!' before strutting his lethal stuff. After which, the baddies will be vanquished somehow. After playing this game you'll be exhilarated and mentally exhausted at Jacko's killer moves. You'll be reduced to a dribbling wreck. He's so good, that even passing-by animals will join in and shake their asses. If you ever wanted to play a game in which even an innocent dog is hypnotised by Jacko into dancing Thriller then this is for you. But I don't want to know you.<br /><br />The music is no more than low-quality samples of Smooth Criminal and Thriller, as you should know this music follows Jacko everywhere he goes in real life and will change depending on where he is.<br /><br />In the later levels, if you catch a falling star Jacko will turn into a huge robot. Of course. Like in the film, I just can't get over the feeling that Jacko only included this because he wants to see himself 100 feet high. It's ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything! But in a moronic, hopelessly out-dated video game I suppose it's okay. It was kind of easy to finish too and I never really played it again afterwards. But these days, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth and I can understand why no one would want to play it again.<br /><br />Graphics C Sound C Gameplay D Lasting Appeal F | 0neg
|
Someone once described this recording, the filmic version of Ad Nauseum, as "Pete and Dud on acid." This is hilarious. It's crude and shocking and clever and insightful. In years to come, this'll be a profoundly interesting social document. If any "film" ought to be blasted off into space for aliens from the planet Z to find and watch, then this is it. I'll bet they'd laugh their socks off at it as well. | 1pos
|
I saw this movie years ago at a film festival, and ended up looking it up here after it came up in conversation with friends last night, partly to prove to them that I was not making it up, and partly to see for myself if there was actually any record of the film's existence, or if it had sunk into some kind of merciful oblivion after doing the festival circuit.<br /><br />In my festival-going days, I sat through a lot of films that cleared virtually the entire theatre, and usually took a certain pleasure in being one of the last few survivors who made it through to the closing credits. This was the film that caused me to reconsider that practice. Of all the cinematic trainwrecks I've sat through, this was far and away the very worst.<br /><br />I don't even know if I can fully explain why. It's not just that it's essentially two hours of vomiting, disembowelment and cannibalism, interspersed with about the least erotic sex scenes ever committed to film. It's not even just that the above is shot in grainy black and white at torturously slow art-movie pacing (and I couldn't figure out, even at the time, if that made it better or worse). Or the atrociously bad acting. Or the barely existent plot.<br /><br />I think more than anything it's the sheer pointlessness of it all. Given how much time, money and energy it takes to make a feature-length film, you've got to ask: WHY? Why make a film like this? What on earth is the point? And 15 years after seeing it, I still have no answer to that. | 0neg
|
Action, Adventure, Romance, Humor all rolled into one!<br /><br />I think not. Who in the right mind would watch something like this? It is one thing to go into a bad movie knowing you are going to expect one. I would rate this movie worse than Mortal Kombat II.<br /><br />The action moves overdone... this is just not the Matrix nor the Crouching Tiger.<br /><br />Adventure is mediocre at best because it does not make any sense.<br /><br />Whoever wrote this script needs to get their brains rewired because anyone will puke at the sight of any of the romantic interactions.<br /><br />Humor? Yeah leave this one for the last because they are all dry. At least Jackie Chan has a funny personality which make his attempt honorable. Michelle on the other hand is like Jean Claude Vandamme making his jokes. And the entire cast is just a joke.<br /><br />The funniest part is when it premiered in Malaysia, Michelle Yeoh was so adamant about destroying every pirated copy of this movie. I can see why.... This production should pass GO and head to the dumpster. | 0neg
|
This is one of the WORST movies I have seen in years! The acting was AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL and the story was BAD. There was no chemistry between the characters at all. I didn't see any real dancing until the very end. There was only "marking" or interpretive crap which looked like aerobics throughout the whole movie. I kept wondering if Patrick Swayze and his wife were too old for the stamina real dancing entails so they just "marked" the dances throughout until the very end. I suppose the "one last dance" was to be the big finale at the end but it didn't work. POORLY POORLY written - are you kidding me with this crap?? Left me feeling nothing and showed me that Lisa Neimi has no talent for writing or acting. I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with such a film. Give it up !! | 0neg
|
Te acting is good i have to say... But my god, it is slow, and the script is so pretentious. And too too too much of the kid's speech problem come on. It made me want to slap him like 20 times!! Anyway what sort of film is it? It's pushing too much the witty comedy genre in vogue. Tired of this kind of stuff. Please make intelligent comedies but because they are intelligent. It seems that the point of this was to prove how many fancy words they can write. It is like the characters of Dawson's creek. Mixed with the wonder years, the girl name is even Ginny like Winnie. And what about the stereotypes like the funny intrusive Asian people and the pervert Indian. | 0neg
|
Balls of Fury was a poor excuse for a movie. It was not anything near what it was hyped up to be. Character development was crude to say the least, I have no idea where half of the characters came from. The relationship between Randy and Mahogany materialized out of no where, one minute they barely knew each other and the next they're kissing on a river, and Randy has a gun? (I don't have anything against guns-just very random). I felt like this was a Dodgeball rip-off; there was the handicapped trainer, fat and lazy rags to riches character(s), fighting for something barely obtainable, and the gung-ho girl ready to do it all (play dodgeball or pingpong), and some sort of try out where the team/person lost when it appeared to be a sure win. At least Dodgeball had a well written story.<br /><br />In short, the character development sucked, as did the plot and overall development-everything could have been SO much more planned out. I would have liked to see more of the training, and more pingpong battles-there was hardly any pingpong for a movie that was ABOUT pingpong. More of the relationship between Randy and Mahogany-a date or something, please? Who are half these people, and where did they come from?! <br /><br />I want $9.00 and 1.5 hours of my life back, please.<br /><br />--John | 0neg
|
At the start, you think that this is going to be a Western with a sense of humor. The latter quickly gets replaced with lots of Peckinpaugh-like bloodshed with a few in-jokes and a smattering of very black humor. Kasdan's direction and writing is too clever by half, and his characters too one-note and wooden. Even Jeff Goldblum is robbed of any humorous affects. Kevin Costner started earning his "wooden" reputation on this one, and Berenger is relentless. The plotline is internally inconsistent. Only Linda Hunt provides this mess's saving graces with a magnificent turn as a Pirate-Jenny-of-the West. Overall, one of the most disappointing westerns I have ever sat through. | 0neg
|
A bunch of people in a bar are slightly distressed when a blood-covered, shotgun-wielding "hero" bursts in and warns them all about ravenous, speedy creatures travelling not far behind him. The patrons are rather disbelieving until one creature gets inside and proceeds to try and eat as many people as it can.<br /><br />This film starts off quickly and doesn't really let up for it's duration. It's a lot of fun and I loved the mix of humour and nasty gore moments (the brief bios of each person were particularly enjoyable). The editing was a little bit choppy at times but everything else was well done. And kudos to a real mixed-bag cast (including Balthazar Getty, Henry Rollins and Jason Mewes playing . . . Jason Mewes) who embrace the material with gusto and totally go along with the humour of the project. It's a bit of a no-brainer with no comment on our society of today or underlying, deeper story strands. Sometimes, that is just what you need from your horrors. I'd happily recommend this to any horror fan and was glad to see it at last.<br /><br />See this if you like: Tremors, Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight, Slither.<br /><br />NB, this review was adapted from the original written under my old RockySchlockyRobot ID that I have long forgotten how to access. | 1pos
|
This is one of those films that the "artsy" crowd loves - a film that is just too "deep" for the average moviegoer to understand or appreciate. It appeals to the same crowd that calls a jar of urine with a cross in it "art." Cryptic numbers, odd eclectic characters, and fantastic settings substitute for any character development or cohesive story line. Any criticism, however, can be dismissed by the movie's handful of fans with derisive rolling of the eyes. You must just be too thick to get it, and obviously you're far too uneducated for them to even try to explain it to you.<br /><br />If you have a PhD in philosophy and drink tea from a little china cup with your pinkie finger extended, this film might appeal to you. For the rest of us...well, watch something else. Better yet, stop by the local fast food restaurant and allow one of those pseudo-intellectual fans of this film to serve you a tasty lunch. | 0neg
|
I saw Hellbent at the San Francisco Frameline Film Festival. The Castro Theatre was packed with applauding, foot-stomping enthusiasts. And I was one of them. Hellbent is a great ride, even for people who don't ordinarily go for the horror/thriller genre. It isn't content to simply deliver our expectations of the genre. It surprises us as well. The characters (a group of young gay men celebrating Halloween in West Hollywood)are well-drawn and likable. It serves up plenty of scares, but it also has a sense of humor which keeps the tone light and fun. The guys look great, the soundtrack rocks, the pace never falters, and the climax--lame in so many horror/thrillers--is a real edge-of-your-seat thrill. | 1pos
|
"Upper World" is almost unknown today, but is an interesting and enjoyable movie with a high powered cast and a well constructed story.<br /><br />A plutocratic railroad tycoon (Warren William) is drifting away from his social-climbing wife (Mary Astor) and begins a liaison with a good-natured showgirl (Ginger Rogers). The showgirl has a sleazy, opportunistic protector (J. Carroll Naish) who plans a little blackmail. When he springs his shakedown, guns go off and two people fall dead, leaving the tycoon in a situation which will ruin his reputation.<br /><br />Made in the early 1930s, the film is very discreet about the nature of the showgirl's relationship with the two men in her life, but this does not damage the narrative flow. (If remade today, of course, the sex angle would be graphic and blatant.) The film does however have two weaknesses. First, although he had genuine screen presence, Warren William had no talent for close-ups, where his wolfish smile is alienating and undoes his good work in medium shot. Second, the ending is a cheat and an evasion of the dramatic issues the film has raised. Later movies like "A Place In The Sun" and several directed by Fritz Lang were much more resolute in following the drama through to a plausible conclusion.<br /><br />"Upper World" presents a young Ginger Rogers who was just beginning her partnership with Fred Astaire. Katharine Hepburn's famous remark that Ginger gave Fred sex-appeal while he gave her class is relevant here, because Ginger is much sexier in this movie than in any of her musicals. (In her one musical number in "Upper World", Ginger wears a revealing dress which flatters her legs while the camera ogles her at thigh height.) Mary Astor, as always, is excellent, and brings out her character's craving for social status while keeping her human. The audience does understand why the tycoon married her in the first place. Both John Qualen's performance as a corruptible janitor and J. Carroll Naish's as the aspiring blackmailer make interesting contrasts with their work in John Ford movies.<br /><br />"Upper World" is a minor movie, but should certainly be sought out by fans of Ginger Rogers and Mary Astor. | 1pos
|
I saw this when it first came out and didn't know quite what to make of it. 14 years later, I still don't. A sort of lesbian Victorian bodice-ripper* with a gay sensibility and two men of very different attractiveness (one brooding sultry hunk - the late and very much lamented Kevin Smith - one lowlife with a good body, Cliff Curtis), the film is operatic, over the top, and somewhat camp. It takes place almost entirely indoors at night in sets of varying degrees of surreality, so that the New Zealand it is set is not one that any New Zealander will recognise, nor ever would have. (There is a town of Hope in New Zealand, in Nelson province, but 5km from the sea. The town seems to be based on Russell {Kororareka} but Russell never ran to grand opera.) The designers are very fond of the colour red, and everyone is very careless of the rubies at the centre of the plot - nobody even bothering to count them. The music relies heavily on the overture to "La Forza del Destino" - which must be annoying to people who know the opera. While these particular elements of plot, character and location have probably never been brought together before, there is nothing particularly novel about any of them. Watch it mainly for curiosity about vintage NZ film.<br /><br />*No bodices were actually ripped in the making of this film. | 0neg
|
Sometimes it's as if we can forgive the most trying stretches of believability, just because a film was made in an era like the 50's with a shoestring budget. I don't like that. Good, believable films were made at this time as well as clinkers. This has some things going for it, but the way these nasty characters behave is beyond imagination. They wave their guns around, threaten, but don't seem to want to act. Hostages are left to wander all over the place. There is tension among the thieves, but it is dealt with in such a silly, haphazard way, it doesn't work. A slip up of any kind, and their whole project is down the chute. If we are to believe the whole business about being locked up in the woods in the winter, it seems at some point, someone would begin to make realistic plans to get on their way. Are they already murderers? I don't know, but they could have certainly done a better job of getting on with their plot. Then there is the ending (I'm not going to do any spoilers). This is the most ho-hum, contrived mess I've ever seen. It's as if they ran out of time and just decided to create this ending. Judge for yourself. The bottom line is, people just don't act this way--they just don't. | 0neg
|
This movie is just plain awesome! i gave it 9 because Its one of those action packed thrillers where your dad goes " Oh it was him ! he did it!" gets really cocky about it and it was someone so unexpected. This is because most people cannot guess what will happen because the movie is ingeniously clever. The action sequences are very well handled. Many people say that they got very bored watching the explosion again and again , but i found this interesting as each time you see it from a different view point and each time it gives something else away and leaves you on a cliffhanger, wondering what will happen next. This stylish action packed thriller is great for all the family!<br /><br />YOU'LL LOVE IT - unless you don't ?!:P | 1pos
|
There are precious few films of the silent screen superstar Mae Murray known to exist these days and when a new one emerges it's a cause for celebration. DELICIOUS LITTLE DEVIL is particularly valuable in that it's the first of her silent comedies to rise from the archives and costars the legendary Rudolph Valentino as her beau. Mae stars as a poor girl supporting her parents and a no account uncle who passes herself off as the notorious showgirl mistress of a Duke and becomes a sensation in a New York nightclub. Among Mae's most ardent admirers is young millionaire heir Valentino who vows to marry her. Rudy's father is not amused and plans a lavish party in Mae's honor hoping she will reveal her true colors with the booze flowing. To make matters worse, the infamous Duke crashes the party. This delightful little comedy is a fascinating glimpse of the first days of the Jazz Age with a never more charming Mae Murray who practically cannot stand still and gives a sweet, amusing performance and then there's the stunningly handsome Valentino, then not yet a star but certainly showing star charisma in spades. An additional bonus is the fantastic musical score and some wonderful title cards with vintage artwork that really brings back the art deco era. | 1pos
|
SPOILERS AHEAD:<br /><br />There are many, many movies about WWII, both about the battles and about the condition of life for the people involved, especially the situation of the Jews in Europe. When someone makes a movie on this latter subject, it is very difficult for anyone to criticize it. 1998's _Life is Beautiful_ received some criticism, but mainly because it contained comic elements where people felt there should be only tragedy. But if the film is a drama, then it is basically untouchable by critics and viewers. And as for this film itself, it was directed by an old master who had been out of it for a while. Even if the film was terrible, there was no way, when it came out in the early 70s, that anyone was going to call it less than a masterpiece, an instant classic, if you will.<br /><br />Well, this film is in no way terrible. In fact, it is very good. It affected me enough where I did tear up a bit. I was touched at certain points. But I also was acutely aware of some of the film's shortcomings as I watched.<br /><br />First off, the reason why I teared up, i.e., what I did like about the film especially: the relationship between Georgio and Micol. I connected with it instantly because I have been through similar circumstances. It is rather painful, let me tell you. I longed for Micol right along side with Georgio, and felt utterly rejected simultaneously with him. This is the way one should experience a great film. There were two more relationships that were really well developed and deeply felt by me, both involving Georgio: Georgio and his father, a very good character played by a marvelous actor, and Georgio and Malnate. <br /><br />The rest of the characters were very sloppily made. Did Alberto Finzi-Contini exist for any other reason than to create that great funeral procession scene? He was barely in the movie at all. I had thought they had forgotten him for a long time, then they finally came back to him, and he was next to death. The Finzi-Contini family was hardly existent. I thought the father was a butler until very near the end of the film. A cheap joke is made about the centegenarian grandmother's inability to hear well (although this character had a very poignant scene at the very end of the film).<br /><br />Possibly the biggest problem of the film is that the scenes dealing with anti-Semitism and the onset of war never really coalesced with the problems surrounding Micol's and Georgio's relationship. The latter theme dominated the film, while the former only appeared in the background. This structure would have been fine, but the background section of the film never seemed to influence much the foreground. Georgio could have just as easily have fallen in love with Micol without the war going on. This is not what puts stress on their relationship. Possibly the main theme that de Sica was trying to get through in the film was that our personal lives do not naturally care about what is happening in society, but society keeps trying to push its way into our personal lives. Unfortunately, it only works to a certain extent. The film was too short for its subject matter. It is only 94 minutes long. If it had been two hours or even two and a half, the two parts would have fit together better and the main theme would have been a lot more potent. One of my very favorite films has the exact same theme: _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_, where people attempt to love each other in Czechoslovakia while the Soviets oppress them. It is three hours long, and it works on every level. In _The Garden of the Finzi-Contini_, there is not even time for a proper conclusion. Micol's story is finished, or at least as finished as it needs to be, but what happened to Georgio? His father just informs us that he left. Why can't we see him leave? We don't need an enormous explanation from him, but just a subtle scene, as is the film's style, where he packs and talks to his mother maybe. Surely he hasn't gotten Micol out of his mind that quickly. I realize it was in his best interests to get the heck out of Italy right away, but I can't believe he doesn't at least think for a moment whether or not he should do something on Micol's behalf. I'm fine that he doesn't. I would bet that in the novel, this sort of scene appears. It should have also been in the film. I give the film an 8/10, mostly for the true-to-life pain it caused me concerning the one-sided love. | 1pos
|
Whether it be epic-scale cinema like Cry Freedom or a tourettes-sufferer in the Big Brother house, certain media events can create a huge shift in attitude. While, sadly, I doubt Keane will reach anywhere near the size audiences of the aforementioned, it did have a similar effect, making this viewer sit up and take notice of the very real issue of mental illness.<br /><br />The film follows titular character, William Keane (Damian Lewis) around a cold, uncaring New York as he searches for his missing daughter. He says she was abducted but, with it clear from the outset that he is not of healthy mind, this is not clear. Shot hand-held in the gloomiest of locations, Lodge Kerrigan's unromantic portrait of New York is very real but, conversely, since the sequence of events occur through Keane's eyes, it's uncertain as to quite what is reality. The camera rarely strays from Damian Lewis. His performance drags you into his reality, and once you're there, he breaks your heart. The simple "day to day" is so difficult for him that life becomes increasingly painful and complex. This polarised look at one man makes me hungry for more cinema that eschews large casts instead to home in on a single person. While the film is built around Lewis, there is strong support from Amy Ryan and Abigail Breslin (a wonderful child actress who can be seen in Little Miss Sunshine).<br /><br />What makes this such an important film is that there's no glossing-over of Keane's flaws. One still can't help but empathise with him thanks to a bravura performance from Lewis that doesn't descend into thespy showboating. Rain Man this ain't. | 1pos
|
In this movie joey Garza was very sexy. i watched the movie over and over to see him. thats how hot he is. I especially liked his role in the movie even though he was a train robber and killed nearly everyone he met. i loved his horse. It was a shame he did not like any woman on the movie. I loved his cheesy grin whenever he shot someone or teased his sister. I thought it was cruel how he tried to kill his brother and sister though. But he was the hottest guy on the movie and i loved him and his accent. I know nearly all his lines on the movie cause i have seen it nearly 50 times. He is the best train robber i have ever seen on a movie. | 1pos
|
Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss is one of two sequels to 'A Christmas Story,' a timeless holiday cult classic. Jerry O'Connel plays a slightly older, much different looking Ralphie Parker and his failed attempt to rush into "manhood," by getting himself a respectable job which might jeopardize his attendance at the annual family vacation to Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss, which is basically a campground.<br /><br />Ralphie, and his loyal friends, Schwartz and Flick, don't exactly go for the ideal job, moving heavy furniture around for a crummy boss that takes pride in yelling at his eager, idealistic new employees. The even less interesting subplot involves Ralphie's parents, who go looking for their family dog.<br /><br />The story is not nearly as exciting as the first movie, probably because Ralphie Parker, fourteen-years old in this movie, has moved beyond the crisp imagination that he possessed as a grade school student in the first movie, which produced a film mostly from his childish perspective, and one that many could enjoy. Ralphie Parker in this story is just too old to entertain things from that childish, but imaginative perspective. If they wanted to entertain children, they should've used a younger character. Someone might've recognized this, as the sequel that follows it is about a second-grade Ralphie Parker in "My Summer Story." <br /><br />The movie is not very interesting and is hardly funny. It is, as one viewer previously wrote, like something so real it's not even entertaining. And that's the problem with this movie. There is nothing in the story particularly catching, and the characters themselves are not as likeable as those of "A Christmas Story." Especially, Randy Parker, who is exceptionally whiny in this movie. Of the two sequels, "My Summer Story" was much better, though neither could ever be better than the first. "A Christmas Story" is a great classic. | 0neg
|
...........This contains a spoiler or two................. Alex, a mug on the run, is duped by Felix and finds himself wanted for murder, again. to escape the law he climbs into Arquettes cleavage, sorry, make that convertible, and along with her very annoying husband Lithgow, hits the road. this movie seems to be nothing more than a vehicle for Miss Arquette to parade her body and considerable charms at every opportunity. Lithgow is awful - just plain unbelievable with the mood swings of a metronome. Alex is one dimensional and as blank as his suit. his vision does not extend beyond the end of his nose, or Miss Arquette's cleavage, whichever is closer at the time. for all that, it is strangely watchable until the end, which is laughably so. the getaway vehicle is a train pulling out of the station with the speed of the road roller in Austin Powers. three old ladies with zimmer frames would have time to get on or off without breaking sweat, let alone a limb. yet to the mexican police it is a challenge. ludicrously funny. | 0neg
|
So you are in this movie-rental place with a horror section that is just miles wide and furlongs in length, and you are, just imagine, scanning the rows for anything that catches your rather jaded (maybe from too many low-budget or low-brow horror flicks, too much mockery, or stilted dialogue, too many effects or musical stings) eye in that special way that only a truly mongoloid flick can do--and what do you see? of course, a really chintzy colored pencil and pastel picture of this tree/man graft that has women trapped (mayhaps metaphorically) in his "roots," but the really bad part is the complete physiological inaccuracy of the picture (witness, in your mind's eye, the nipples of this bare-chested "evil" tree/man placed in the exact (okay, semi-exact) orthocenter of his pectoral muscles--just plain zaniness from look one!), and it has this tag on it that reads, "He does bad things to them...in the Garden!!" and what can you do or say (except fall in love with it on the spot and say "I love you," respectively associated, right there in the orchard of neon horror that is the movie rental place)--and then so imagine your heartbreak when you get home, undress it from its plastic case and discover to yourself the fact that it is completely: affectless, toneless, actionless, heartless, penniless, paceless, plotless, heartless, and, perhaps most horribly, humorless--you and your best bud cannot, for the glory that the world holds, come up with a single joke to combat the ceaseless waves of offense to your senses and sensibilities that this offers--not to mention devoid of a) evil and b)seeds of said evil...there are no effects: it features untold minutes of floral footage, which cause the actors to expire at completely surreal and random moments--with which occasional happening you can utterly sympathize...I went looking for a movie too bad to be believed, and I found it. It broke my heart. It has the power to tear yours out and lay it bleeding on the table before you, and it won't even give you a maniacal chuckle to which to expire. This is the worst movie I have ever seen with maybe the sole exception of "'Manos':The Hands of Fate." But, hey, you're the one in the horror section--you roll the dice. | 0neg
|
UGH... As an adorer of the James Bond character, I have to call Timothy Dalton a sacrilege! And apparently, this movie was his satanic shrine. YUCK! This film has nothing of the appeal of the great old bond films nor any of the thrills of the new ones. It was nothing but scene upon scene of 80's superficiality with nothing underneath. There were none of the fantastically witty Bond lines nor of his legendary charm. Dalton drained him completely. And what was with that horrible wedding scene?? It was like a bad remake of The Godfather. Really, I couldn't stomach the thing, it was all just too awful. As for those who credit this as being a great Bond film because of its likeness to Ian Flemings work... so what? If you want to read the book, go to the library. This is a fictional movie and one that, in my opinion, could have been done A LOT better. | 0neg
|
Out of all the Species movies series, this one takes the cake! After the offspring of Sil, this new breed of alien was doing the same thing: finding a mate for her offspring. Then there's another alien who wants to cause trouble by killing everyone in her path. Going to different places for some answers, someone gets offed. Who to trust, who to avoid it's hard to say there. The reason why I don't like this movie is because it's way oversexed, the plot was rather pointless, it was weak, decadent, and played out period. The cast of the movie was fine the only one I thought helped was the guy from the first Species movie as the motel manager who was indeed the original one. Everyone else just didn't sell me. Species 1, 2, and 3 gave out promises: 1 was subtle, 2 was slightly intense, 3 was hardcore and extreme. The 4 one is NOT a keeper in my book! SORRY! 1 STAR! | 0neg
|
After seeing `Down To You,' you might wonder whether Freddie Prinze, Jr. even has more than one facial expression. His one puppy-dog like expression seemed endearing in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, but later translated to simply bad acting. In his new movie, Prinze plays Al Connelly, a college student searching for love, among other things.<br /><br />When he meets freshman Imogen, played by the lovely Julia Stiles, he is immediately fascinated by her. Unfortunately, the audience doesn't get to revel in this too long, because ten minutes later they were sleeping together, and soon after that, acting like an old married couple. The movie chronicles their tale of first love, along with every obstacle in between, such as Al's friend who directs porn movies, and his father, who wants to start with a Cops -like cooking show with his son.<br /><br />At the beginning, this seemed like a wonderful idea for a movie. The first fifteen minutes were a sweet, almost realistic account of first love, which many people could relate to. A particularly endearing moment was when Al tells the camera, `I thought this would last forever,' after describing a romantic moment shared by the couple. However, all of the potential of this movie was shattered when all of a sudden, in a moment of 90210 like melodrama, Imogen thinks she's pregnant. Of course, this event is the beginning of their problems for the rest of the movie.<br /><br />The film continues its downward spiral, culminating an unrealistic and contrived ending. Prinze and Stiles simply had no chemistry on screen, and by the end, the audience was simply not interested in whether they got together or not. Prinze seemed incapable of showing any emotion, making his character extremely boring and just annoying. On the other hand, Stiles (of 10 Things I Hate About You) was charming as usual, but unfortunately stuck in a bad movie, with no place to show off her talent. Additionally, the supporting cast was no help, awkwardly put in scenes to make badly acted sex jokes, and having no relevant or even interesting purpose.<br /><br />Written and directed by Kris Isacsson, the movie had some good ideas, but those were quickly overshadowed by too much melodrama and contrived storylines. What could've been an earnest and sweet romance, turned into a boring story with annoying characters. | 0neg
|
Between the surreal dystopia of Eraserhead and the artistic immobility of Dune, and before critics labeled him as the auteur of Weird America with permanent marker, David Lynch directed this strange but true story set in London, England during the late 1800's. Being one of only two films of his to be based on fact it is far less of a personal work than those generated by the director himself. Despite his sensibilities being contained in a more formal framework his unique aural and visual style (like the sound of blowing wind or the peculiar emphasis of the industrial machinery of the period)clearly comes across, although it's a far cry from the narrative conundrums that comprise Eraserhead, Lost Highway, or Mulholland Dr.<br /><br />The year before this film was released Bernard Pomerance's play opened on Broadway. This film is not based upon the former work and the latter takes a dramatically divergent path with its namesake subject. One of the most substantial is Merrick's role in his adoptive society once his carnival career is truncated. Pomerance's tale is a tragic one showing us how Merrick becomes caught in the machinery of the repressive and hypocritical society that cultivates him, tempting him with the illusion of normality with the artificial world they erect around him, but ultimately imprisoning him within it. The film depicts Victorian society as a benevolent sanctuary for a man, who while given the props to model himself after the normality he aspires to, is never deceived into thinking he can achieve it beyond his imagination. Merrick's own realization of this is clear in a scene (hauntingly scored by composer John Morris)where he asks his caretaker Treeves if he can cure him. Treeves' reply is no. Merrick's response is of a man who knew the answer all along but still allows himself the indulgence to dream.<br /><br />Treeves' struggles are similarly reduced. The closest he comes in the film to questioning his motives concerning Merrick is a brief scene where he asks his wife (and audience) if his seemingly charitable act of taking Merrick from his sideshow squalor was possibly something other than altruistic. Pomerance has Treeves questioning the artificial social fabric that's been woven around Merrick and his undeniable complicity in it. The screenwriters seem less concerned with tackling these Victorian dilemmas than focusing on the beauty in the beast theme. Considering Lynch's fascination with organic phenomena this focus seems much more up his alley. In his words Lynch has stated that the eponymous title character is "this beautiful soul trapped in this horrible body and that's what the whole film is about." Yes siree Bob.<br /><br />Much less effective in the film is the role of the actress Madge Kendall who's really nothing more than a walk on by Anne Bancroft. There is some(even subtly sexual)awkwardness between Merrick and Kendall at the beginning of their meeting together but it ultimately winds up with a scene that feels patronizing towards Merrick and mawkish. It doesn't fit with the earlier tension and Kendall never becomes anything more than a well acted cameo. Much more effective is Merrick's ability to retain the power to disturb the bourgeois society that flocks to see him once he becomes that season's fashionable curiosity. His transformation into a gentrified version of his erstwhile sawdust and calliope music carnival persona still has the same effect on others. In one scene he is serving tea to a noticeably unnerved aristocratic couple who are guests of his. Their cups rattle against their saucers in barely restrained horror as he discusses his mother's beauty in the context of his own deformity. His cherished portrait of his mother becomes an eerily recurring visual motif. She remains a mysterious presence frozen in time. The conflation of Merrick and his mother recalls a line heard early in the film that "life is full of surprises."<br /><br />Merrick's background remains equally enigmatic. The only glimpse we see of his past are some creepily abstract images during one of his nightmares. Even his beginnings are fictionalized as part of the sideshow spiel recited by his owner Bytes. Treeves' first view of the elephant man is in a private showing by Bytes. He is led down a dark corridor to a room where the terrible freak is kept concealed behind a curtain. Only the flames of a gas lamp illuminate the darkness. Bytes spins a tale of a terrifying encounter between woman and elephant while Treeves stares, mouth agape. The scene has a strange Lynchian spookiness about it.<br /><br />The costume and production design authentically breathe life into the Victorian era while Freddie Francis' expressionistic monochrome adds both verisimilitude and a sense of an alternative world. These elements together with Lynch's use of both nightmarish and chimerical images, an other worldly atmosphere, pathos and sentiment, make the film a sort of Charles Dickens tale wrapped inside The Twilight Zone with the ethereal touch of a haunting dream. The past a la Lynch. | 1pos
|
3 types of people in this world: 1st, try to explain this world, and got the good/right/bad/wrong answer. 2nd, not trying to explain this world, just live in it. The first type, we call them intellectuals, they use their intelligence and logic to explain this world, maybe they got a totally wrong answer, but at least they used the right way(reason) to explain it. The second type of people are common humans, are most of us, maybe they know their abilities, so they don't try to, or they just don't eager to explain it. AND... there is the third type of people, who have no much wisdom, but still wanna show their "wisdom" to others, try to explain the world with their stupid way... These kind of people made this movie: Running On Karma<br /><br />I thought this is a Kung fu/Comedy. I was totally wrong, it's nothing, it gots no laughing( or got some cheap ones), no real actions, fake romance, and a lot of disgusting scenes(with only commercial purpose)... And, all of these are ok, i've seen too many movie got these elements, and i still enjoyed them. (I never expect too much on movies, any kind of cheap movies, if it has any kind of spark, i will still watch it to the end). But, Running on Karma, it got more than these...<br /><br />The movie tried to tell you a truth about the world... a Buddhism concept: Karma. I really love to listen to a philosopher talking about it, but I really really hate to hear it from a crazy writer/director who knows nothing or little about it then filmed a movie tell their nonsense "idea" and "truth"... Please, show some respect to human intelligence, not only others, your own too!<br /><br />Sorry, maybe i used too much bad words, but i think any modern educated human will feel what i felt when they watched this movie. Sick, disordered, stupid...<br /><br />Worst movie this year.<br /><br />1/10... | 0neg
|
Watching Ghosts of the Abyss on the big screen simply took my breath away. The photography was simply majestic, and will leave you in awe. If you are a hard core Titanic buff, you will recognize a little of the footage from another documentary that Cameron did at the same time as Ghosts. The 3-d effect is pretty interesting, but probably a bit overrated. This would have still been a fantastic documentary on the big screen even without the 3-d effect. It does make it very interesting though. They go into parts of the ship never seen before so it was very good. I left wishing it would have lasted about 2 hours longer. Even 90 years later the ship still has the power to take your breath away. I would rate this a 10 for people that truly love the Titanic, but maybe only a 7 for those do not. I left this movie feeling that James Cameron really has a love for the ship and really believes in what he is doing, and not that he just did it to make a buck like some have suggested. A must see for any fan of the Great ship. | 1pos
|
ONE LAST DANCE appears to be a film for dancers, either active or retired, wannabees or romanticists. There is some terrific Brazilian influenced music from Stacy Widelitz that enhances much of the corps dancing and some beautiful moments of cinematography making the most of a bare ballet studio rehearsal hall - both of which add what dreaminess this low budget film has to offer.<br /><br />Written and directed and produced and acted by Lisa Niemi the story involves the return to the boards by three retired dancers (Lisa Niemi, Patrick Swayze, George de la Pena - all three are dancers in real life) to pay homage to the gifts of a highly regarded yet now dead choreographer. The three left dancing seven years prior to the story for personal reasons, mostly involving lack of confidence and personal issues that affected each tangentially. They return to a company to perform a dance by the dead choreographer and the rest of the slim story is how these out of shape hoofers regain the healing magic of dancing.<br /><br />The corps of ballet dancers assembled for this film is exceptionally fine for a pickup group: Rasta Thomas, Desmond Richardson, Kathryn Bradney, Tai Jiminez, Bambi Swayze, Jamie Bishton, Stephanie Slater, Heather Thompson, Dwight Rhoden and Yosuke Mino deserve special mention. The scenes of dancing vary depending on the choreography of each of four artists - Alonzo King, Dwight Rhoden, Patsy Swayze, and Doug Varone. But in the end to be less than a documentary about the rigors and rewards of dancing there must be a well-acted story based on a sensitive script and that is where the film is shaky and a bit self indulgent. Swayze, Niemi, de la Pena take the roles as far as they go, but in the end the story is much ado about very little.<br /><br />Yet there is some gorgeous dance work well filmed that will satisfy even the most particular critic. The DVD added features include some insights into the difficulty and final rewards of bringing ONE LAST DANCE to the screen, and in these comments there is more story than that found in the script. Grady Harp | 1pos
|
As a piece of drama this offered absolutely nothing in terms of interest or entertainment. Actors all did a fairly solid job but the script and the narrative where derivative, unexciting and dull. Let's face it, the public perception of Craddock was what made her interesting, the reality was that she was just a ghastly old drag queen who really isn't worth the time this film invests in her.<br /><br />To add to this because I have to write at least ten lines of waffle, her cooking was pretty gruesome too. It was the stench of the upper middle classes offering advice to the great unwashed that was the Craddock-style (and the BBC at the time) and an hour and a half remembrance of a thoroughly dislikable and untalented Daily Telegraph writer is a total waste of British taxpayers money. ( Paid for by the licence fee which of course is a flat tax on all British households). The BBC should find better things to waste our money on. | 0neg
|
I was completely disgusted by this movie. It is just another example of how they butchered what used to be a great tv show. I loved the first movie, but this one is so horrible, you couldn't pay me to sit through it. The story line was dreadfully cheesy, the acting was worse than usual, and the "special effects" were definitely something to be laughed at. Take my advice, and don't waste your time. | 0neg
|
Definitely it's not a movie for everyone! You need to have a strong stomach to see this film until the end! <br /><br />The plot is about a Hungarian family and the way it develops over three generations; and what crazy family I must say! From the first to the last generation all we see is a bunch of foolish people doing foolish things! The guy from the first generation is a sexual maniac soldier that even does a sexual act with a dead pig imagining he's doing it with a fat old lady
The guy of the second generation is a fat (but a really big one!) champion of food contests that eats kilos of food in few minutes to throw up it all a bit later in order to eat some more kilos again! The third guy, son of the last one, irony of destiny, doesn't seems at all to his father (and his mother too), because he's thin as a bone... He works as an embalmer and he's the only person who keeps seeing his father, now a vegetative mount of fat flesh
<br /><br />We can see by these short examples that this movie is actually a little bit mad, but that's exactly its most valuable feature! We can feel the irony since the first to the last minute of the movie, and its dark humour mixed with some gore scenes makes it a really dark comedy! It's almost unique by its madness since we can't find many movies with this kind of roughness. One in which we can find some similarity, about the dysfunctional family's feature, is probably "Amarcord", but there aren't too many we can compare to this one! | 1pos
|
This is an all-time favourite of mine. Yes, it's got its flaws but it is what it is - a rip-roaring, blundering, comedy classic. I must have seen it at least 6 times. The late Richard Pryor was a comedy genius and gelled brilliantly with Gene Wilder. It is a sad, sad shame that he deteriorated in health with the onset of MS, culminating in his tragic passing yesterday (December 10th 2005). Stir Crazy was the 2nd greatest movie of 1980 in my opinion (true movie buffs will know which was the greatest of that year). Fans of the movie should also view the inferior, but still funny See No Evil, Hear No Evil which sees the partnership of Wilder and Pryor re-ignited for a third time, following on from Stir Crazy and Silver Streak before that. | 1pos
|
A shuttle craft crew gets stranded on a hostile planet, and they must find a way to lift off again while dangerous creatures lay siege. Meanwhile, Kirk races desperately against the clock to find them before he is forced to abandon the search to pursue a priority mission.<br /><br />On the plus side, "The Galileo Seven" is a superbly tense, suspenseful episode, including excellent character development of coolly logical, emotionally remote Mr. Spock. His conflict with his human shipmates is solid, thought-provoking drama. The secondary guest characters of Boma, Gaetano, and Farris all work very well: they are good examples of efficient characterization with little screen time. The creatures are genuinely menacing and scary, all the more so because the filmmakers wisely keep the viewer from seeing too much of them. And the death of Mr. Latimer is an excellent stakes-raising jolt.<br /><br />On the downside, the exposition and denouement just stink. The exposition is plain awkward: there is a plague to go deal with on some planet but coincidentally they stop to send a shuttle craft to look at a space anomaly, and the shuttle crew just happens to include the doctor, engineer, and some expendable secondary characters? Too contrived. But the denouement is even worse: after a tension-filled, engrossing near-hour of drama, they wrap it up with a lame humor scene where the ship's captain publicly embarrasses the guy who just pulled his comrades through a horrible experience. A quiet, introspective scene where Spock acknowledges to his friends that command is harder than he thought would have been so much more satisfying. And why was there no wrap-up of the development of the interesting Boma character? So the episode was worthwhile and I liked it, but somebody should have spent more time polishing the script. | 1pos
|
Captain Hickock (David Beecroft) is sent to investigate a strange death resulting from experiments conducted in seclusion in the desert. The scientists in charge, Van Fleet (ever wonderful character veteran James Hong) and Erhardt (Louise Fletcher) are experimenting with advanced stages of sleep and this has caused an opening in an alternate dimension through which a violent, shape-shifting creature emerges and starts decimating the hapless crew.<br /><br />"Shadowzone" is noticeably better than other movies of its ilk. It's actually fairly well done; writer / director J.S. Cardone establishes a dead serious tone, begins his movie on an ominous note, and creates some reasonable suspense throughout. Never does this intriguing tale get too cheesy or laughable at any point; it's easy to get caught up in the story and be immersed in the dingy and claustrophobic atmosphere. Calling to mind past sci-fi / horror favorites like "Alien" and "The Thing", it has great sets, superb music by Richard Band, and decent splatter by Mark Shostrom.<br /><br />The cast is also better than usual for this sort of thing, with Fletcher given the best part as the too-dedicated scientist. Miguel Nunez, whom genre fans will recognize from "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning" and "The Return of the Living Dead", is good as computer technician Wiley, with the late character actress Lu Leonard stealing her scenes as the crusty cook.<br /><br />Those interested can also take note that there's a dose of both female and male nudity on display here.<br /><br />"Shadowzone" is an entertaining little movie worth checking out. In fact, I think it deserves to be better known.<br /><br />8/10 | 1pos
|
This is one cool goth movie. It's better done than the first one, because the first one had to be sown together a la Frankenstein when the lead actor really did die. God bless his soul. It's also better because it recycles footage from the first two. This movie is one great leftist movie about recycling, the memories of a schoolbus, and anti-death penalty. The end is hilarious. Let me just say that someone had a fetiche for female facial hair in this movie. It's also cruel to a step beyond the first two--Brandon Lee grieved, Vincent Perez went masochist, but William Atherton smiles like a killer clown. You can disagree with me and say the whole budget went to an illogically cool explosion and a trip to vegas for everyone, or ignore the crow's original bad acting--he's got a smirk on his face when he walks back in his cell, and take a trip downtown with the crow, way downtown. | 1pos
|
I really liked the first movie. It was cool, it was violent and the twist was really fun and unexpected. This movie is nothing like it. Fact is that this movie just stinks. Please do me a favor, if you're thinking of renting this movie, think again. The very uncool camera angles and quotes like "Come here you sexy bitch" just makes you think that the movie is made by some sort of primate with the brain the size of a peanut. | 0neg
|
Now where on earth did this movie come from? Why was there no warning? Shouldn't we have seen it coming somehow? Like PISTOL OPERA, TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER boldly paints itself across the screen in bold bright colours as if to say to the rest of the movie making world "Are you so fresh out of ideas already?". Unlike PO though, TOTBT is not just utterly removed from filmic convention - it's just in utterly the wrong time and place.<br /><br />The movie is basically a 1950's Hollywood Western/Melodrama... made in 21st Century Thailand (and with tongue firmly in cheek). The clothes, the hairstyles, the sets, the camerawork, the soundtrack, the acting, the script... all spot on for 50's America. The movie has even been bizarrely colourised in a way reminiscent of very early colour film stock, but obviously done digitally and deliberately, with an eye to the exact shifting of colours that best suits each shot. Hues are shifted to colours the world is not meant to be, and saturation is selectively ramped up to 1000 to create lurid pinks and shocking yellows and an absolutely unique look to the film. It looks weird, but fantastic.<br /><br />TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER has two major advantages over PISTOL OPERA. Firstly, they remembered to include a story. And it's a really good one... a melodrama in the finest tradition, featuring love and loss and friendship and rivalry and hatred and sorrow and jealousy and heroism and good and evil and all the finest things in life. The script is very well thought out, full of lots of details that are woven together in a way that keeps you on your toes.<br /><br />The mood is definitely spoof, and absolutely pitch perfect. I haven't laughed out loud so much since SHAOLIN SOCCER, yet secretly really caring about what was going to happen to the characters. Acting is as over the top as the soundtrack, in permanent crescendo, delivered with a straight face and sincerity that would make the most melancholy of viewers at least giggle a bit.<br /><br />I enjoyed this movie so much - so utterly out of nowhere, inexplicable, funny, sweet, moving,... where did these ideas come from? It all fits together and makes so much sense you think perhaps the idea was obvious all along, but I'm pretty sure that it was in exactly one persons head ever before he put it on film. And then there are few curveballs that are *definitely* ideas of an insane but brilliant mind .<br /><br />Very highly recommended! | 1pos
|
This was such a great little movie. Peter O'Tool was perfect in what was to become one of his last great roles. I wonder why more people haven't seen this movie. I wonder why O'Tool doesn't get more interesting parts these days. This year O'Tool was just fine in "Troy" however, that wasn't a very special film. "My Favorite Year" was though. It wonderfully recreated 1954 and was filled with many touching and funny moments. For some reason this movie reminds me of some of th period Woody Allen movies from this time such as Radio Days, Purlple Rose of Ciro, ect. I just wish Woody would make another movie w/ the great O'Tool visa vie- "What's new Pussycat", but I sappose that's a pipe dream. Maybe Woody and or O'Tool read this and get an idea. God knows they both need to boost their movie hype....come on guys get this guy into a good movie before it's too late. | 1pos
|
Dead Life is without a doubt the saddest attempt at film-making I have ever witnessed.<br /><br />From a technical viewpoint, this film is a mess. The image quality varies greatly throughout the entire movie, sometimes switching to black and white for no apparent reason. The computer graphic scene is reminiscent of an early Atari game.<br /><br />The soundtrack is out of sync during much of the film, and it's quality fluctuates.<br /><br />The plot is thin and hard to follow. It is often impossible to understand the motivation for the actors actions.<br /><br />The skill of the actors makes it painfully clear that they were chosen for their ability to arrive on the set, rather than talent.<br /><br />This film is full of inconsistencies, hair length and clothing change inexplicably, the same extras appear in two consecutive scenes, supposedly miles away... <br /><br />The list could go on, but I'm getting bored with this review, just as I was when watching this poor excuse for entertainment.<br /><br />After watching Dead Life, I was surprised to find that it wasn't made as a middle school drama class project.<br /><br />I'm a big fan of B movies, but Dead Life is an F at best. | 0neg
|
Oh, I remember it well. The hemlines had shot up from the ankles to the thighs in a few short years. The girls were sexy but aloof, but in love with their male teachers. The boys hormones were raging more than ever and we were wondering if we would get laid before we died in VietNam, and we were hoping that that oh so sexy teacher would be willing to give us some "extracurricular instruction". Charles Manson had been convicted of the Tate-Bianca murders. The atmosphere was so sexually charged you could cut it with a knife. <br /><br />This movie almost perfectly captured this mood--As good a documentary as you can get in a fiction film and some of the most gorgeous soon to be "B" movie queens were showing us their bodies (including Angie Dickinson--at age 40!)<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
After hearing what a great movie this was I was looking forward to watching it. Not only did the movie fall far short of what the critics promised I found most of it to be unwatchable. We ended up fast forwarding through the movie to find out what happened. Definitely a movie to be skipped. | 0neg
|
Hasn't this been done a hundred times? You'd think after Margaret Thatcher this wouldn't be such a shocking premise. I found the whole thing silly and irritating.<br /><br />I dislike prejudice in any form so it offends me to hear statements like, "Women are better at politics because they can admit when they've made a mistake." I don't think work has a gender, I don't think women are better at politics any more than men are better at engineering. I also dislike seeing women treat their husbands like children and their children like adults. <br /><br />This might make a nice "follow your dream" film for school girls except for the fact that the film teaches that self-esteem is a more useful career preparation than education or experience. | 0neg
|
Non Ho Sonno, or Sleepless as it's commonly known to English speaking audiences, starts in 'Turin, 1983' where a young boy named Giacomo (Daniele Angius) has just witnessed his mother (Francesca Vettori) being brutally murdered by an unseen assailant, Chief Inspector Ulisse Moretti (Max von Sydow) promises Giacomo that he will find his mother's killer even if it takes him the rest of his life. It's now' Turin, Today' & a prostitute named Angela (Barbara Lerici) refuses to comply with her clients disgusting demands & in her hurry to leave their apartment knocks over a table out of which falls some large dangerous looking knives & a blue folder which she accidentally puts into her bag in her rush. On the train home Angela looks inside the folder & finds evidence that her client is a murder & somehow connected to the 'dwarf murders' back in '83. Angela phones her friend Amanda (Conchita Puglisi) to pick her up at the train station but Angela is brutally murdered before the train arrives, outside the station Amanda is also murdered. The current Chief Inspector, Manni (Paolo Maria Scalondro) is on the case, he talks with the now retired Moretti about the dwarf murders but finds out little except that the man thought responsible Vincenzo De Fabritiis (Luca Faglioli) committed suicide. A dancer at the 'Zoo' club named Mel (Elena Marchesini) is the next to be murdered. Giacomo (Stefano Dionisi) now lives in Rome but receives a phone call from an old friend named Lorenzo (Roberto Zibetti) who tells him that the dwarf murders may have started again. With the possibility of his mother's killer striking again Giacomo travels back to Turin where he teams up with Moretti & a friend named Gloria (Chiara Caselli) to try & solve the dwarf murders once & for all...<br /><br />This Italian production was co-written, produced & directed by Dario Argento I must admit in my humble opinion this is his worst film to date that I've seen. Many hailed it as a return to form, well I'm not having any of that as this can't compare to Argento's best. The script by Argento & Franco Ferrini while Carlo Lucarelli has a 'collaboration' credit has all the classic Argento ingredients like the black gloved killer, the ultra shiny selection of knives & blades, a ridiculous plot & a few glimpses of his unique style. Unfortunately Non Ho Sonno came in a lull in Argento's career coming after his widely panned Phantom of the Opera (1998) remake. Non Ho Sonno feels like a commercial attempt at making a film that utilises what Argento is best known for but at the same time he was under pressure to make it a success, while this is undeniably a Giallo I felt that it tried to incorporate elements from American teen horror that was proving very successful at the time like Scream (1996), I know What You Did Last Summer (1997), Urban Legend (1998), Final Destination (2000) & their various sequels & imitators. The largely teenage cast that populate the film, would Tenebre (1982) been as good if it featured a cast of teens? The hip locations including a rave & local pub where one of the teens even drinks non alcoholic drink. The good looking teen hero & his girlfriend who becomes the damsel in distress & who both manage to solve the murders even though the combined efforts of the Italian police can't & check out the 'crowd pleasing' comedy scene with the dwarfs in the police station. The eventual & obligatory twist ending is flat & had little impact as far as I was concerned. Non Ho Sonno is far too slow at almost 2 hours, there are few murders & none really stay in the memory. There are brief glimpses of Argento's class, the nicely lit blue tones as Mel is killed, or the sequence when Argento's camera pans across the floor for what seems like an eternity with lots of people walking past to come to rest on the killers & their victims feet by which a few seconds later her decapitated head lands but these scenes are few & far between as although technically Non Ho Sonno is good it's all pretty bland & forgettable for most of it's duration. I even found the gore disappointing, a few cut off fingers, a graphic bullet through someones head, someone being gorily killed with an English horn, a decapitation, a pen stuck in someones temple, someone has their face bashed in & a few quick stabbings. It all sounds better than it actually is, it's very spread out & isn't particularly graphic. There is some brief full frontal nudity but nothing to get too excited about. The acting is OK but the dubbing doesn't help, Max von Sydow adds a touch of elegance & class Non Ho Sonno definitely doesn't deserve. Overall a very disappointing effort from Argento, there is very little I can recommend in this film. Watch Tenebre, The Stendahl Syndrome (1996), Opera (1987), Suspiria (1977) or Deep Red (1975) again instead & remember the good times which don't look like they'll return anytime soon... | 0neg
|
This movie got my attention because its producer claimed it'd compete for Oscar foreign language film along with the Banquet and Curse of the Golden Flower, another two big budget Chinese films. But this small budget movie fails to stand out both for story line and performance. Its setting is basically within an apartment building. With twisted love among an unfaithful husband, a heartbroken wife and of course, the lover, a salon owner, the story seemingly is trying to tell how the mystery can evolve into something to grab peoples' heart. Unfortunately, it rapidly runs into mediocre with basically no surprise at all. Its acting can't score anything either. Carina Lau has some shining moments, yet with an emotionless(trying to be sophisticated?)Jun Hu, there is really not much to tell. Its supporting roles are also weird and unconvincing. Well, it is an ordinary story. Maybe it happens everyday in China nowadays. If you are interested in peeking into the changing society, you might find something intriguing. Otherwise, turn on your TV. | 0neg
|
After disposing of the fact that this film was significantly under budgeted, and, in spots, more than a bit overacted, what remains is a realistically cold and existential account of the first day of the American Revolution. While the principal characters have decided to take a stand against British domination, most are a bit vague in their feelings and haven't judged exactly how far they are willing to go. Yet, the events of the Day assume a life of their own and sweep everyone along.<br /><br />I was most impressed by the way the film depicts the confusion of war and the mostly improvised pattern of resistance against the redcoats. Firing is heard all around, though no one is exactly sure from where or by whom. Men move through the woods with their guns, forming ad hoc groups to ambush the roadbound British columns---whose primary mission was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. The tactics are historically accurate. They fire, and retreat to concealed positions to reload. Most of these men are reluctant warriors, resigned to an unpleasant task, yet resolved to carry it through. A fine illustration of the ultimate Check and Balance of an armed citizenry; a concept enshrined in our Constitution yet too readily dismissed by many who claim to believe in democratic principles.<br /><br />Another interesting and rather rare touch is the fact that the scriptwriters made a real effort to have the characters speak as people of the time would have. I have found that in many "historical" films the actors use words, sentence structure and alliterative devices from modern times. In some instances, well intentioned editors concerned with realism overcompensate to the point where the dialogue is overly formalized, archaic, and stilted. Not so here. The actors really sound like what one would read in contemporary, primary sources describing the event. This by itself gives the film considerable educational value.<br /><br />A good "war is hell" movie still suitable for younger viewers due to its lack of gratuitous gore, and a memorable portrayal of ordinary people facing up to the bold task of confronting tyranny. | 1pos
|
I like Salma Hayek, I like Russell Crowe.. I had never heard of this movie until I noticed it on the TV guide, but seeing who were starring in it, I was expecting some entertainment.. How wrong was I!! :O It turned out to be really, Really bad! Forced dialogue all through the movie, plus I felt the director had been playing with as many different camera techniques as he could think of - ending up making a big mess of waste. Such disappointment..<br /><br />The only potential bit was the scene where he was taking a bath, getting a mental image of the bodybuilder type she described on the phone.. But it wasn't funny enough to save the movie.<br /><br />This one's best avoided.. | 0neg
|
I guess if you're a fan of Westerns, you'll be more inclined to forgive this movie's many flaws. However, seeing as I enjoy Westerns, but I'm not particularly a fan of them, I didn't forgive a single one of them.<br /><br />From the opening sequence I was thoroughly disappointed with the acting. Everyone except Ed Harris sounded like they were reading from cue cards off screen, so I became annoyed early on and the movie did nothing at all to redeem itself. The story moved along at a snails pace and, except for one part, was very very predictable. Also, for a Western movie, there was very little action. Appaloosa's does have some good points though. The action sequences they did have were brilliant and realistic (which I really appreciated). There were no drawn out gun sequences, they were quick and packed full of shooting, which makes perfect sense, since everyone in the gunfights are supposed to be well trained gunman. And the acting did gradually get better, all the way up until the last few lines, which were, again, delivered like being read from cue cards. <br /><br />Like I said before, if you are a fan of Westerns, you'll probably be a lot more forgiving than I am being, so you should probably go ahead and see this movie. If you're like me, and can enjoy a Western but not particularly a fan, then ignore it. Yeah, it's watchable and you won't feel like you completely wasted your time, but there's a lot of times when you'll be thinking "Okay, someone either needs to get shot or this movie needs to end." | 0neg
|
This is an excellent movie. I had to hunt it down while visiting LA, but Judy Berlin is definitely worth catching. Eddie Falco, Barbara Barrie, and Madeline Kahn are excellent leading ladies. Kahn especially makes an impact as a worrisome and somewhat philosophical housewife who goes on a long walk during the eclipse. Beautifully shot in black and white, Judy Berlin is wonderful, definitely one of my favorite movies. Too bad it didn't get a wider release. | 1pos
|
I must confess to liking giant monster movies, but this film is really just plain awful! Bad special effects, even worse acting, silly premise. By the way that big snake would be considered a monster! Anyway painful as it was I made it through to the end. I chuckled a few times while watching this mess, just not believing what I'm seeing or hearing.<br /><br />1 out of 10, for bad movies beware 5 out of 10. Suffer with me. | 0neg
|
I was so disappointed with this movie. After reading reviews and user comments here and elsewhere, comments mentioning the "dream-like" qualities of this movie, the surprise ending, the colorful imagery - the name "Columbo" was even mentioned - I was expecting an eerie, thought-provoking who-dunnit giallo crossing Dario Argento with Poirot. Wrong. This is a stupid body count movie that easily could have been a made-for-American-TV creepshow crap film if some of the graphic violence was removed. The only thoughts you'll be provoked into are thoughts about exactly what method will be used to kill the next victim. The imagery isn't all that colorful, either, certainly not matching Dario's worst movies. The surprise ending is extremely brief, less than 3 minutes, and utterly stupid. Can you tell I hated this movie? | 0neg
|
I was so embarrassed watching this film - I couldn't even manage to stay until the end. I was looking forward to a nice surprise: films made in and about Sardinia do not come out every day. Sadly my expectations withered slowly away since the very beginning. This movie has no pace, no acting, no plot, no breathtaking scenery, no likable character, not even the urchins in the first episode. It simply appeals to your "gut" feeling. Everybody - kids included - is appallingly repulsive, performs incoherent deeds, appears to be some subhuman being in desperate need of a shower. I could catch no underlying humour, probably my fault.<br /><br />The first scene shows some dire, deserted interior, with piles of rotting material scattered everywhere, the most attractive fixture being an overweight sewer rat gorging itself on some unidentified revolting substance. In the second episode we are treated to a candid camera-like take of a cross/eyed shepherd milking the flock and making cheese while feeding his pig. If this is supposed to look realistic, the Sardinian cheese industry is going to lose a good portion of its revenues. We follow the sheperd's trip from his "idyllic" hideout in the mountains to a "trendy" eatery on the coast, whose cheesy owner performs a series of senseless actions and feeds his customers the aforesaid cheese, and so on and so forth. I really could not take much more of that.<br /><br />I left the cinema feeling queasy, wondering if my indigestion had been caused by what I had viewed.<br /><br />1 out of 4. | 0neg
|
There is nothing worse than a dull serial killer thriller, but somehow "The Mean Season" manages not only to be dull but redundant as well. Phone call after phone call to Kurt Russell, with little or no forward movement of the storyline. There are absolutely zero creative moments in this movie, and the cast seems uninspired to say the least. Special mention must be made of Mariel Hemingway's performance, which can only be described as dreadful. The ending is especially weak, with some totally unacceptable police work, not to mention the killer's unbelievable good fortune. Even for Kurt Russell fans, this will be a disappointment. - MERK | 0neg
|
I love this film. It shows the very human struggle to survive after they've been knocked from the top of the food chain. It blends medieval mythology with a modern era breathlessly. Definitely an original take on Man vs Dragon. Now to get this straight, this is a film about Humans, not about Dragons. The dragons merely supply the unique reason for the apocalypse. This is a film about the post-apocalypse, not the apocalypse. It's not about skies full of Dragons turning worldwide armed forces into ash on an epic scale. It's not about Dragons setting the world, quite literally, on fire. It's about after all that's happened.<br /><br />Which is a shame this was advertised as a film about Dragons burning all life as we know it. Of course, everyone goes in expecting to see 90 minutes of Dragons destroying everything. If this had been advertised as a more human film about after these Dragons have completely wasted everything, I really think this could've been seen as a good film. It unfortunately set expectations high in the wrong sort of viewers by a mind-blowingly epic trailer.<br /><br />Christian Bale, Gerard Butler and Matthew McConaughey all deliver their role superbly, and the script isn't as bad as it's made out to be either. The effects were great and the Dragons do look pretty realistic, to the point I almost believed this was a documentary. Okay, so there are some plot holes, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to fill those in yourself. I mean, does everything have to be explained so obviously? The only reason this film gets 4 stars and not 5 is because, being a film about human struggle, it could've done with a bit more character development. Other than that, it's a deeply entertaining, well-acted, suspenseful film.<br /><br />Don't knock it before you see it for yourself. | 1pos
|
I saw this at the Museum of Radio and Television (don't think it's available on DVD). I had first seen it as what now called a "questioning" young man in 1972 (the son's character was 14, I was 13 at the time) and remembered it being very important to me as the first sensitive, non- judgmental portrayal of gay men on television. I particularly remembered the poise of a very young Martin Sheen. Viewing it again after 35 years it was almost as affecting, with wonderful acting by a very strong ensemble cast, with Hope Lange a stand-out as the mother/ex-wife. I enjoyed the early-70s touches (shag carpeting in the bathroom, 8-track cassettes) but realized that -- despite so many advances in gay rights over the years -- it could almost be re-made today and still make sense. Cross your fingers that this someday is available on DVD. | 1pos
|
The actual fact of the matter is that production was so fast and furious for Warners, "Termite Terrace" animators, that they decided to do it as a parody of the Tom and Jerry cartoon, Concerto Cat" that had won the academy award earlier that year. Warners released there parody later that same year. In my opinion, the animators at Warners were light years ahead of Hanna Barbara. Yes there is a charm to the H-B characters and the gags are solid but the Tex Avery stuff at MGM was superior and no one could make something look and move funny like the "Termite Terrace" gang over at Warners. This also explains why the scenario for Bugs was so odd - to be the tormented instead of the tormentor. | 1pos
|
John Galsworthy's sometimes ponderous but very interesting social drama "The Forsyte Saga" has been attempted as a TV-mini series since this production of a feature film, based on the earlier books of the series, was issued by MGM Studios' heads. The film they produced turned out to be an absolutely-gorgeous color offering, by anyone's standards, featuring costumes by Walter Plunkett and Valles, cinematography by talented Joseph Ruttenberg, and art direction by Daniel B. Cathcart and Cedric Gibbons. The interesting original music for the film was composed by Bronislau Kaper, and Edwin B. Willis produced lovely set decorations. The script for the piece was furnished by Jan Lustig, Ivan Tors and James B. Williams, drawing the events largely from "The Man of Property" by John Galsworthy. In the cast were lovely red- haired Greer Garson as Irene Forsyte, and Errol Flynn as Soames Forsyte, the eponymous new-money tycoon of the "The Man of property"s" original title. Walter Pigeon played young Jolyon Forsyte, whom the family has disowned for following an artistic career, among other complaints. Robert Young was architect Philip Bossinney and respected British actors played the delightfully and frighteningly stuffy Forsyte family including Halliwell Hobbes, Lumsden Hare, Aubrey Mather and more. Janet Leigh played young June Forsyte and Harry Davenport the elder Jolyon Forsyte. With all this talent, the film which is quite good could perhaps have been made even better. Compton Bennett's direction is angular, always interesting and more-than-competent at all points by my standards. The story-line, for those who have never seen it, involves a loveless marriage between Soames Forsyte, who regards his wife as an article of property and Irene, a 19th-century woman who has to marry, being without profession, who grows to despise his miserly nouveau riche pretensions, controlling behavior, and bullyings. She takes up with an excitingly-imaginative architect, who has been hired by Soames to build their new home. Finding out about their attachment, Soames uses his financial power against Bossinney, who grows distraught and then is killed in a street accident. Irene turns to the black-sheep of the family, who had married for love, the artist Jolyon, leaving Soames to confront the colossal failure of his pretensions. The classically-trained Garson and Pigeon are wonderful and memorable in their parts. Flynn tries hard, but lacks a bit of the vocal power he developed soon after this film as released; nevertheless he is more-than-adequate and intelligent in his role. The entire supporting cast ranges from very good to even better by my standards; but their parts seldom allow them to stand out for very long in this look at an entire social class. As a writer, I must suggest that the only loss of power in this strong film appears to stem from MGM's studio heads asking for a script that stressed Soames's emotional coldness; the strongest line of development appeared to have been to stress the tyranny aspect of Soames as versus the regard for individual dignity and rights-- regardless of the wealth owned by any man--on the part of Irene and Jolyon and the other ethical sorts in the work. The film has quite a bit to say about the misuses of power, I suggest; it depicts the imperial side of Britain and the postmodernist unethicals it spawned, folk who never noticed that they were acquisitive types who seemed to admire piracy more than honesty. "That Forsyte Woman" I find to be a very absorbing, beautiful and sobering cinematic production. | 1pos
|
I own all eight of them. I've played at least part of every Final Fantasy game of the series. And you know what?<br /><br />I still have a special place in my heart for that very first Final Fantasy game to ever hit the world of Nintendo (once THE hottest game system around).<br /><br />It was the game that I never owned as a kid, but always wanted to play. I played it sometimes when I visited friends that owned it. Now I have it and all seven of the others.<br /><br />Not to brag. But it is an excellent series. And I sound like I'm 13. But that's ok. Because Final Fantasy is simply cool.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I saw this movie after reading about it in a magazine 4 years ago. It seems like a documentary in every way, and I think if I would not have known it was a mockumentary I would have believed it. It has a lot of funny moments.<br /><br />I must admit I am not a fan of Peter Jackson, I really hated The Frighteners and LOTR and Kong was bad in every way but the technical, but this one was quite entertaining and(fortunately) short. It looks as if it would have been a 60 minute documentary and those archive films are very realistic.<br /><br />All in all it is a great mockumentary and I can understand why people got angry. | 1pos
|
I only watched this film on MST3K so I could bare watching the whole thing, but watching it on that show didn't take my attention away from the film itself. I could still notice the sadness and the general rubbish of the movie. It looked more like a music video for a 80s rock band than a actual movie.<br /><br />There's a lot of bad points to this, such as the acting. It was boring, plain and it didn't make me react at all, just made me want to go to sleep more than anything. Also the acting of the mentally handicapped character was pretty unconvincing as well, and slightly offensive. I mean he was portrayed as somewhat of an idiot and someone who doesn't get anything, even the part when he was eating the dog food was completely wrong for the character he was supposed to play. It's not how it works and how the character should've been portrayed. I don't mean to make out that this movie is rubbish just because of this, it's rubbish for many reasons.<br /><br />The action was like watching paint dry, I just couldn't get into it because it was just so corn. The fighting scenes for one was very slow, it seemed like they were both scared of injuring each other when they were fighting, even though they were wearing god knows what inches thick. It's all staged of course, but you have to make it seem like it isn't, which wasn't very well pulled off here, that along with the other forms of action within this movie such as the bike riding and carnage etc.<br /><br />The only thing that was least unbearable about this movie was the theme. I mean an apocalyptic world is a good setting for a movie I've found with watching others such as Children of Men or The Matrix, but the difference between those movies and this one, is that they were very well written and everything about them was great and provoked the right reactions out of you when you watched them. But this, the only reason I didn't fall into a trance-like state was the fact I was watching it on MST3K, which is where it is only worth watching.<br /><br />In short, boring, corny and generally you'd just rather go to sleep than watch it. | 0neg
|
I've always loved Annie Oakley. I've always loved Barbara Stanwyck too. I'm sure one is related to the other. This used to be one of those old, mid-morning movies that was shown fairly often. If you stayed home from school, (ahem) SICK, you got to see it. Cowboys, Indians, Buffalo Bill, his Wild West Show, sharpshooting, a (yucky) love story, and the charming and beautiful Barbara Stanwyck. Hmmm, what a way to recover enough to return to school!!! Barbara Stanwyck was a liberated woman playing liberated roles long before it was in vogue.<br /><br />Great license is taken with history, but this film was made when heroes were bigger than life and legend ruled. It's a nicely told story, tracing the life of a young girl, from the backwoods to a life of world-wide celebrity (yes, and love too). "Annie's" skills were real, but she had lots of help learning "showmanship". There are a lot of funny moments, warm moments, and selfless (O Henry type) acts. These "flesh" out the story and lead you right into a joyous ending. (AIN'T LOVE GRAND!)<br /><br />Very nicely done, it will please "new" audiences and old-timers alike. The younger crowd should especially like "Annie Oakley". They don't make movies like this anymore. It's a fitting tribute to Annie Oakley, American legend, and folk hero.....<br /><br />PS--- I gave this a 9 out of 10 rating. I was tempted to give it a 10, after all, it was made in 1935 and is still good.... | 1pos
|
A pretty decent drama/thriller. I watched it because of Samuel L. Jackson. In this one, as usual, he plays his role with a quiet, understated charisma. Milla Jovovich was beautiful, more so than I have seen her before. She had a brief nude scene in this film. She shows some measure of courage going topless with her quite small breasts. I say more power to her. To all the aspiring actresses out there getting advice, let this show that if you have some talent, you don't have to mutilate yourselves with implants. Just say no! But I digress. The supporting cast did well, also. Stellan Skarsgard was suitably menacing, Joss Ackland was suitably eccentric, Doug Hutchison was suitably psychotic. The plot, with a small number of characters, could as well have come from a play as a Hammett story. Bob Rafelson's direction was unobjectionable. Overall, I'd say check it out. | 1pos
|
"Witness to Murder" is a small but interesting film starring Barbara Stanwyck, George Sanders, and Gary Merrill. By 1954, Stanwyck was 47 and no longer considered leading lady material. However, because she was such a great star and actress, she could still get good roles in big films, "Titanic" and "Executive Suite" being two that leap to mind. She could also, like Loretta Young, get stuck in B movies like this one and "Jeopardy." "Witness to Murder" isn't so much a B movie as it is closer to what one was seeing on television by 1954. And it's not a B cast.<br /><br />Stanwyck plays a career woman, Cheryl, of a certain age who sees a woman murdered in the apartment across from hers. The apartment belongs to an author, Albert Richter, who emigrated to America after the war. Cheryl reports the murder but no one believes her. Richter is too smooth and always one step ahead of her with the police. Cheryl is considered an hysterical single woman who has delusions because she isn't married and probably going through menopause, though this isn't out and out stated. Completely outrageous and no doubt what actually went on at the time. These assumptions were just taken for granted in the '50s. There was something really wrong with a woman who never married. Read LOSER. A woman's goal in life was marriage; the career was just a stopgap until the ring was on the finger. What must it have been like for an intelligent woman to have that mantle put on her. In this film, the police detective (Gary Merrill) is interested enough in her to at least follow the case.<br /><br />All of the acting is very good, with Stanwyck really shining as someone determined to get the truth out, even if she has to do a little detective work herself. Sanders is very effective as the villainous Richter, and he's pretty scary at the end of the film. The last 15 minutes or so are exciting and will have you on the edge of your seat.<br /><br />This is actually a fairly derivative film bolstered by its stars. And you can't beat the opportunity to see the attitudes toward women played out in a realistic manner. Alas, there are still touches of it today. | 1pos
|
Honestly, by the time the cult members were drinking poisoned kool-aid, I was mixing up a batch of my own to put myself out of my freaking misery. Honestly, what were they thinking? Mulder discovering a past life where he was a Jewish woman during the Holocaust?!?! Seriously!! Oh, and he finds his soul mate from multiple past lives, never to be heard from again. And am I really supposed to believe that people get to choose with whom they return, and Cancer Man follows Mulder across the ages to torture him. Really? He can't find someone else to bug every other lifetime or so. I think Scully ought to get a medal for putting up with Mulder's crap. She lets him waste their precious time (time that ended up resulting in dozens of people chugging the red kool-aid) to go into his past lives, and he doesn't even stinking remember where the other bunkers are!!!! Wasn't that the whole point? I love Mulder and Scully, and the acting was passable, but I think I'll go ahead and pretend that this episode never happened. I get the idea that that's what the creators, writers, and directors did, since the supposed "insight" into Mulder's character is completely irrelevant for the rest an otherwise excellent series.<br /><br />muldernscully - I'm with you | 0neg
|
I remember how excited I was to see Ram Jaane, I was thinking to myself "This movie is definitely going to rock like all of Shahrukh and Juhi's other films; I can't wait to see it!" But I was WRONG... Ram Jaane ended up falling way below my expectations. The story itself isn't really that exciting or on the other hand that boring, you could say it's about average.<br /><br />Also, Shahrukh and Juhi weren't even together at all in this film! I know that SRK was in love with Juhi in Ram Jaane, but she was interested in some other guy which practically took out all the fun of the film itself! As for the acting, I'd have to say that Shahrukh had done a fabulous job playing his role and Juhi did a fairly good job at playing the role of Bela.<br /><br />I, myself as a fan of Shahrukh-Juhi was really disappointed after watching Ram Jaane and I know that many of the other SRK-Juhi fans were let down as well.<br /><br />All in all, Ram Jaane deserved a 4/10! | 0neg
|
Mike Leigh makes this movie as a sociological study because he wants us to be confronted with the state of mind of the working class of now. There is more poverty in the slums nowadays than say twenty years ago! Family-life is disrupted and children have many problems: overweight, sexual harassment, abortion (?). How will the rent be paid? And the loan of the taxi? What is going on in the mind of our son who does only look television and eat until he becomes fat? Why is my woman unhappy, do we still talk to each other? We are proud of our daughter who is a nurse for elderly people, but what is happening with our son? Even the dialogues in the taxi are splendid! | 1pos
|
Jeff Wincott stars as Harlan Quinn a hit-man who wakes up to find that he's been declared dead and that he's been recruited to work for the CIA in killing anybody who's a threat to the government, this has all been set up by the mysterious Mr.Green (Michael Ironside) and his first targets include a homosexual advocate, a muckraking journalist and a female professor with information that the AIDs virus was manufactured. Dr.Ann Kendall (Terri Hawkes) is the last one of Wincott's list but he finds himself falling for his prey and when the time comes for the kill, Quinn ends up protecting Kendall from the assassins now gunning for them both in this intense thriller. Jeff Wincott gives an impressive performance and Ironside makes for a great villain which elevates this far above the usual output of this worn out hit-man genre.<br /><br />4/5 Matt Bronson | 1pos
|
First off no offense to anyone that did the movie, actors rocked and other things. And secondly, this is my opinion of the movie, as opinions are ALWAYS different please keep an open mind when reading this review, thank you. I have nothing against the actors, nor do I have anything against the crew, I think they did an amazing job. BUT... I just can't get over how bad the writing was, don't get me wrong, the writing was great the dialogue at least, but the plot lacked. You think a movie being about the Dark Prince would have more of him in it, well it didn't. There was little. Your imagination could do better than what this movie did. So if you wanna add more to #2 and don't really wanna see #3 I suggest get a paper and pen and then write down what you think would've happened, what you would've done differently in either #3 or both of the movies. Maybe what they should've done was had it through Draculas' eyes. Would've been better that way. I suggest also for people who like the story of Dracula to read Bram Stokers' novel, "Dracula" and read anything else you can about vampires, please also read Kim Harrison, Anne Rice, and Laurell K. Hamilton. Like I said my opinion on the movie, and some suggestions, the plot really did lack. But thank you for reading, I really do appreciate it. Gave it a 4 'cause I thought the acting was good, but other than that... you know the rest. | 0neg
|
I most enjoyed this movie. I viewed it years ago, and found myself enjoying it all over again. I couldn't quite remember who did it, but during the 'gather all the suspects in one room please' scene, I suddenly remembered. Ustinov looks to be having the time of his life here, and being paired with David Niven, who wouldn't? The rest of the cast are mostly hit and miss, the hits are Bette Davis, Olivia Hussey, Simon Mccorkindale and Mia Farrow. The misses are the spectacular "what WERE they thinking?" miscasting of Jack Warden as a Swedish doctor ("Vaht, you accuse me?") Peter Finch as a communist sympathiser, and Angela Lansbury just chewing the scenery up as a booze swigging romance novelist. The who-dunit is actually presented in an entertaining (and surprisingly violent) way, and makes for an entertaining time. | 1pos
|
The problem that I had with this movie is that the doctor laughed like a little girl. It was just as the title suggested and it made the movie more of a bad comedy than a horror movie. I couldn't stand the way he giggled. It was so cheesy but what did I expect? Then he makes all of these doctor jokes such as: "Is there a doctor in the house?" I think that I have heard jokes like this before and they were snowman jokes in Jack Frost. Freddy Kruger also makes jokes like that so they were nothing new. This is a bad movie that was meant to be a horror movie but just turned into a comedy. It isn't even that great of a comedy. If I were flipping by and saw this again, I would just keep on going. Giggle. Giggle. Giggle. | 0neg
|
Story of Three circus daredevils who take on the evil 39013 an escaped convict who seeks to destroy the possessions of Horace Granville the man responsible for sending him to jail.<br /><br />Considered by man to be one of Republics Finest hours it certainly has a sterling cast that includes Charles Quigley, Herman Brix, Miles Mander and Charles Middleton in one of his best villain roles. Frankly the cast alone is reason enough to see this. The action in the serial is top notch and most if not all of the cliffhangers were reused several times by the studio in serials that followed this one. The action is balanced by a good story which doesn't really repeat itself again and again.<br /><br />Actually the problem with the serial is not so much the plot being repeated but the locations. My lack of love for the serial (I'm not a lover of it, I like it) comes from the fact that the film is constantly using industrial locations for its cliffhangers. It seems to be that most of the locations seem to be warehouses or factories or something industry related. Its in keeping with the plot, but at the same time I'd have liked to see something else.<br /><br />That said this is a really good action serial that should be seen if you want to see one thats near the top of the pile. | 1pos
|
Western have always been a popular stable of American culture, from pulp fiction stories, to films like The Searchers, the Man With No Name Trilogy, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven and The Assassination of Jesse James. HBO has also produced some of the best television ever made, The Sopranos, Oz, Rome. Deadwood is a fine addition to that list.<br /><br />Set in the years 1876 to 1878, Deadwood is set in the town of Deadwood, South Dakota. Deadwood starts off as a small camp and slowly becomes a town through the course of the show. Deadwood is a growing town with gold prospers and becomes a area of interest for businesses, politicians and criminals. The show focuses on a number of characters, the town sheriff Seth Bullock (Timothy Olyphant), his deputy Sol Star (John Hawkes), salon owner Al Swearengen (Ian McShane) and prospector/mine owner Alma Garret (Molly Parker), as well as many key supporting characters throughout the series. The series focuses conflicts within the town. In the first series the main focus the conflict between Swearengen and Bullock over Garret's gold claim, one wants to protect her, the other wants to take it off her. The second is about Deadwood's attempt to become a part of South Deadwood and with outside interests wanting to take over people's gold claims from under them. The final series is about the conflict between Deadwood's citizens with the evil George Hearst (Gerald McRaney) who wants to take control of the town, using his thugs to gain it.<br /><br />The show is bold, focusing on themes about growth of law and order, the Untied States and Democracy in a small time. Deadwood and people change with the wider world. They are looks at industrialization process with minor themes about trade unionism, the growth of politics and the benefits and disadvantages of joining the union. The show also takes an new look of the west, it was not a glamorous world, but also looks at the influence of big business and not just individuals. The show looks at crime within the town, looking at drug dealing, prostitution, gambling and gang wars. This makes for interesting and entertaining viewing. This is a refreshing look at the west, almost like the Sopranos of the nineteenth century. There are subplots, from youth crime, to homosexuality to a very good one about a psychopathic serial killer. Deadwood is the closer America has come to making a costumer drama.<br /><br />The series has excellent characters and actors playing them. Swearengen is easily the best and Ian McShane made the role and Powers Boothe as his rival. There are good guest stars like Brain Cox who plays an over the top characters and Gerald McRaney as the quiet villain. I really like Garret Dillahunt as the villainous psycho. There are good supporting characters such as Mr. Wu, the leader of the Chinese and has some great comical moments with Swearengen and Joanne Stubbs, a prostitute who questions herself.<br /><br />The show is good for the most part but it is not perfect. The first is that in the show there are so many subplots that they end up unresolved and sometimes hard to follow. It takes away a compelling viewing. The second is the main character Bullock and the actor who plays him. The character is stiff and wooden compared to most of the other characters in the series and he is too righteous for his own good. He isn't interesting. Timothy Olyphant is a very wooden, a very dull actor. The character Alma also suffer from a similar problem, but Molly Parker is a pretty decent actress. | 1pos
|
While I found it ultimately disappointing, it was a nice attempt at being different. The movie had nice costumes,make up and some humor. But it was too uneven. I'm not sure the film makers truly decided what type of movie this was going to be. I disliked the music that was used for background music and I really disliked the live music scenes. The background music was largely responsible for giving the mixed messages about what type of "feel" a scene was supposed to have. i just didn't feel like the scenes that were shot, and what was put together in editing and post-production matched.<br /><br />But for B-movie, Video Nasty people I think its worth one watch. | 0neg
|
What a misguided translation of what was on stage an absolute jewel. Watching this mess, one wonders what anyone ever saw in the orginal stage production. Utterly charmless, even if it is all in three/four time. | 0neg
|
So I finally got around to watching "Waiting to Exhale" on Encore the other night and I don't understand why this became a hit.<br /><br />(Note: spoilers ahead) As far as I can tell, the basic premise of this film is that all men are insensitive, callous and unfeeling; especially towards women.<br /><br />Okay, well and good. That is the storyline? Fine. Men suck, got it.<br /><br />But there is a huge double standard here; two of the women are dating married men and clearly, we are meant to be sympathetic about their plight as they whine and cry about not having "their" man with them at night in bed.<br /><br />How about this? STOP DATING MARRIED MEN! Maybe that's your problem in the first place.<br /><br />Now, on the flip side, Angela Basset's character is abandoned by her husband for another woman. Yet, if you pay attention, even this character is not completely innocent. When her husband informs her he is leaving, the things she says makes it clear she's known about his lover(s) for years but ignored his infidelities. Why? Obviously, because he's so wealthy.<br /><br />She liked all the "stuff" a little too much to have confronted him about it. Again, she's made her bed here, not as completely as the two who are actively cheating, but still. She spends the rest of the movie being so angry that he left her you never really grow to like her. Strangest of all is the man whose wife is dying of cancer; he sleeps with the Angela Basset character after they run into each other at a bar. With their clothes on, which apparently means it's oh-so-platonic and sweet. Then he writes her a letter months later, thanking her for that night and leading the viewer to believe that when his wife kicks off, he'll contact her again.<br /><br />Did anyone else think this was more than a little sleazy? I would hope if I were dying of breast cancer that my husband wasn't out sleeping around (and I do mean just sleeping) with other women. Sweet, platonic, whatever; I think it's pretty horrible.<br /><br />Bottom line; the characters you're supposed to connect to are unlikable and the ones you're supposed to hate are just pathetic. Not very enjoyable. However, I did give it three stars for the music, which didn't suck too badly and the clothes and style. It's a nice little snapshot of how things looked in '95. And the print wasn't very faded. <br /><br />That's about it, though. | 0neg
|
I ordered this movie from amazon.com and wasn't disappointed. It isn't wonderful, but it's thoroughly entertaining, pretty scary, and Adrian Brody's character was fascinating. He and Maura Tierney both did excellent jobs in this film, although Maura Tierney's character was slightly less developed. The plot is well crafted and the movie is engaging. I recommend this movie. | 1pos
|
A very different movie than any other...the closest thing you can compare it to is Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction" but only because of it's multi-linear story. <br /><br />The cinematography rocked. The acting was superb. The sound went unnoticed, so good work guys! But... <br /><br />Usually in a movie like this, the multi-linear loose ends will cleverly tie together in the end showing why these particular characters were being followed. But it never did this. Bill Paxton and Orlando Blooms timelines ran almost totally autonomous from one another; crossing paths but never changing the outcome of the other. It was merely a gimmick. The first rule of film making...everything has to have a GOOD reason. | 0neg
|
Excellent film dealing with a group of unhappy people who drown their sorrows in booze, powder, and sex. The chief sorrowmeister, Tommy, was a pathetic loser who spent inordinate amounts of time swilling beer and shots in a shabby bar which boasted a temperamental barkeep, a postage stamp sized men's room, and one table. When not turning his liver into plywood Tommy halfheartedly attempts to find work as a mechanic but winds up driving his uncle's ice cream wagon and getting in over his head with a troubled teen on the verge of bolting from daddy's violent household. A sad picture for sure, but I couldn't help laughing out loud at some of these characters' antics. A very fine movie depicting a realistic looking slice of the ugly side of our human existence. | 1pos
|
I was a little hesitant to rent this movie after seeing "Trembling Before G-D", which was a real eye-opener to me. I guess we go around with our heads in the clouds, not thinking what other homosexuals have to go thru for their religion.... But , the two movies had nothing in common except they were made in Isreal. Yossi and Jagger is a bittersweet love affair between two Isreali soldiers, very well played by Yehuda Levi , and Ohad Knoller, you could feel the love they had for each other and the hurt Jagger was going thru because they had to be so careful as they were officers. Its hard to get a real grip on the characters as its only 67 min long and leaves you grasping for more. But Eytan Fox did a splendid job with the time he had. The song that Jagger sings is haunting in the extra video on the disc. I felt that these men brought back to Isreal some hope that you can have same sex love without the terrible angst they had in Trembling Before God . I give this great little flick 41/2 of 5 8/10 and will be looking forward to seeing Eytan Foxs' new movie "Walking On Water". By the way you can get the words in English of the song Your Soul on the message boards for Yossi and Jagger on IMDb. | 1pos
|
saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 86 just a fun to watch romp set in ww1 that the whole family can watch is it full of state of the art special effects? no but they did use real planes and pilots. you get a glimpse of what it was like during that time period. throw in a dash of irreverent comedy. a spoon of slapstick,and and a wacky cast as they set out to fight Germany . if you like the older movies operation petticoat, wackiest ship in the army<br /><br />or up periscope. then this is your kind of movie. as the title says 2 bank robbers escape the law by joining the army and follows them on their adventure as they stumble through WWI | 1pos
|
For me, "Blood Simple", "Fargo" and "No Country..." live in a special Coen stratosphere. Then "Barton Fink", "Raising Arizona", "the Big Lebowski" and "the Man Who Wasn't There" belong in the next class. I'd have to put "Burn After Reading" somewhere in the lower to mid second-class group, but above "Intolerable Cruelty" and "Oh Brother".<br /><br />I think that after making a such a serious and dramatic effort last year, they're just goofing off this year, and that's fine, they're allowed to do that. They've earned it. But it's not like this movie is really that good or anything. It's screwy and fun, sometimes works, sometimes doesn't quite. I especially liked Brad Pitt, probably because he's the only one showing some new colors here. It's like he started from scratch and built this guy from experiences he once had in high school.<br /><br />"Burn After Reading" passes the time, but don't build this up too much, because it's mostly just a whole lot of goofing around that just holds itself together because of the talents of the Coens. | 1pos
|
Powder Keg concludes the BMW short film series "The Hire" by adding a very human element to the enigmatic and elusive series title character played by Clive Owen. Director/co-writer Alejandro González Iñárritu departs from the pattern established by the previous 4 directors and makes the driver more of a background character, focusing instead on a war photographer who, after snapping a shocking series of photographs, is on the run and grievously injured. He takes the time to reflect on his life and what he's done-or not done-with it, and why he started taking pictures in the first place.<br /><br />Stellan Skarsgård does a wonderful job as the photographer, and manages to communicate volumes just as much with what he doesn't say as with what he does. Clive Owen has the opportunity to portray a different side to the driver then in the previous films, allowing his normally unflappable character to have an emotional moment beyond what we've seen. The moment at the end of the film between himself and the woman played by Lois Smith is made more pronounced by his inability to effectively communicate his thoughts and feelings, and his abrupt exit punctuates that perfectly.<br /><br />Iñárritu directs this short perfectly, using hand-held 16MM cameras to capture a grainy, almost documentary-like feel to the film, and over-exposure for certain shots adds the right amount of dramatic flair to the film.<br /><br />All in all, my only regret with this film is that it's the last one in this excellent series. BMW should be highly commended for allowing what could have been little more than overblown and expensive commercials to be short films in which the centerpiece vehicles sometimes took a back-seat to the characters and their stories instead. I hope to see another series like this again soon. | 1pos
|
I thought that Adrian Paul could improve his chances at the movies since he did a superb job of acting in the Highlander Series, unfortunately I was wrong. I do mean wrong. This movie is the worst thing I've seen since I watched Barney. I couldn't find a single thing to like about it. The plot could've been written better by a child of six years. The entire movie screamed for help. The amount of real dialogue could've been crammed into the first five minutes, anything else said was either cursing of strange things questions on the part of Paul's character. The only good scene in the entire film is the shot of the woman and her daughter laying dead in the snow, for a moment you get a glimpse of an actual movie. Of course it's the scene where everyone is quiet and no one is moving, and Adrian Paul's doing voice overs. I couldn't even stomach thirty minutes of the film with out feeling as if I could cry. It's a shame anyone was allowed to make such a movie. Please do not watch this. Of course I am mostly complaining about Adrian's shift to bad acting, we want more Highlander, but no more movies like Breed. | 0neg
|
This story is supposed to be very engaging and seríous, and the subject and dilemma (sexual addicition) may very well be just one. However, the way the characters are portrayed here is quite strange and too often become ridiculous - perhaps from trying too tell too much in too little time. I suppose the intention is to explain the background of the sex addicts and the way they can be treated (in very much a US-style therapy manner), but it all becomes too shallow and 1-dimensional, almost like a 40s comic book series. And the lie-detector scenes - these could be an insult to anyone intelligence! Albeit the ludicrous dialogue the film is packed with a very much sympathetic intention and that´s why this is such a cute little piece of melodrama. | 0neg
|
Steel mill owner Lionel Atwill (as John "Flint" Dawson) is derailed by evil associate Jamieson Thomas (as James "Jim" Marley). After Mr. Thomas costs Mr. Atwell the loss of his legs, he seizes control of the business. Before Atwell is even out of the hospital, Thomas convinces Atwell's wife to take their daughter, and move to England. Now a pauper, Atwell moves from his private hospital room to recover with blind beggar Henry B. Walthall (as Marchant).<br /><br />Mr. Walthall helps Atwell, who assumes the name "John Daniels", back on his feet (a figure of speech). With Walthall's help, Atwell organizes a "Union" for beggars. Their beggar "Union" makes Atwell wealthier than ever. After fifteen years, he decides to return to the old steel mill, and seek revenge against Thomas. But, Atwell doesn't know his pretty long lost daughter, Betty Furness (as Joyce Dawson), has returned to America, and is being romanced by his old enemy's son, James Bush (as Lee Marley)
<br /><br />The cast is a treat, but the production and story become increasingly mediocre.<br /><br />**** Beggars in Ermine (1934) Phil Rosen ~ Lionel Atwell, Jamieson Thomas, Henry B. Walthall | 0neg
|
Very cute and very funny film, in French with English subtitles, though I doubt any of the females will be reading them, since the "visuals" in this movie are not to be missed. As he always is, Roy Dupuis is beautiful and charismatic, and Patrick Huard is just hysterical. This movie is just fun to watch on a gloomy day. | 1pos
|