review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I'm an action movie fan but until today I've never seen a preview or an ad for this movie in Italy, so I went to see "The Long Kiss Goodnight" on pay-TV hoping for nothing special.<br /><br />But, what a surprise! This movie is great! The only problem I found is the presence of some holes in the plot, but the rest is the most entertaining, intriguing and funny action movie ever made.<br /><br />The transformation of Samantha/Charly from ordinary wife-teacher to cool-blooded agent recovering from amnesia seems to be a good idea. The action scenes and the stunts are the best I've ever seen. Samuel L. Jackson adds some of the best lines I have ever heard and his chemistry with Geena Davis is good.<br /><br />And what about Geena? She is wonderful, she plays the best action heroine ever seen and does strong, convincing acting and fantastic stunts.<br /><br />So I think this movie had weak performances at box office and bad critics because most reviewers and some kind of public have a hard time with strong female lead roles.<br /><br />9/10. | positive |
THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is painful, positively painful. The title is apt, in a sense, if aimed at the large studio audience paid to laugh like they were watching the second coming of the Marx Brothers. And trust me, they are paid.<br /><br />As creatively barren as the entertainment industry has become, I refuse to believe that NBC brass really have faith in this turkey. Rather, I think THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is what all of you get who didn't watch, or didn't appreciate STUDIO 60, which previously graced the peacock network's Monday night lineup. You want to turn your nose up at caviar, fine. Here's some lovely Alpo direct from Menu Foods for you to slop around in. | negative |
Horrendous! I'm a teenager and I don't mind teen movies but this is horrible! Aaron Carter plays this popstar named JD McQueen and to keep his grades up or something, he works together with the 'nerd', Jane whateverherlastnameis. But the 'mean girls' are too predictable and such The clothing most of the girls wear in the movie isn't realistic. How would any of those girls get away with wearing no bra, tube tops and shirts that expose the belly? IN HIGH SCHOOL? At my school, we'd be sent home for something like that.<br /><br />And one part of the movie where JD texts Jane, she says 'Sleep tight? He must think i'm an idiot! I didn't know texting was so stressful!' How is texting stressful? And how obsessed Jane is with JD and how he 'falls' in love with her is very stupid. The dialogue is cheesy and stupid, the acting's terrible. the music is somewhat enjoyable and the plot is little to none.<br /><br />For tweeny-boppers who still love Aaron Carter, you'll enjoy it. If you're a casual watcher like me, this is NOT the movie for you | negative |
Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time. This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting. The script is unbelievable. The dialog is unbelievable. Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one. The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy. It also plugs in every cliche in the book. Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?<br /><br />Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review. When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape. Avoid this movie. | negative |
Halloween is a film I have to get out and watch every time it's THAT day of the year.I even watch it sometimes when it's not the holiday!!!This film is SO great.Jamie Lee Curtis is an actress I can never stop loving.This movie might be old,but the story line still gets me right there every time,and the acting was absolutely fantastic!!!Although I have not seen the remake,I feel already that it was TOTALLY unnecessary.I think Rob Zombie should have NEVER remade such a classic.What kills me though,is to know that there are some people out there who have seen the remake without even hearing of the original.I am getting furious just thinking about it!!!!!!This movie was great,and it will always be remembered in history as a classic. | positive |
I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!<br /><br />Make no mistake this film is awful.<br /><br />Here's a list of reasons:<br /><br />Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.<br /><br />Get the picture?<br /><br /> | negative |
The 1967 In Cold Blood was perhaps more like "the real thing" (Think about it: would we really want to see the real thing?), but it was black and white in a color world, and a lot of people didn't even know what it was, and there was an opportunity to remake it for television. Plus, if you remake it, you can show some stuff not shown in the original. The book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote was the first "nonfiction novel". Truman's book was in fact not 100% true to the real story. I thought the Canadian location sufficed for Kansas pretty much for a TV movie. Look for the elements of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: Dick's womanizing, Perry being an aspirin junkie, Perry playing blues guitar. | positive |
This was one of the best shows ever made for TV. Full of mystery and intrigue and twists and turns. Compulsive viewing. I was lucky I saw this in the UK. They might have got the episode order wrong, I can't remember, but it at least was on at a regular time every week. My girlfriend and I got hooked from the trailer in, and neither of us is a big fan of American series normally.<br /><br />After the pilot, we knew this was something special. We missed a couple of episodes, and it made you sad and mad for a week missing those ones lol.<br /><br />Great casting, superb acting. Gary Cole was absolutely brilliant, better even than his role as Custer. Lucas Black turned in an amazing performance for a kid, and Paige Turco was at her best too since Party of Five. And Nick Searcy of course, as the Sheriff's long suffering sidekick.<br /><br />Yes, there were some confusing and perplexing bits, which I presume would have been explained later, and no doubt would have been in a later series. That made the ending weak, and you could tell they'd killed it. Made us go WHAT? Why did they do that with one of the best shows ever? Shoot the exec. | positive |
This movie really has no beginning or end. And it's really VERY unbelievable. Mary-K and Ashley are supposed to be interns working in a mailing room for an Italian fashion company. But, for some reason, they're put up in a 5-star hotel (conveniently located across the street from the Coliseum), and all of the other interns they work with are just as abnormally model-looking as they are. One thing that I found obvious in this movie is the way that one of the twins DOESN'T end up with the guy. I guess they tried to twist their usual plot a bit. Nice try. | negative |
I realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.<br /><br />If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.<br /><br />The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.<br /><br />If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.<br /><br />It could have been so much better. | negative |
I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture<br /><br />was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.<br /><br /> | positive |
This is a tedious movie. The real villains are the clunky adaptation (it's embarrassingly easy to tell that the source material was a novel) and witless screenplay.<br /><br />On the credit side, considering the budget was tight due to wartime austerity, the look of the film isn't at all bad. And the performances are, by and large, OK, except for Phyllis Calvert, who is terrific - a miracle considering the potential for winsomeness, a pit into which she most definitely does not fall. Ms Calvert, with a lot less to go on, is as accomplished as Olivia de Havilland in Gone With The Wind.<br /><br />The one absolutely unbearable aspect of The Man in Grey is the dreadfully conceived depiction of a black serving boy. No matter that he's meant to be a sympathetic character. Played badly by a white boy in black-face make-up, it is impossible to by-pass this example of condescending racism.<br /><br />Grim. | negative |
Oh gosh,I'm really fed up with all these generic Japanese horror films about long-haired female ghosts and ghostly kids."Ghost Train" is no exception.It is clearly influenced by "Ringu","Ju-On","Shutter" and "Pulse".Two years ago I was into such modern ghost stories,because they usually managed to give me some goosebumps,unfortunately there is nothing fresh or interesting in "Ghost Train".In fact the film is really boring.Noriko goes missing in a subway tunnel-like an elementary-school classmate-Nana must investigate a mystery of multiple disappearances,with the help of a youthful train conductor and another "disappeared" child's mother.The film offers some mildly creepy moments,however the CGI effects are laughable and the climax is illogical.Skip it. | negative |
I saw the movie on its North American premiere (July 14, 2004) at the Fantasia Festival. I was slightly disappointed as I had been expecting a more epic, ensemble cast movie along the lines of Musa the Warrior. Instead, the movie concentrated only a much smaller number of characters. Still, the movie was solid, thoughtful and visually intriguing. There were slightly jarring tone shifts from the dominant thoughtful and realistic tone of confused loyalties, intrigue and blood, versus the lighter, more flamboyant, martial arts sequences. It almost seemed as though the filmmakers couldn't make up their minds about whether the movie was supposed to be a martial arts "flick" or a historical epic. The story touches nicely on the issue about the need for loyalty versus the need to adapt to new situations. Is it really worth your life and those of your friends to be loyal to one's master or does there come a time when one must submit to the winds of change? Is there perhaps greater courage in leaving the old ways for new ones? How does one decide? These questions are raised in this movie, and ironically, there is the suggestion that the answer given, may in fact be the wrong one! | positive |
OK, here is my personal list of top Nicktoons shows as in today:<br /><br />1. All Grown Up/SpongeBob SquarePants<br /><br />2. My Life as a Teenage Robot<br /><br />3. Invader Zim<br /><br />4. CATSCRATCH/Rugrats<br /><br />Notice a word with only capital letters? That means this is the Nick show I'm going to talk about.<br /><br />"Catscratch" is basically a simple but great animated comedy about three wealthy cats - Mr. Blik, Gordon, and Waffles - who get into weird and REALLY surreal situations, from attempting to join Human Kimberely's slumber party for root beer to saving a planet of slugs from the evil spaceship. This is one Nick show that you will simply have your funny bone tickled sooner or later! The theme song is catchy and memorable. Voice actors - including Wayne Knight from the "Seinfield" franchise - brings the characters to fresh life with very quirky personalities. The stories are enjoyable (fans' episodes would be "King of All Root Beer" and "Gordon's Lucky Claw"). And the humor is all done in some style of Earthworm Jim. <br /><br />So in conclusion, "Catscratch" is one of the Nicktoons series, like "Invader Zim" and "MLAATR", which becomes very, very popular all over the world in just 3 seasons or less. | positive |
The actors did a really good job playing their roles--particularly the mom. However, as the movie progressed I found I was watching it more for their acting and not because I cared in the least for the people. And, at times, I felt irritated by the irresponsible and hands-off approach to parenting displayed again and again. The daughter is a 17 year-old shallow skank whose main ambition in life is bedding famous men and becoming a dancing nyphette (complete with lots of "booty shaking"). The son is a guy with low self-esteem that seems very desperate for a relationship and friends--so much that he throws a drug party late in the film. The husband and wife are both bored, but rather than put energy into their stale relationship would rather seek out new partners (though the wife picks poorly, as the man she "throws herself at" happens to be gay---OOPS!). I just felt that ALL the characters needed to grow up and had a hard time caring for such shallow jerks. I think the author's attempt was to demonstrate the utter banality and hollowness of the capitalist system. However, given that these characters are NOT typical of the average western family, it seems disingenuous. | negative |
I read Tom Robbins' EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES as a teenager. I loved every word. It was sexy, funny, and full of glamorous scenery and beautiful writing. But when I saw the movie, I could not believe what a dull, sour, joyless piece of junk it was. How did this happen? I think someone in Hollywood read this book and filed it under "GAY PRIDE -- WOMEN -- LESBIANS." (That's the Library of Congress subject heading.) Now anyone over 12 who reads the book will know it has NOTHING TO DO with real lesbians, any more than STAR WARS is about real space travel. The book was obviously -- and I do mean OBVIOUSLY --written by a heterosexual male who loves the IDEA of lesbians (in the nude, all the time)but has never really met one.<br /><br />Still, someone in Hollywood said, "uh oh, better give this to a Gay director or Gay People will make trouble." So they handed it to Gus Van Sant. Nothing against the man, but -- however Gay he may really be -- he has not a clue as to how to make a funny film. Gus Van Sant took a straight man's playful fantasy of guilt-free girl/girl action and male voyeurism turned it into a dull, literal-minded Lesbian Power Recruiting Poster. It's like turning an Oscar Wilde comedy into an Arthur Miller tragedy. Not pretty.<br /><br />The main clue that Gus Van Sant had absolutely no idea what to do with the source material is the riotously bad casting. His clout allowed him to hire the very best. His ignorance of the novel's real subtext (a straight man's fantasy, not a gay pride recruiting poster)caused him to make choices that were not only bad, but bizarre.<br /><br />Let's meet the cast of EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES.<br /><br />PAT MORITA as "THE CHINK" Okay, there are few name-recognition Asian actors. And Pat Morita, in HAPPY DAYS, was fairly funny. But casting him as THE CHINK was wrong, wrong, wrong. Pat Morita has no idea that the Chink is a very funny man. (Gus didn't tell him.) Pat also doesn't seem to know that the Chink is . . . well, SEXY!!! In the book he's not wise old Mr. Miyagi. He's more like Hugh Hefner! He's a randy old goat and he knows A LOT about pleasing the nubile and responsive Sissy AND Bonanza Jellybean. (You see, in the book, they aren't REALLY lesbians. Do you get that this is a straight man's fantasy yet?) <br /><br />JOHN HURT as "THE COUNTESS." Okay, he's a gay friendly man. But he is a SERIOUS, SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR!!!! You need someone who is fun, and camp, for this role. For John Hurt to be cast as a goofy guy like the Countess is tragic and sad. I kept expecting Paul Scofield to wander in all dressed up as Thomas More, and sadly shake his head. "Now, Richard, you know you've lost your soul entirely. For shame, my former student!" And yes, John Hurt was funny (and pretty gay) as Caligula. But that was BLACK humor, not playful and breezy humor like the book.<br /><br />RAIN PHOENIX as "Bonanza Jellybean." No talent, no training, no problem. Except that in the book Bonanza is funny, playful, cheerful, (mostly) heterosexual, and loving. In the movie she's sullen, passive, expressionless, and dull. As for her taste for women, Robbins in the book puts it like this. "God knows I love women, but nothing can take the place of a man that fits." Uh, Gus? Did you read this book? <br /><br />UMA THURMAN as "Sissy Hankshaw." This is a tough role. In the book Sissy really is an unusually passive and timid heroine. Still, a more accomplished actress might have manufactured a twinkle in her eye, or a sway in her walk, to imply some sort of hidden strength or hidden enjoyment of her adventures. Uma doesn't pull it off, probably because Gus never told her Sissy is supposed to ENJOY being a hitch hiker with a beautiful body and giant thumbs. Uma plays it more like she's in a TV movie about a girl dying of leukemia. <br /><br />This movie is sour and dull. And I accuse YOU, Gus Van Sant! | negative |
The beginning of this movie is excellent with tremendous sound and some nice humor, but once the film changes into animation it quickly loses its appeal.<br /><br />One of the reasons that was so, at least for me, was that the colors in much of the animation are too muted, with too little contrast. It doesn't look good, at least on VHS. Once in a while it breaks out and looks great, but not often Also, the characters come and go too quickly. For example, I would have liked to have seen more of "Moby Dick." When the film starts to drag, however, it picks up again with the entrance of the dragon and then the film finishes strong. <br /><br />Overall, just not memorable enough or able to compete with the great animated films of the last dozen years. | negative |
Definitely a very good idea,screenplay was just OK.Could have been better,The positives are that it doesn't bore you if you're an adventure lover,A new idea about the lost world of Atlantis.Negatives are that I personally feel that this idea had so much more potential than this.They should've ended up with a better adventure than this.It wasn't bad at all but it would have been much better with some more runtime.Enjoyed it a lot though,Cant say that it was boring or wasn't good..A good one for the people who like adventure animations like Sindbad,like The road to el Dorado.This movie is also recommended for people looking for a nice little adventure with a very nice happy ending. | positive |
An excellent cast who do their best with an awful script, inept direction, and some of the worst score that I have ever heard. More TV movie of the week than serious drama. Which is sad when one considers that the source material is very serious and very real. The film makers decided that instead of building drama and character, it was better to just show the most graphic and violent bits and hope that the audience would be shocked into sympathy and caring. In my opinion, one the most blatant forms of cut and paste film adapting. | negative |
This is one of my favorite films, ever. The story is just so fantastic and the characters are so good. Unlike the other Disney films of the age, this film never bores the audience. 101 Dalmations, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, they were all good, but lack what we have here. This is funny, creative, and always on target. This movie just has an extra something that you can't learn in books. However, this is not the best animated film ever made. That title belongs to the BRILLIANT Toy Story. But this is a respectable second, immediately followed by The Lady and the Tramp.Just see it and enjoy what one of the cinema's greatest achievements. And by the by, I'm not a little kid, this is for the older audiences wanting to recapture their childhood. An absolute must! | positive |
I have seen this movie. This movie is the best according today's need. Dowry in marriages is the major problem nowadays. In stating this problem this movie is the best. In this movie, the Indian values are stated very well. Today's youth must understand this problem. There is less population of girls. And due to this problem of dowry , the girls committed suicide. If this problem continues, then the day when there is no girl child, is not far away.So, keep in mind this statement ,today's youth must understand that we can not take dowry in marriages.We have to learn from this movie that the dowry should not be taken.And if we understand this problem then we can see the new trend in the society. This is the major change in the society. | positive |
I first rented this film many years ago, and was completely enthralled by it. Just recently, feeling a strange need to revisit some of the way-too-few films that I've immensely enjoyed in my lifetime, I decided to give "Erendira" another look. And I'm glad I did, as I soon discovered that even the passage of time has not in the least dulled the shine of this film.<br /><br />The story is about a teenaged girl (Erendira, played remarkably by Claudia O'hana - in some respects she resembles Winona Ryder!) who accidentally burns down her grandmother's mansion after which the grandmother, played downright hypnotically by Irene Papas, forces the girl into a life of prostitution on the road to repay the damages. <br /><br />The viewing is at once fascinating and compelling - though, inspite of the basic premise, which deals with prostitution, is tastefully void of gratuitous steamy sexual content. The story revolves more around the interactions between the girl and her grandmother, and the various other colorful characters with whom they come into contact on their sojourn - which, by the way, is in the rough and tumble part of rural Mexico.<br /><br />The film is very atmospheric, arrestingly enigmatic with a decided dreamlike quality. It sometimes borders on the bizarre, but not to the point of, say, a David Lynch film. It's also worth mentioning that the film is very allegorical in nature, read the comments from previous viewers below...<br /><br />Often in the background you hear the sounds of a lone accordion, quiet and melancholy, adding just the right musical accents to highlight the Mexican setting. The cinematography of the rural places, many of which are in the desert, is quite superb.<br /><br />The film moves at a nice pace, neither too fast nor too slow, and after every scene I felt I had to rewind the tape and play it over again, just because it makes you want to do that. For me anyway, it really is that compelling.<br /><br />Hopefully you will see the film in its Spanish language version, with subtitles. I studied Spanish in high school as well as in college, and I was happy to be able to understand much of the dialogue. Por ejemplo: "El mundo no es tan grande como pensaba." ("The world's not as big as I thought" - i.e., It's a small world.)<br /><br />This film somehow reminds me of stumbling upon a dusty old bottle of vintage wine, which, upon drinking, is immensely satisfying, however, you are left with some sadness upon realizing that there aren't more bottles just like this one. | positive |
I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently "Eastern-European" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?<br /><br />I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on??? | negative |
Not a stunner, but a good movie to see once or twice. Bill Macy shows he can do more than just act; his writing was pretty darn good. Great supporting cast, especially Jamie Cromwell as the extortionist private eye.<br /><br />The movie's greatest strength is the work of Macy, who reminds us of his Jerry Lundergaard role from Fargo. He has numerous scenes where he is extremely funny as a slimy, manipulating and deceitful character. It's enjoyable to watch him be a weasel, and for a while I was happy that things were turning out well for him. *** out of four. | positive |
Me and my friend rented this movie for $2.50. And we both agree on one thing:<br /><br />THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!<br /><br />Also me and my friend counted 475 face shots. (Which makes up 95% of the movie).<br /><br />So in other words: DO SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU LIKE WASTING MONEY! And I do!<br /><br /> | negative |
Most Christmas movies have a "redemption" theme but most are a variation on a very similar plot. This movie is wacky and has an unusual plot. You may need to hang in there for the first half where events may seem hard to believe for a movie (but not as unbelievable as real life - Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, says he's never made up anything in any of his cartoons - they're all based on real life stories told to him by his fans). The second half starts to fit the plot together. I enjoyed it. <br /><br />BTW, one reviewer noted that the idea of someone not having cash available is not credible in these days of ATMs, but it's perfectly credible if you've lost your wallet - who carries ATM cards anywhere else while on a business trip? | positive |
I decided to watch this because of the recommendations from this site. I would have to say it was worth the effort. However, you should take heed that this film will go on for 210 minutes. If you don't have the staying power, get it on tape and watch it over a couple of nights.<br /><br />Now to the film, what I say will contain "spoilers" and if you don't mind, here goes: <br /><br />Alexandre is a promiscuous bum, a womanizer and a gigolo. He lives with an older woman called Marie. Marie owns a retail shop and she provides for Alex. Alex spends his days at cafés and restaurants. The story reveals that Alex had previously impregnated Gilberte whom he used to live with. Gilberte dumped him for a less attractive man that she did not love because Alex had abused and battered her. At this point, Alex was willing to get a job and and help raise their child before he found out Gilberte had aborted it and planned to marry someone else. <br /><br />By chance, Alexandre meets a nurse nymph called Veronika and they striked up a relationship. Veronika fell in love with Alex for the first time after all the sordid sex she had with men in the past. Marie and Veronika struggles for Alex's affection and had a ménage à trois to boot. Finally at the end, it's revealed Veronika is pregnant with Alex's child and Alex asked her to marry him. We assume (as aforesaid with Gilberte's situation) Alexandre will even get a job and be the provider for his new found love and family. There is hope! <br /><br />With the title of "La Maman et la putain", I deduce Jean Eustache was relating to Françoise Lebrun's character of Veronika. She was a whore and then she became the mother. Hence, the mother and whore is the same person? Anyway, what do I know! French films are mostly (not all) very chatty, aimlessly political, preaching, theatrical, insipid, lamenting and full of quotes. Lebrun and Léaud played their obdurate characters well and held the film together as some part of the script became a little lost and disjointed. <br /><br />Not a bad effort. 7/10. | positive |
Joan Fontaine is "A Damsel in Distress" in this 1937 musical starring Fred Astaire, George Burns, and Gracie Allen. The plot, what there is of it, is about a British woman (Fontaine) in love with an American, who is mistaken for Astaire, a musical comedy star.<br /><br />The film, directed by George Stevens, contains some wonderful Gershwin music, including "Nice Work if You Can Get It" and "A Foggy Day." The best scene is the "Stiff Upper Lip" number, which takes place in a fun house.<br /><br />Astaire's singing voice sounds more robust in this film than it does in others, and he has a couple of excellent dance numbers. Burns plays his over the top publicist and Allen is Burns' secretary. She's hilarious. The problem, as others have pointed out, is Fontaine, who has to dance with Astaire at the end of the film. Stevens could easily have used a double because he shows the dance in a long shot, and it takes place among the trees. I would have thought it was a double except the dancing was so lousy.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing despite its flaws. | positive |
Certain filmmakers can do no wrong in the eyes of national critics, which is one reason you should never pay attention to them. This film is a perfect example. The critics like director Eric Rohmer.<br /><br />This movie is a boring soap opera about a woman and a teenager ("Pauline") she's taking care of for the summer, and the relationships they have with a few men. It's talk, talk, talk and more talk. <br /><br />For those looking at the cover and hoping to be titillated, there are a few quick nude shots and a couple of swear words but otherwise this is a harmless French morality play. A friend of mine loaned me this tape. He thought he was getting some sexy French film, and was disappointed. I was just as disappointed because it also was so boring. <br /><br />How this gets such great reviews is almost unfathomable. | negative |
I found West Point to be an agreeable film, although I doubt that I would watch it again. The performances were convincing, with William Haines as yet another obnoxiously amusing young man that has his come-uppance by film's end. It's hard to believe that stardom beckoned Joan Crawford less than a year after this film was made, as she looks rather awkward at times. <br /><br />I would apply the comment made by another concerning Ramon Novarro's "Huddle" (1932) to this film as well. There is a great film waiting to be made here, but there is something lacking. The backdrop and integration of the Corps was well utilized, but I was less involved than I thought that I would be. Perhaps Haines' character went too far, or got away with too much. His "repentance" did not seem genuine enough; and what kind of message did it send for him to run every play in the last minutes of the Army-Navy game? Where's "the Corps" in that? Might as well have taken out the other ten men and let him do it all himself. Also, I doubt very much that William Bakewell's weak, puny character would ever have a real-life counterpart at West Point.<br /><br />All this aside, the film is sometimes very moving and inspiring. It is a fine look into the daily practices of an honorable institution. Thank goodness that tradition still means something at West Point too, unlike the vapid "traditions" of Ivy League schools, only half-heartedly engaged in these days.<br /><br />As to the score: it was appropriately martial. But, there was a distinct over-use of snare drums. Using them for knocks on the door, scene transitions, et ALU as well as in well over half the scenes got to be rather tedious. It rather lessened the viewing experience. I was ready to say "I GET THE POINT ALREADY." <br /><br />With that, enjoy the film, but don't expect too much emotional involvement. | positive |
i love this movie. is it on air anymore? what can i do to get it on air again because i miss this movie when does this movie air again? i love this movie so much. does anyone know how long it has been since it was last on Disney?it has been a very very long time and i am so sick of waiting!i want to see Susie Q again. i swear, they take all the good movies off air and play new stupid gay ones that are fake and retarded. i miss this movie, wish upon a star, Kazaam with Shaquille O'neil, and a bunch more. where did all the good movies go? i want them back.i miss all the good movies and they don't have them anymore. if anybody finds out if Susie Q or any good old Disney movie comes out will you please let me know, my email is [email protected] girlygirl(no blank space)148. thank you and i hope you want this movie back too. have a great day | positive |
I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.<br /><br />I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it. | positive |
I honestly don't know what words IMDB will allow me to use in this review, as a result, I'm having a hard time describing these shorts. Let's just say there's a good amount of gay sex, some necrophilia, some incest, a fair amount of masturbation, and several artificial.... members. And I loved every minute of it.<br /><br />Not that it's ALL crude humor. It isn't. They stray away from fart gags for the most part, with the exception of one sketch entitled "Pizza" in which they use one very well. "They" being 3/11ths of the short-lived sketch comedy group that aired on MTV called The State, namely David Wain, Michael Showalter, and Michael Ian Black.<br /><br />The trio go on adventures, usually playing themselves and encounter strange and unusual people, people that are often actually more normal than they are. The supporting cast is fantastic as well. Paul Rudd, Julie Bowen, Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Sam Rockwell all make appearances in various sketches. They're also joined by other The State alums like Joe Lo Truglio and Todd Holoubek. The musical selections are also very well placed.<br /><br />I've enjoyed these sketches over and over again, but they aren't for everybody as they're pretty vulgar most of the time. If you like clever humor that isn't afraid to push the limits of good taste, then I highly recommend this. If you liked Wet Hot American Summer (Directed and written by Wain and Showalter) or The State, then you should really enjoy this.<br /><br />I think it can currently only be ordered online. Check out their website and stream a couple of sketches to get an idea if you really want this first, and then find out how to buy the DVD. | positive |
It seems Hal Hartley's films are kind of hit or miss with most audiences. This film will be no exception to that rule. Fay Grim acts as a sequel to Hartley's 'Henry Foole' from 1998. The focus this time is on Henry's ex wife (played to perfection by the always welcome Parker Posey), who is being pestered by CIA goons about Henry's unpublished book about all of his shady dealings. In the interim of all of this, Fay ends up on an odyssey,dealing with international spies,etc. The film does get a bit bogged down in the second half. If you've been a fan of Hal Hartley in the past, this is one not to be missed. For the novice Hartley first timer who has only heard of his film making technique, you might want to check out his earlier films before taking on this one (especially if you haven't seen 'Henry' yet). I admired the camera work,which at times reminded me of certain early Man Ray photography. | positive |
The film begins with a bunch of kids in reform school and focuses on a kid named 'Gabe', who has apparently worked hard to earn his parole. Gabe and his sister move to a new neighborhood to make a fresh start and soon Gabe meets up with the Dead End Kids. The Kids in this film are little punks, but they are much less antisocial than they'd been in other previous films and down deep, they are well-meaning punks. However, in this neighborhood there are also some criminals who are perpetrating insurance fraud through arson and see Gabe as a convenient scapegoat--after all, he'd been to reform school and no one would believe he was innocent once he was framed. So, when Gabe is about ready to be sent back to "The Big House", it's up to the rest of the gang to save him and expose the real crooks.<br /><br />The "Dead End Kids" appeared in several Warner Brothers films in the late 1930s and the films were generally very good (particularly ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES). However, after the boys' contracts expired, they went on to Monogram Studios and the films, to put it charitably, were very weak and formulaic--with Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey being pretty much the whole show and the group being renamed "The Bowery Boys". Because ANGELS WASH THEIR FACES had the excellent writing and production values AND Hall and Gorcey were not constantly mugging for the camera, it's a pretty good film--and almost earns a score of 7 (it's REAL close). In fact, while this isn't a great film aesthetically, it's sure a lot of fun to watch, so I will give it a 7! Sure, it was a tad hokey-particularly towards the end when the kids take the law into their own hands and Reagan ignores the Bill of Rights--but it was also quite entertaining. The Dead End Kids are doing their best performances and Ronald Reagan and Ann Sheridan provided excellent support. Sure, this part of the film was illogical and impossible but somehow it was still funny and rather charming--so if you can suspend disbelief, it works well. | positive |
This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 | positive |
All right, there's no way to sugarcoat this. The plot was ridiculous, the premise was ridiculous, the acting was unconscionable, the effects were laughable and all of the outdoor scenes appear to have been filmed in New York's Central Park. That having been said, there was something about this movie that I couldn't walk away from. Maybe it was the atmosphere, or maybe it was the evil super-vixen or the amazon wenches.<br /><br />Anyway I'm not one to sit on the margins and criticise without pointing out a few redeeming qualities, so here they are.<br /><br />A violent off-shoot of the women's lib movement is portrayed in a wilderness setting (central park, of course), and all of the masochistic young men out there will be very impressed. Furthermore, some of the scenes in which certain characters lose consciousness are amusingly dramatic (you'll note that I write dramatic, rather than convincing).<br /><br />All I can say is that some people like B movies and I'm one of them. If you're one of them too, then give it a go. Cheers, Mr Kincaid. This is one for the ages. | negative |
I wanted to see this movie because I liked "Kavkazskij Plennik" ("Prisoner of the Mountains") and "Brat" ("Brother") with Sergey Bodrov, Jr. and "Vor" ("The Thief") with Vladimir Mashkov. Well, unlike the other movies, "The Quickie" was a total waste of time. The story that makes little sense, very uneven acting (Lesley Ann Warren was especially bad), really awful dialogs, poor cinematography, what else could go wrong? I find it amusing that in practically every American-made movie, when the same-language-speaking foreigners (Russians in this case) are left alone, they prefer to communicate with each other mostly in broken English (and when they happen to speak Russian, for some reason translators feel obligated to add a lot of "f**ks" in the sentences, which have no profanity, literal or non-literal). At the same time, native-English-speaking actors choose to speak in broken Russian. Why is that? Getting back to the story, most of the subplots of the movie (e.g. betting the house, inviting Latin American paramilitaries, etc) either make no sense or do nothing more than confusing the viewers. It is too bad that Bodrov, Mashkov, and Leigh (all good actors in my humble opinion) got themselves involved in this disaster. | negative |
Firetrap is yet again another bad action film about a guy who- yada yada yada- and happy endings and fire, and burning, and overacting, and bad suspense, and predictable, and ------------------- just don't see.<br /><br />(Dean Cain got stuck playing Superman on Lois and Clark and can't get any good roles anymore. So i don't know if he is a good or bad actor.<br /><br />This isn't good.<br /><br />Why can't anybody stop that bad people who keep making these things? AI swear they just s*** them out on a conveyor belt and hope they are good. They need to make a guy whose job is to just burn the movies that look bad, just have a bucket of carosine next to him and dump the cases in. Then at the end of each day light it and go home. | negative |
I have given this film an elevated rating of 2 stars as I personally appear in minutes 42 and 43 of the film....the road side bar scene in Russia. In this scene the director of the movie offered me the immortal line - "50 Dollars..you Drink and Talk", but I felt that my Polish counterpart could speak in a more convincing Russian accent than I could, so I declined to take this speaking part on. I was slightly starstruck as this was my first Film experience....and who knows... these lines could have ended up there with lines such as "I'll be Back" and "Quite Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn". Had I spoken that one line then my name would appear in the credits of Rancid Aluminium as 'Heavy 1' instead of the name of Ryszard Janikowski. <br /><br />As time goes on, I am counting myself lucky that my name is in no way connected to this film.<br /><br />Even though I spent a whole day on the set, in South Wales hot-spot Barry Island, no one could tell me what the actual storyline was. The caterers and the wardrobe lady all concurred that it appeared to have a lot of swearing and nudity in it..... things could certainly have been worse if I'd ended up naked in this most dreadful of films....<br /><br />Still.....On the positive side....I got chatting to Rhys Ifans during one break. I had no idea who he was, as "Notting Hill" was yet to be released, and not an inkling that he might be Welsh. Made various inappropriate comments about what an awful pit Barry Island had become since my childhood visits there in the 70s and 80s. It was only when Keith Allen showed up that I realised I was in a quality production........ | negative |
I had to see this on the British Airways plane. It was terribly bad acting and a dumb story. Not even a kid would enjoy this. Something to switch off if possible. | negative |
Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)<br /><br />Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:<br /><br />(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.<br /><br />(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.<br /><br />(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.<br /><br />(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.<br /><br />(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled. | negative |
Darius Goes West is a film depicting American belief that everything is possible if you try hard enough. This wonderful fun filled and sometimes heartbreaking film shows a young man who never expected, but longed to see, what was outside the confines of his lovely city of Athens, GA. Darius wished to see the ocean. His longtime friends Logan, Ben and several other good friends decided to make Darius' wish come true. They started small - Ben & Logan's mom started an email campaign to bring awareness to Darius' condition: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and to raise funds for the fellas to take Darius to not only see the ocean but to see these great United States. To say the young college buddies succeeded in bringing hope and awareness to this dreaded disease would be an understatement. They realized Darius' dream and then some. They put their lives on hold while showing love, care and tons of fun to Darius while helping Darius see how he can in turn show those same traits to others suffering from DMD. Darius went on to volunteer for the Red Cross - sitting in his chair collecting money (along with his buddies) outside a local grocery store. His wonderful smile tells the world that dreams do come true - all you need is hope and a group of college friends to support and care for you. Give Darius and all the guys an Oscar - no one else deserves it more. Martha Sweeney. | positive |
First off, I would like to say that I am a fan of Chris Rock. I like his other movies, but this movie is just like my summary. The Biggest Sack of Crap ever. In the beginning, Chris Rock plays an aspiring comedian who get stage fright at a Comedy Building called the Apollo. On his way home from a gig, while riding his BIKE he sees this woman he likes and is hit by a Truck. A little while later, he chooses the body of an old, white, and selfish millionaire. Then, he dresses up like the music group Outkast while trying to replay the scene from the original where he comes out as a Jockey. Second, he goes back to the Apollo, and tries to be the comedian he tried to be in his previous body and starts dissing the white population and tries to be black. Do you get my drift? This movie is awful it tries too hard to be like the original and in the process comes out looking like a sack of crap. Just take my advice, don't even watch this movie. | negative |
Tycus is one of the worst films direct to video films that I see ever.<br /><br />I am not amazing that this product does not appearing at the cinema.Bad Visual effects (The start is dreadful)Bad actors (I don´t understand Why appear in this film the great Dennis Hopper)and Bad screen Without sense.My alternative:Armaggedon or Twister. SENTENCE FOR TYCUS:Do not watch this film. | negative |
"Gunga Din": one of the greatest adventure stories ever told! A story about the British Foreign legion in 19th century India and a lowly "water-bearer" named Gunga Din, a local denizen who aspires to be just like his military counterparts; three British sergeants whose loyalty and camaraderie for each other extend far beyond the bounds of mere patriotism. Their's is a true and abiding friendship for one another and each would be willing to sacrifice his own life for the good of the other. Gunga Din longs to be a soldier too, a Bugler in particular, but can never attain that rank due to his subordinate social standing. However, heroes are not made according to their social credentials, they're made through their willingness to sacrifice for the greater good of others. Gunga Din tries at every turn to prove his mettle, but will he ever attain the rank he so passionately seeks?...."You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"! One of Hollywood's classics and a perfect 10!!!! | positive |
I got this movie for fifty cents at a going out of business sale. I want my fifty cents back. Bad acting, poor script writing, lousy direction, historically inaccurate, even the sound of the film is awful. It's not the subject matter that offends. I'm one of the many who find suspense films and true crime films very interesting. The subject matter could have been treated more seriously, with much more attention to detail and accuracy, and the lack of respect shown for the victims and their devastated friends and family is enough to puzzle anyone. Also, there is little to no attention paid to what could have caused someone to begin the bizarre behavior that Ed Gein was displaying in acting out these horrible crimes. <br /><br />Save your time and sanity. Don't watch this awful film. If you bought it, you have my sympathy. It's not a total waste though...you can throw away the disc and make use of the plastic case! | negative |
The Last Command (1928) is a silent film directed by Josef von Sternberg.It shows us Czarist General, Grand Duke Sergius Alexander (Emil Jannings) in his days of glory.In 1917 he had all the power but after the revolution and the collapse of Imperial Russia he has nothing.He also had the love of a woman, Natalie Dabrova (Evelyn Brent).About ten years later he applies for a small part in a film about the revolution.His old enemy Lev Andreyev (William Powell) is the director who gets to choose whether to hire him as a film extra or not.The Last Command is very good silent drama.Emil Jannings does memorable role work in the lead.Evelyn Brent is wonderful playing the woman lead.William Powell is great as always.There are plenty of scenes to remember in this movie.Like many scenes with Jannings and Brent.And then there is the ending with Powell and Jannings.This is a movie that touches in many parts. | positive |
This review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.<br /><br />It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.<br /><br />Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.<br /><br />A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.<br /><br />The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.<br /><br />I however, did know when to stop, and did.<br /><br />Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points! | negative |
Out of boredom and vast curiosity, I decided to check this show out today since my four year old niece loves it. I should have known that it was a show that only a four year old could like. The show was pretty bad.<br /><br />First of all, the show just wasn't funny. The laugh track went off at the most inappropriate times which was very annoying, especially since none of the jokes were funny. The laugh track went off at some point when the one kid who's the cameraman said "I'm going to go polish my lense". How the hell is that funny? The parts in it (like meat drumming) that were supposed to be funny was just stupid to anyone who's over the age of eleven.<br /><br />Now, I have a feeling that four year olds are not the target audience. However, since I have a four year old niece who watches it, this sort of thing concerned me while I was watching it: It doesn't show very good behavior. In the episode I was watching, it shows Sam stealing Carly's sandwich and pushing her down to the ground, just so Carly can stand up and do the same thing back to her. I would not want to see my niece acting that rude. I also don't like the idea of two young girls having a web show where they give out personal information... If this was real, there would be freaks all over her.<br /><br />This show would probably be good and funny to someone who's eleven or younger, but anyone older than that, just stay away from it. I'll give this two stars since I guess I can see how it can be funny to a kid. | negative |
I do admit that my review is from a 2006 point of view, nearly 30 years after the making of this movie and at the time of its conception, it may have been a brilliant horror/thriller movie.<br /><br />Beginning on Halloween night 1968, 6 year old Michael commits the brutal murder of his 18 year old sister. Michael is committed to a mental institution and 15 years later escapes and returns to his home town to murder again.<br /><br />From this point it is clear that the movie will follow a basic and rudimentary path that is highly predictable. The beginning of every scene is easily predictable in the way it will end whilst the music for each scene containing Michael (the murderer) is exactly the same throughout the movie, thus alerting the viewer to the likely events to follow.<br /><br />For the horror/thriller enthusiast, there is a severe lack of blood/gore compared to modern day films although I am not akin to the amount that is displayed in this day and age. A happier medium could have been found.<br /><br />From a half hour into the movie, not one scene is unexpected. The acting for a horror/thriller film is fairly typical of the era and thus lacks any punch for the modern day enthusiast.<br /><br />A positive for the film is its lingering camera shots and dark lighting which creates a frightening atmosphere. A second positive would be the character of Michael's doctor, who provides clues to the probability of where the story may lead.<br /><br />However, it is clear that the star, in Jamie-Lee Curtis, is in the infancy stages of her acting career and thus fails to provide a truly frightened central victim.<br /><br />It is hard for me to rate this film as it was in its day, but from other horror/thriller films of indeed the 80s and to a lesser extent, the 90s, it falls far short of a truly great horror/thriller film.<br /><br />I suggest you move on and find a classic from the 80s. Cheers! | negative |
The Jaws rip off is the trashiest of the all the Italian 'genres', and director Joe D'Amato is second only to the great Jess Franco in the trash film production stakes. Put the two together and what do you get? A gigantic piece of trash, of course. Unfortunately it's not trash in the good sense of the word either, as Deep Blood delivers more in boredom than it does in hilarity. To the film's credit, it does actually attempt something bordering on a plot; but to take said credit away from the film - the plot is rubbish. It has something to do with a group of friends taking of an oath (of friendship) and then some Indian curse that manifests itself into a shark. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Anyway, the majority of the film is padded out with boring dialogue and 'drama', and the shark itself - which lets not forget, is the only thing we really want to see - finds itself in merely a cameo role. Or not even that since most the shark is actually stock footage! Despite being a trash genre, there are actually a lot of fun Jaws rip-offs; but with this one, Joe D'Amato makes it clear that he couldn't be bothered to even try, and the result is what must be the worst Italian shark movie of all time. Avoid this dross. | negative |
I would like to say something different about this movie. I saw comments how beautiful is Russia and the views from Russia have been great. Hey guys this is not Russia it's Bulgaria more specific the capital Sofia. So this is not Russia it's my country. About the movie - well in Bulgaria, maybe except the Grey Zone - all movies from American directors are in one word awful like this one of course. It's a shame that Patrick Swayze has to play in such a low budget movies. Most of the actors are Bulgarians but really this movie has no plot twist has no energy what can i say-weak and boring movie a cliché not more. Hey people remember it's not Russia in reality it's Bulgaria. | negative |
Hey! The Grudge 2! What up, man? I have a friend I would like you to meet. The Grudge 2 meet Johnny's Worst of 2006 list. Johnny's Worst of 2006 list meet The Grudge 2.<br /><br />What's going on here? I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a sequel to The Grudge rather than a remake. If that's the case then why does it do nothing but rehash the original? This floater doesn't even feel like a movie. It's just a 90-minute soundtrack of the weird contortionist chick making that annoying croaking sound.<br /><br />A sound on which I'd recommend you not get me started. It was kind of creepy the first time I heard it, but I've heard it about 12,367 times since 2004, so it's pretty much run its course. And it's made even more annoying by the 20 people in the audience who thought it'd be funny to imitate the sound whenever there was a quiet spot in the movie. Sigh.<br /><br />Folks, YOU'RE NOT FUNNY SO JUST SHUT UP! I promise you, EVERY SINGLE TIME that a character was walking slowly through an empty room (which is approximately 97% of the movie), somebody in the audience would start it up, "Uhhhhkkkkkkuuuuuhhhhhkkkkkk." Yes, I know that's a horrible way to replicate the sound with letters, but you get the gist. So then some dude in the audience would giggle, and not to be outdone, deliver his own rendition. I was very close to just walking through the audience and punching random people.<br /><br />I told you not to get me started.<br /><br />There's absolutely nothing about The Grudge 2 that I can recommend. There's not a single original scare or idea in the entire film. There's not one memorable acting performance. Are you a Sarah Michelle Gellar fan? Welp, enjoy her two minutes of screen time and one line of dialogue. Are you an Amber Tamblyn fan? I hope you can deal with the fact that she's given nothing more to do than walk around looking like she's suffering from a pinched nerve. Can you believe the story (if you can call it that) is even worse than The Grudge's? <br /><br />At least the original was fairly creepy and boasted a few effective jump scenes. I didn't jump once during this lametrosity (yeah, I made the word up, deal with it). That's right. Not a single time. The "scares" are so manufactured and they are so blatantly telegraphed that there is absolutely no shock value once the "gotcha" moment arrives. Watching this movie is like playing a good game of chess - you're always four or five scenes ahead.<br /><br />There are also some weird scenes thrown in that make no sense whatsoever. One that immediately comes to mind is a scene where a girl drinks a gallon of milk and then begins to regurgitate it back into the jug. Huh? I say HUH?!?! The audience laughed. I shook my head and sighed. There was a lot of that during the movie. Laughing. Sighing. Head shaking. Falling asleep (I did twice).<br /><br />The movie even makes a 1/5th-hearted attempt at a plot "twist." Wow. It's so bad that I don't think we should even dignify it by labeling it a twist. Did they really think anybody would be surprised at the revelation of who was hiding under the hoodie? Please. It was as shocking as Elton John coming out of the closet.<br /><br />And of course the ending goes the whole non-closure "look, we might have another sequel" route. As soon as the credits rolled the audience booed. My sentiments exactly. Had the audience paid money for this turd burger then things would have most likely gotten violent, and I would've gladly led the charge.<br /><br />We learned from The Grudge that there's a Japanese belief that when someone dies in a powerful grip of rage, then a curse is left behind. Much like a Ben Affleck movie, it's a "stain" that forever becomes a part of the place where the death occurred. Well, in The Grudge 2 we learn that when a horror movie covers its budget during its opening weekend then its sequel will be rushed out, and more often than not it will be as bad as this and will leave a stain on any theater where the movie shows.<br /><br />THE GIST <br /><br />If you're a total wimp and never saw The Grudge then this might provide a few cheap scares. But I strongly recommend saving your money, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be the one walking out of the theater with a grudge. | negative |
The powerhouse cast pulls the crowd in the theatre, despite the ominous title. Jake Gyllenhaal guested on Conan O'Brien to promote the movie and explained that 'Rendition' was a euphemism for obtaining information via torture. Since 9/11, 'extraordinary rendition' allowed the government's intelligence agency to extricate people unquestioningly without due process and use any means necessary in exchange for information.<br /><br />Gyllenhaal plays rookie CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (note the irony) who is torn about his assignment which renders him as a mere observer to unorthodox interrogation proceedings at an underground detention facility outside the US. <br /><br />Omar Metwally plays the suspected terrorist Anwar El-Ibrahimi, Egyptian national and green card-carrying hubby of American Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Isabella and her son wait for Anwar to come home from a scientific conference when he suddenly disappears from the plane's passenger manifest. She seeks help from her college friend who works in government and learns that the Head of Intelligence, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) is behind it all. <br /><br />Rendition is directed by Hollywood newbie Gavin Hood (who is set to do X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and begs the question of whether such 'extraordinary rendition' is exercised in real life. The movie was released locally in the wake of the Glorietta explosion (bombing/mishap?), and a pivotal scene in the movie is when a bomb explodes in a public plaza, so that must have sent chills up every moviegoer's spine. Seeing the exploding tableau with a lone red and yellow sign Aajala (Ayala?) on the upper right hand of the screen, plus the effect of silence and slow-moving images magnified the impact of the scene's real-life coincidence. <br /><br />There are lessons to learn from this movie and it all boils down to personal decisions we make, daily. We all have choices we can exercise at will, and we often do not always (want to) see how these affect others, who may end up as hapless victims of circumstance. What 'the greater good' is should not have to be a forced choice our leaders have to take if we each already decide correctly at the source. Now that's a utopia worth building. | positive |
I've probably been spoilt by having firstly seen the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack so the 1983 adaptation is such a disappointment. I just didn't get any chemistry between the 2 main stars. A lot of staring and theatrical acting just doesn't do it for me, and what was all that about putting Tim in the role of Rochester. Had the casting director actually ever read the book. Very strange! He's a fine actor but Mr. Rochester he definitely isn't! And Zelah was just, well, strange, bit of a mix matched couple. In it's favour the supporting cast were pretty good and the Lowood scenes for me were the best of the adaptation, but overall didn't capture any of the magic of the novel. Certainly wouldn't ask anyone to watch it as a true adaptation of the novel. A real let down! | negative |
I have recently become a huge fan of Patton Oswalt. I think he's the most deliciously original comedian to come along in ages. He is refreshing and fearless in his routines, which run the gamut of topics from how much Bush sucks to the sleazy exploits of 1970s producer Robert Evans. I'm a longtime fan of Maria Bamford and her wide-eyed innocent/schizophrenic routine. Whenever she effortlessly switches her naturally high-pitched voice to one that is clipped and throaty, I can't help but giggle. I liked Brian Posehn long before I even knew he was on "Just Shoot Me", and there is something so innately funny about his aging nerd persona. All three of these talented, unique comedians headline "The Comedians of Comedy", a Netflix documentary about their U.S. tour. They truly deserve to be stars, and this tour gave them the recognition they so richly deserve. I thought,no, I KNEW I'd like this movie...<br /><br />But I was wrong. Instead of the three comics each getting their own routine segments, "The Comedians of Comedy" is bogged down by meandering and dull documentary scenes that contain no humor, no insight, nothing of real interest. I think there is a total of 30 minutes of intermittent stand-up routines total in the 109 minute movie. What a rip-off! Come on, is anyone really interested in seeing our stars banter in their RV? Where's the humor in seeing Posehn in an arcade and a comic book shop? Does anyone find random diner scenes particularly funny? If this movie couldn't have shown our comics strutting their stuff, at least make it about what life is like on the road. It's not even about that. Worst of all, the comics never appear to be having real fun. Oswalt admits how bored he is doing a radio interview, Posehn sheepishly admits to how much he sucks at giving a tour of his home, and Bamford nervously improvises every time the camera is pointed at her, and her humor there is only sporadic.<br /><br />Sheesh, these guys deserve a chance to show the world their unconventional, amazingly crafted humor that is a refreshing change of pace from the brainless entertainment of mainstream comics like Dane Cook. Instead, we have to sit through their mundane, everyday routines on the road in a substandard bore of a movie whose quality could easily be surpassed by any student film. If you can locate any of Oswalt's, Posehn's, or Bamford's performances on DVD, by all means do. Their talent should be a joy to behold, not a chore like it is here. | negative |
I was actually around 13 years old camping near the McCloud River, near Shasta when this movie was being filmed. My family was paid to leave our campsite for the afternoon, when they filmed Vincent floating down the river. A little trivia...the scene where they pulled him out, was actually where he started his float down the river. And if the stunt man missed the netting, there was 20 foot waterfall about 1/4 mile down farther.<br /><br />Anyway...I watched it at the time, and didn't get it. It wasn't until years later when I saw the movie and actually understood the meaning of it. It's pretty powerful movie and certainly a fine job by Jan at such a young age. His movie career never really took off as expected, but of course he later found success on TV. I wish this movie was available, cause I would love to see it again. | positive |
This is one of the great movies of all time. The story is fascinating and the actors are convincing. Your really identify with the characters. William Wyler proofs with this movie that he is a great director. His craftsmanship is unsurpassed. | positive |
Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.<br /><br />The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.<br /><br />Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.<br /><br />I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever! | positive |
Sublimity is the way we have to reach for The Beauty. And sublimity is the stuff this film is made of. If not his best, it's my most loved of all Bogdanovich movies.<br /><br />This unique masterpiece remind us, as most of the other films from the director, what life is (or should be) about: love, lost (or failure) and hope and faith and charity. As the song from whom the films takes its title (Gershwin's well known composition) the film makes the impossible true, and tries to make us aware that no-one is able to judge anybody; all this with the lightness of a comedy and the timing of a masterful direction (the first ten minutes, with the detectives following the ladies, almost without a line of dialogue, constructed upon the looks and views of the characters --with that "Bogdanovich touch" based on the point-of-view-- is a class on Cinema Language, something that P.B. learned well from his admired directors from the Golden Age of the Movies). With a superb cast and a glorious soundtrack (including the best of Sinatra's "Trilogy"), this movie, full of self-consciousness and compassion, and far away from self-indulgence and emptiness (as some critics wrote), deserves a better place on the History of American Cinema than where it have been placed. It's not "long on style, short on substance": it is complex in its simplicity, and beautiful, absolutely beautiful. | positive |
this film is wonderful film for students of film. in mainstream American film it is common to see stylistic techniques used to draw the audience into the movie. in this film, the director uses stylistic techniques to push the story forward.<br /><br />this is a love story that offers no sex. to be honest, i can't even recall the characters kissing. rather, the plot focuses on the emotional ties between the two characters.<br /><br />i would not recommend this film for everybody. it is not very accessible. it is very slow moving and the subtle. it is a difficult film and mostly not entertaining.<br /><br />i would reccoment this film to people who want to see something different. it is a piece of art. the soundtrack is most beautiful and visually, every frame is a photograph. and most beautiful of all, it's not visually stimulating for the sake of being visually stimulating. every frame illustrates a little bit more of the story... | positive |
Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie<br /><br />Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.<br /><br />This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.<br /><br />Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget<br /><br />I give it 3/10 | negative |
I just read an extra long review on the front page of this movie on this site and he explained in full detail that this movie is only worth watching on the television show "Mystery Science Theater 3000!!!!!" And yes, I do find that advice really helpful! I mean, a movie that tries to be this good and this exciting just really is not what that movie wants to be!!!!! So yes, do watch this movie as seen on that show and instead of giving this movie a single star out of ten stars, you can give this a ten out of ten stars! Until then, my one star review is for the real, pure, untouched version of this movie only!!!!!! Got that now? | negative |
I do not watch much television and came across this show. Reality show? I sure hope this is not for real. If I was a man and had such a nag and was married to someone so snotty, It would be grounds for divorce. I think she sets a bad example of how a person should treat a person they love. That is one thing that is wrong with our world now, so many people in bad relationships, selfish and do not know the meaning of what it is to truly love another. It is self sacrificing and not something that should be on merritt. That does not give one a very good feeling, to watch what should be in private counseling. If his personality on the show is for real, then he deserves someone much better that would show real true love and care for him and appreciate him for who he is. Is this show a reality or made up for ratings???? I really would like to know. Sincerely, GB | negative |
I'm not sure what the point of making this film was. It looked as if it was made by some historical society to be shown in your local 'Pistol Pete' museum. At first it appears that it could be the beginning of a Mad TV or SNL sketch. But then the joke is on you when there is no punchline and you realize that someone was taking this seriously. The story wasn't bad but the inclusion of the SASS members seemed to be a ploy (that worked) to get me to see the film. I swear, the trailer listed every character in the film down to "dead cowboy #5". The reason Westerns are so fun is the atmosphere and the characters it brings. I just had the feeling I was watching Civil War rean-actors dressed up as cowboys. Not even worth the digital video it was recorded on. | negative |
I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.<br /><br />I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.<br /><br />I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.<br /><br />I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.<br /><br />The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.<br /><br />It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions. | negative |
A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.<br /><br />Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment. | negative |
Wow, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video. <br /><br />To give you a couple of examples: <br /><br />1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, "up shots" with ceiling in the background) <br /><br />2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum. <br /><br />In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless...<br /><br />...this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny. | negative |
I was pleasantly surprised with this one. It's actually quite interesting and engaging. The cast is strong, even Dan Cortese. Brooke Shields has come into her own as an actress. Black and White must have really set her free, 'cause I have never seen her in this much command playing a conventional character. If marketed right, could be a medium-size hit. | negative |
While originally reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of watching "Lost", I accidentally caught one episode at the beginning of season 1the one with the polar-bearand it has had my undivided attention ever since. The show, that is. Not the polar bear. So bear (heh) with me while I throw out as much rambling, semi-coherent praise as I can muster.<br /><br />"Lost" takes a simple idea of a passenger flight full of people crashing onto a desert island, and gradually adds extraordinary depth to its premise by exploring each character deeply and unflinchinglywhat drives them, who are they? Where did they come from? It soon becomes clear that the island upon which they are stranded acts as a common denominator for many things in their lives, whether they're running away from something (Sawyer and Kate among others) or getting in touch with spirituality (Locke, Claire). But "Lost" also zooms in on the island itself and the mysterious horrors that it houses... and they all seem to be strangely connected.<br /><br />While television actors are not exactly known for their subtlety or dazzling acting abilities, most of the cast of "Lost" are, in truth, spectacular actors for their respective parts, projecting heart and humour in their performances. There's also a multitude of eyecandy, but not generally of the plastic Hollywood kind as most TV shows. The characters all feel very real and they are extremely compelling to watch. Their interactions rarely fall prey to predictable sappiness, petty arguments or cheesy melodrama (although they are annoyingly secretive) these people are first and foremost trying to survive and whatever relationship appears is treated secondary to action. The realism of these characters facilitate an already well-sculptured plot. <br /><br />About this plot... Imagine a tree as the template plot, then the branches as subplots (in this case, one branch for every character) well, Lost adds twigs to each branch and then tiny twigs to those twigs as other story lines. If you're a brother/sister to one of the main characters in the flashbacks, you will get your own storyline. If you're a DOG you will have your own storyline. Unless the writers manage to weave them all together into some glorious culmination in the end, they are setting themselves up. I am more than a little worried there will be some disappointing cop-out to this show, as I'm sure most people are.<br /><br />But assuming the writers do pull this off, "Lost" is possibly the best show ever to hit television.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
Predictable, gory, over-gimmicky, mediocre. Don't waste your time - there are many much better movies out there. <br /><br />Resurrection starts out OK but the plot quickly becomes repetitive. My interest level fell off steadily. By the end of the movie I was just glad it was finally over. The characters never fully developed. The cinematography is muddy and the quick change POV rotations - while impressive in 1999 perhaps, presently merely serve to label the movie as attempting to substitute gee whiz flash for plot and character substance. The film shooting gimmicks serve some purpose (convey tension and anxiety) but are constantly overused and ultimately become counterproductive. A shame overall - the film/story obviously had potential and the producers/directors and actors obviously have technical skill. A disappointment. | negative |
An absolutely brilliant film! Jiri Trnka, the master of puppet animation, confronts totalitarianism in this, his final, film. It would be banned by the Communist Czechoslovakian government (at the time), despite taking the country's highest animation award.<br /><br />In this dark and entertaining short film, an artist attempts to create a new pot for his favourite plant. He happily makes his creations while dreaming that his plant will grow to be a beautiful rose. All of a sudden, he here's a knock at the door, and in comes this giant omnipotent hand, that tries to force the artist to make statues in it's likeness. The artist resists as best he can, but he eventually becomes overwhelmed by the constant attempts, by the hand, to force him to conform. He becomes brainwashed; an intellectual zombie. At this point the hand attaches strings to the artist, puts him in a cage, and uses him to make hand statues. All the while glorifying the artist's work and awarding him with medals and honours.<br /><br />The artist's inner lust to be able to express himself freely is what helps him prevail over his indoctrination, and enables him escape his prison, whether it be literal or in his mind, and return to his home where he now must live in constant fear of the wrath of the omnipotent hand. He shuts himself in, thinking he is out of the reach of the almighty hand, but in the process he puts his plant and pot up high, hoping it is out of the reach of the hand, and it ends up falling on his head, killing him. The artist is inevitabally destroyed by his own creation. All because of the constant fear he had to live with once he escaped the hand's strings. Once dead, the hand paints the artist as a great person, a national hero. Unfortunately not in the circumstances or for the reasons that the artist would like to be remembered.<br /><br />Trnka's condemnation of Totalitarian society, and their lack of right for free expression is dark, damning and an amazingly animated. It is no wonder the government banned it as this is the sort of media that people admire, and would perhaps even listen to. That was obviously not acceptable. An amazing example of an artists civil disobedience and the impact it can have. And still quite relevant today for many parts of the world, from the US to the middle east. A must see and definite 10 out of 10! Talk about going out with a bang! | positive |
This film is mesmerizing in its beauty and creativity. An artist's profound vision, his art that springs intuitively from its natural source brings us an inspiring Hosanna, blending his creations with trees, white water dashing against rocks, fields and rain...Andy Goldsworthy makes the viewer feel joy in being alive, aware that we are all made of the clay of this glorious earth. He doesn't spare us his occasional frustration, but on the whole we see the miracle in joining art with nature. Credit also goes of course to the filmmaker, Thomas Riedelsheimer, who directed, photographed and edited the movie with incredible sensibility and perfect timing.<br /><br />If you have any feeling for beauty, nature and art...do not miss this fantastic film! | positive |
Let me start off by saying that this doesn't seem or feel like a movie. It seems like just another TV show about popular girls and boys with no real film language top back it up.<br /><br />The camera angles are so straight forward that the story is told the simplest way possible never making the public connect with it. This film takes us to where no movie I've seen has done before: to a realm where the Film Theater becomes a warm medium giving the public every element of interpretation. Too obvious. The large movie screen is only used as an enlarged TV from where we can see every attribute of these women in a larger than life manner.<br /><br />Lately it seems that young directors are compromising the Art of film making for sales. This is very scary. The industry is spoiling the art in movies. We must educate ourselves and our children about what cinematography and its language are really about. Not just sales and entertainment, but a way to communicate feelings, passions and even culture. Not as a launching platform for young divas and jocks. | negative |
I paid attention and enjoyed the very rich expressions capability of the main actress, Julianne Nicholson. I don't have words to describe how much have I been enchanted. All the actors and actresses played well. Especially I noticed the solid good character who has been consistent in foreseeing the future - Andy Richter who played Carl. I think that the idea to show a variety of friends and relatives with different opinions, and the several consulting meetings, is like the real world. Jay Mohr who played Ed, the future husband, also played very real behavior. But, I want to emphasize again the point of very rich expressions repertoire which Julianne Nicholson is capable of and does so naturally, was overwhelming for me. Indeed, the subject which this movie handles seems to me as very important and touches strongly meaningful thoughts of many people. I've seen this movie several times and have not been bored. It raises again and again in my thoughts. | positive |
I was recommended this movie by one of my film-making friends, and was therefore expecting something good. Sadly, I was very disappointed by the first half -- ah, a movie about a wimp taking revenge on their a**hole boss, how original -- and watched the second half on fast forward hoping to find something that would justify the 45-odd minutes I'd already wasted. But all I got was the 'shock' ending...<br /><br />The basic problem is that this is a movie which seems unable to decide what it wants to say, and says whatever it does say (hard to tell what that is) badly. Great acting does not save a bad script full of characters I can't care about.<br /><br />Now maybe if I didn't moonlight in the movie industry I'd be shocked to discover the dumb politics and exploitation going on behind the screen, but as it is my feelings are as summed up above: 'Ho Hum'.<br /><br />2/10... would have been 1/10 if it weren't for the acting and the paper cut scene. | negative |
In this truly fascinating, dark film, a young impoverished student sells his soul to the devil for a lot of money, in return the devil takes his mirror image (this is done brilliantly in the movie and eerily presaged when Balduin, the student is earlier practicing swordsmanship in front of the mirror), a visual metaphor for a "man at war with himself" which portents his immediate future. The student enjoys his money, but the woman he loves is unattainable (he has made a pact with the devil, he is cut off forever from love and other riches of the soul) you can have love or you can exchange your soul for money, you cannot have both. Balduin is haunted by his double (the intertitles express this beautifully as does the action. Some of the scenes are incredible, the sense of doom when the Devil disappears with Balduin's mirror image is amazing, as is the sense that his pact has forever cut him off from human society (the scene where he runs away from his double and ends up in the 'wasteland' at the edge of the town, no longer entirely human (he has lost his soul) he is like a hunted animal outside of human society. There are so many other things to say about this incredible film. Paul Wegener was an amazing actor and director, a cultural hero of mine. It helps if you know a bit about German history at the time this film was made and about German doppelganger tradition (don't google it, get a proper book)Just remember, it's a very early film, it's a little clumsy at times, but considering what it has to say and it's tragic finale, it's one of the best ever (yes it Is!) | positive |
The movie Razor Blade Smile has an interesting title as well as leading role. Now most may not like this movie for the plot and acting was a little cheap, but that is the appeal of a movie like Razor Blade Smile. In a way it was suppose to be bad movie. <br /><br />However, if you watch this movie all the way through the end you'll see it is as I said a cheap vampire flick with a little humor. (Also how they manipulated colours in a few scenes is very interesting.) <br /><br />So in conclusion this movie is a type you rent and laugh at with your friends and enjoy it for what it is. For no movie is throughly bad. <br /><br />As Lilith Silver says: "Humans just don't smile enough..." | negative |
With all thats going on in the world sometimes we need an escape. Curly Sue is just that. Not a complicated plot or deep meaning; however it is not devoid of substance. There is more than furious action or heart pounding dramas. There are the charming little shows you can watch with your kids and have enough substance to enjoy with your date. Try it you may like it more than you think. The little girl is really smart and cute. The "Dad" and the girl go thru some slapstick routines. When a jealous boyfriend steps in, trouble brews for Curly and the life shes known may be torn asunder. Fred Thompson and Kelly Lynch play good roles as the upper crust and Alison Porter and James Belushi are a interesting fable like duo portraying street wise homeless drifters. Their worlds collide and comedy ensues. | positive |
I think it's incredibly hard to write any kind of full-scale review to Giorgino, merely because it's one of those viewer-dependent, complex, poetical and philosophical movies that are brain-wearing if, while watching them, you're trying to enjoy their shell and get to their core simultaneously, yet there are several things which are certain and beyond any doubt for any man of art (which, I hope, I am). The first thing: it's a certain masterpiece, even of that kind of art which remains through a long long time; the second: it's one of those rare "dark" movies in which darkness is poetic, even romantic, attractive and much more sad than depressing, like the art of Pieter Brueghel or Caspar David Friedrich. As to the core of the movie, someone called it Kafkian, though I don't agree with that because actually it's far beyond Kafka's misanthropic logic and much more like Edgar Poe's parables: dark and scary but through that touching the most gentle strings of our souls. Actually, on the poetic side (which is much more important than the narrative), Giorgino is a tale about eternal peace and love which can be achieved only through eternal childhood of soul. Those who have such souls are usually branded as crazy by our society, but from another point of view, they all have the virtue all the others lost when become "grown": the virtue of God's love. Indeed, Giorgino is a very Christian movie, "Be like children" (Mt 18:3) is it's real hidden tag-line, though the movie never deals with any kind of moral and concentrates only on the Christian philosophy for, dare to suppose, true God is beyond any human moral. Yet I think that Boutonnat is too harsh portraying "grown" people as a sort of demons trying to steal childhood from rare survived souls, but it's his point of view and he has a right to think so. While watching Giorgino don't try to look for some hidden symbols (though there are some), better look for thoughts expressed through characters and their behavior, and do learn from them. Also I cannot mention that the movie looks astonishingly through excellent photography, especially through rational use of color filters, incredibly apposite editing, wonderful acting of all the cast and, of course, due to the atmospheric beauty of winter mountains that reminded me of the Brueghel's "Hunters in the Snow". Also, interestingly enough, the scene with Death in the form of an old woman with sunken black-ringed eyes riding a cart, instantly reminded me of Pesta (Plague) from the series of drawings by the Norwegian painter Theodor Kittelsen, depicting how a black plague is sweeping out the population of a small town in the mountain valley. Is it a coincidence? | positive |
Although there is very little plot and whatever exists is just all improvisational, still it was a good start from a new director with no previous financial back up and also a smart move from Andy Warhol to make his cimematic productions more marketable and viewer-friendly. In any case this story of a street hustler relies too much on showing Joe buck naked (almost all the time!). And the creative use of a flashy editing really wears off after the hundredth time and the cutting off the dialog thing gets really annoying half-way. This would have been a much more entertaining or even dramatic if they made a documentary of the daily of an actual male prostitute or hustler, instead of letting the actors make up some nonesensical plot and dialog of their own. | negative |
Let's get one thing straight; This was BAD! So Putrid that it doesn't even qualify to be imprinted on anyone's memories.<br /><br />The ever repeating storyline (who's constant recycling of not only jokes but story lines and character appearances.) A typical storyline goes as follows; Sue (the mother) opens the episode quoting on how she loves her baby son but smells awful (As if THAT doesn't get old! har-de-bloody-har!), some Australian quasi-nationalist "bogan" -look it up- appears to say how she thinks she's awesome because she's an ozzie while everything/everyone else that isn't sucks before disappearing for the rest of the episode. (a small mercy)<br /><br />The rest of the plot revolves around the father (Gary) getting in some kind of disagreement with Sue and him talking to members of his band for advice on how to sort it out.<br /><br />The phrase "words fail me" is an old one but this is where it is the most truthful thing to say. It is so incredibly BAD! So HORRIBLE, that I would like every trace of it's existence sent to the lowest depths of the North sea and life can go on.<br /><br />It saddens me though, to see someone as good as Sally Bretton (good actress, I like her) make a prat out of herself, Ardal O Hanlon (My Hero aside) has the ability to be pretty funny - but not here - and Ben Elton, distinguished for so much good stuff somehow manages to come up with this...thing then comedy is in very serious trouble! | negative |
Linda Arvidson (as Jennie) and Harry Solter (as Frank) are enjoying a romantic tryst, when in walks her father Charles Inslee; furious, he chases Mr. Solter out of the house. Undaunted, he goes to her balcony and begs her to elope. Ms. Arvidson is agreeable, and goes to pack. Then, burglar George Gebhardt arrives to rob the place. Though he doesn't get much in the way of booty, thieving Gebhardt manages to use Arvidson's trunk to escape from the police
<br /><br />A Contrived Comedy. Note, during the balcony scene, Solter goes off-camera, so burglar Gebhardt can enter the house undetected. And, Arvidson travels very light, since there appears to be nothing in her heavy trunk; perhaps she just wanted to buff up beau Solter? Director D.W. Griffith, Robert Harron, and Florence Lawrence are illustrious extras. <br /><br />** A Calamitous Elopement (8/7/08) D.W. Griffith ~ George Gebhardt, Linda Arvidson, Harry Solter | negative |
Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.<br /><br />The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.<br /><br />Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.<br /><br />N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right! | negative |
HAPPY DAYS was one of my favorite shows when it aired in 1974. But the critics were quick to show their ignorance combined with a total lack of a sense of humor by slamming this show because they thought it was a cheap attempt to cash-in on the success of American GRAFFITTI.<br /><br />There were some similarities between American GRAFFITTI and HAPPY DAYS.<br /><br />Both opened with "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & the Comets. Both took place in a bygone era and both featured Ron Howard as one of the leading roles. But there were also some major differences. While American GRAFFITTI took place in 1962 California and centered around a group of newly graduated high school students about to take that big step into adulthood, HAPPY DAYS took place in Milwaulkee, Wisconson and centered around a group of teenagers in high school, dealing with the joys and tribulations of adolescence.<br /><br />HAPPY DAYS originally opened with the juke box playing the original version of Bill Haley & the Comets' ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK. But when oldies became hot, thanks to the success of American GRAFFITTI, , and the original 1954 version of ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK, entered the Billboard Hot 100 and became a hit again in 1974, royalty payments went through the roof. So a "remake" of the song (the correct term is now "new stereo recording") was quickly substituted.<br /><br />The current theme song for HAPPY DAYS was then introduced for the second season if memory serves me right.<br /><br />Fans and foes alike agree that this show is escapist. Liberties were taken and details overlooked, making this show less than completely authentic.<br /><br />This is perfectly fine. HAPPY DAYS is supposed to be a comedy, not a history lesson. But occasionally the writers did sometimes stick their necks out by hitting on controversial topics. One episode centered around the Cunninghams building of a fall out shelter. Another episode was about a divorced woman moving into the neighborhood with a dream of starting a new life. The topic of prejudice was addressed when Howard was invited to the wedding of an old army buddy who just happened to be black (in an era when prejudice and discrimination was sadly an acceptable part of the American way of life). The issue of the draft even came up on a later episode!<br /><br />The show as originally set in 1955. One problem that was dealt wisely was with the cast. Most of them were teenagers and as each year passed, it was obvious that they grew older so the series aged with the cast, moving the series out of the safe waters of the Eisenhower years into the Age of Camelot, all the way with JFK and then into the turbulent later half of the 1960s. That, along with the writers running out of ideas, and later, cast members like Ron Howard leaving the series, wisely quitting while they were ahead, left me wishing that they had all done the right thing by pulling the plug on this show and quitting while they were ahead. That, along with the idol worshiping studio audience who just couldn't control themselves every time the Great Fonzie entered the scene, began to wear very thin very fast.<br /><br />This show originally portrayed the Fabulous Fifties as we LIKE to remember that era. Time heals wounds, you know. Everything has its place and though I would prefer hearing the "original hit versions" over those "new stereo recordings", those "new stereo recordings" worked very well on HAPPY DAYS. And this is where I find myself regretting my buying the DVD! Unlike the complete first season DVD, the original music on the complete second season, has been replaced with different music. While it is great that the original episodes were digitally restored to digital perfection, the removal of the original music destroyed what it was that made this show so much fun to watch! | negative |
This has to be one of the worst films of the 1990s. When my friends & I were watching this film (being the target audience it was aimed at) we just sat & watched the first half an hour with our jaws touching the floor at how bad it really was. The rest of the time, everyone else in the theatre just started talking to each other, leaving or generally crying into their popcorn that they actually paid money they had earnt working to watch this feeble excuse for a film. It must have looked like a great idea on paper, but on film it looks like no-one in the film has a clue what is going on. Crap acting, crap costumes. I can't get across how embarrasing this is to watch. Save yourself an hour & a bit of your life......... | negative |
The Hamiltons tells the story of the four Hamilton siblings, teenager Francis (Cory Knauf), twins Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) & Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) & the eldest David (Samuel) who is now the surrogate parent in charge. The Hamilton's move house a lot, Franics is unsure why& is unhappy with the way things are. The fact that his brother's & sister kidnap, imprison & murder people in the basement doesn't help relax or calm Francis' nerves either. Francis know's something just isn't right & when he eventually finds out the truth things will never be the same again...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Mitchell Altieri & Phil Flores as The Butcher Brothers (who's only other film director's credit so far is the April Fool's Day (2008) remake, enough said) this was one of the 'Films to Die For' at the 2006 After Dark Horrorfest (or whatever it's called) & in keeping with pretty much all the other's I've seen I thought The Hamiltons was complete total & utter crap. I found the character's really poor, very unlikable & the slow moving story failed to capture my imagination or sustain my interest over it's 85 & a half minute too long 86 minute duration. The there's the awful twist at the end which had me laughing out loud, there's this really big sustained build up to what's inside a cupboard thing in the Hamiltons basement & it's eventually revealed to be a little boy with a teddy. Is that really supposed to scare us? Is that really supposed to shock us? Is that really something that is supposed to have us talking about it as the end credits roll? Is a harmless looking young boy the best 'twist' ending that the makers could come up with? The boring plot plods along, it's never made clear where the Hamiltons get all their money from to buy new houses since none of them seem to work (except David in a slaughterhouse & I doubt that pays much) or why they haven't been caught before now. The script tries to mix in every day drama with potent horror & it just does a terrible job of combining the two to the extent that neither aspect is memorable or effective. A really bad film that I am struggling to say anything good about.<br /><br />Despite being written & directed by the extreme sounding Butcher Brothers there's no gore here, there's a bit of blood splatter & a few scenes of girls chained up in a basement but nothing you couldn't do at home yourself with a bottle of tomato ketchup & a camcorder. The film is neither scary & since it's got a very middle-class suburban setting there's zero atmosphere or mood. There's a lesbian & suggest incestuous kiss but The Hamiltons is low on the exploitation scale & there's not much here for the horror crowd.<br /><br />Filmed in Petaluma in California this has that modern low budget look about it, it's not badly made but rather forgettable. The acting by an unknown (to me) cast is nothing to write home about & I can't say I ever felt anything for anyone.<br /><br />The Hamiltons commits the cardinal sin of being both dull & boring from which it never recovers. Add to that an ultra thin story, no gore, a rubbish ending & character's who you don't give a toss about & you have a film that did not impress me at all. | negative |
This show can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.<br /><br />This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.<br /><br />The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.<br /><br />But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on. | negative |
B.B. Thornton proves to be a great actor in this little seen movie. Thornton really gets into his characters--literally. I caught this on cable one night and enjoyed it. Too bad it was released nationwide in theaters the same year as "Fear and Loathing" and "Half-Baked." | positive |
When I went and saw this movie, I had great expectations. But I had so wrong. This movie was exactly as every other horror movies. It's a virus, zombies etc. Exactly as Resident Evil and many, many other movies. But the difference with this, and other movies, is that the story is very week. It's bad actors and boring music. The photo is OK but the rest is total crap. Don't see this "horror" movie, go and see the Ring 2 or any other movie who's much more of a story. I hope they will stop making horror movies who has a virus and the virus spread and make people to zombies. We have seen enough of that. The only good thing in the movie is when they are standing at a roof and shoot famous, infected celebrities. | negative |
This is by far the worst Hemingway adaptation ever. Rock Hudson was badly miscast and entirely unbelievable as a hard-bitten soldier/adventurer drawn to war. Jennifer Jones was far too old for her part and Vittorio de Sica seemed to think he was acting in some other movie altogether. They tried to make a large-scale epic out of a low-key romantic novel and the result is terrible. As if that were not enough the whole thing is so slow, overlong and dated that it is practically unwatchable. Rock must have kicked himself for turning down "Sayonara" and "Ben Hur" in order to make this ghastly crap.<br /><br />0/10. To be avoided. | negative |
666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...<br /><br />This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.<br /><br />Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.<br /><br />666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD. | negative |
Arnold fans will holler in joy, fans of brainless action will holler in astonishment, and Catholics will just holler.<br /><br />Illogically written by Andrew W. Marlowe and ham-handedly directed by Peter Hyams, *End of Days* gets The Terminator out of his open-backed hospital gown (Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his heart operation), whilst blowing things up in Mysterious Ways and blaspheming Biblical verse to give Catholics something more to whine about.<br /><br />It is 1999 and doom-sayers the world over live in trepidation of their computers going fritz and losing their downloaded porn. Even as the technological stank of Y2K muttons the New York streets, ex-cop turned alcoholic security guard, Jericho Cane (Schwarzenegger, with the perfunctory "dead-wife-and-kid" back-story for Loose Cannon effect), must brave theological waters to save 20-year-old virgin Christine (Robin Tunney) from being conscripted as wait for it The Bride of Satan. Dun dah daaaarrrh! Stupidity ensues.<br /><br />For every anti-hero, there is his anti-Christ. Gabriel Byrne is the devil here and he's out to party like it's 1999, on a mission to impregnate Christine with the Anti-Christ between 11 pm and 12 midnight, December 31, 1999 ironically, in the hour that all porn will be lost thereby bringing about the End of Days. Being able to read minds, conjure hallucinations and employ limitless magic, it doesn't occur to Satan to expedite the impregnation process by appearing months in advance and courting Christine as a teen model and then closing the panty raid easily at the appointed time; instead, he appears on December 28th like a Keyser Soze Terminator and wonders why she doesn't welcome him with open thighs
(See above comment re: stupidity.) Here is a movie where nothing makes sense the moment it is uttered, let alone after contemplating its veracity or mythology. A priest (Rod Steiger) tells Jericho that '666' is really '999' upside down with a '1' in front of it. So wait - *Prince* is the Anti-Christ?<br /><br />Satan Soze pursues Jericho and Christine (J and C get it?) around town, at no point doing anything which would actually precipitate their capture. In one scene, Satan recreates Jericho's wife and child to tempt him into revealing where he hid Christine. But if he can see so deeply into Jericho's mind in recreating his family with enough nuance to inspire nostalgia, why can't he see where Jericho hid Christine not ten minutes ago? <br /><br />Satan can make an assassin talk without a tongue, yet he can't make that assassin unjam a semi-automatic weapon. And when Jericho shoots Satan at point blank range, Satan is courteous enough to open his shirt to reveal the wounds closing, so Jericho won't worry unduly about Satan's health - not sanitary to go about with open bullet wounds
Matter of fact, instead of simply possessing Jericho himself to get close to Christine and rape her, Satan expends so much unnecessary energy on side-projects (crucifying the tongue-less guy, blowing up Jericho's partner (Kevin Pollak) and then saving him, and then blowing him up again, ridiculously battling Jericho when he could snuff him out with the effort of thought) that we wonder whether a more efficient assassin/lover shouldn't be put on the case say, Antonio Banderas.<br /><br />What I find most precious about *End of Days* is Arnold's valiant attempts at The Method: "sad" means scrunching up his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "depressed" means raising a bottle to his lips and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "deathly scared" means widening his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent. There's definitely a pattern here, if we could only decipher it.<br /><br />In the end, the devil is dispatched not by the holy men whom Catholics pray to for deliverance from apocalypses such as these, but from the atheist Jericho. While the timid men of an impotent god exhort "faith" and quiver in their cells doing nothing about Satan actually walking amongst them, the Prince of Darkness is thwarted by a nullifidian with a big gun and a foreign accent. Which clearly says something that Catholics blindly refuse to hear: that even if the Devil were to exist, those who have been indoctrinated to unconditionally and irrationally fear him would be unable to conjure a belief in his downfall, let alone act towards it. Further, they might not truly WANT him defeated, for only through his contrary polarity does their god's existence become tenable.<br /><br />For it is written in the Book of Revelations: "And the Prince of Darkness shall descendeth upon the Earth without any solid game plan, and impregnate a virgin on a date which won't have any significance until the Gregorian Calendar of the 1500s adopts the day numbering which will put it in sync with the equinoxes and the Anno Domine syntax which will annoy sensible people for millennia, by which time, Christians will have forgotten Christ's actual birth date and appropriated the pagan Saturnalia festival in its stead. And the Prince shall effect a Revolution through tight purple pants and ambiguously-lesbian band members
" I can believe the people being drained of blood and crucified, and the alcoholic built like a Mr. Universe; I can believe that a giant, supernatural monster can't kill a guy armed only with a foreign accent; I can even believe that the devil needs to perform some hokey thirteenth century Celtic Druid ritual as foreplay - but what I cannot believe is the 20-year-old virgin in New York City in 1999.<br /><br />Especially around Prince... | negative |
Having only seen five episodes of the show before this, (I've been watching the repeats on BBC Two) I haven't really had much experience of the League, but as a fledgling fan as well as a massive fan of British comedy, I can say this film is hilarious. Seeing Herr Lipp, (who I had not seen on screen before the film) Briss and Geoff on the big screen was a great comedy experience. Being on screen is something that the League take full advantage of, with heads blowing up, (it'll come as a surprise who it is) and gruesome murders with random Middle Ages style battles all the way.<br /><br />Geoff is easily the funniest character of the three protagonists in this film, because he has the best one liners and overall behaviour, just like in the series. One of my only disappointments with the film was not hearing Geoff shout "Well now I've got this gun" even once, (even though there is a build-up to it in one part of the film.) The film itself overall is, to use the phrase everyone else does, Pythonesque and it's very reminiscent of films like "Life of Brian." Appearances from Tubbs and Edward were welcome, but Papa Lazarou's line "Hello Daves" cracked me up more than anything said by them, (Lazarou's probably my favourite Vasey character after Tubbs and Edward.) It's got quite a poignant ending with one of the main character being killed off and I can only hope this is not the League's last on-screen Vasey venture. With Gatiss mentioning the possibility of another series or film, I'm now very excited. This is a film I will see again, partly because the projector died towards the end, leaving out 10 minutes or so of the film, but mainly because it's inventive and hilarious. I'm not really bothered if it's not as good as the TV series, because I loved it.<br /><br />One thing though, if you've never seen the League, you'll still love it, but Dave knows what you'll think about the people who make this stuff up. As Tubbs or Edward might put it, it's a local film, for local people, and a precious thing at that.<br /><br />**** out of ***** (4/5) | positive |
When i started watching "Surface"for the first time i was hooked.It had everything i wanted in a show suspense,action,mystery,great plot,and a great cast of characters.My whole family loved to watch the show.It seems when there's a great show on TV the network usually cancels it like they seemed to do with this show.They go by the Nielson rating system which i think is stupid because there is a lot of junk that they seem to watch which the networks keep on the air.If only there was a way for everyone to vote on a show then maybe the good shows won't get canceled.When i watch TV now i only watch good shows so right now thats not watching a whole lot of TV.I hope that the network brings the show back but when they make up there mind with a dumb decision they seem to stick to it.I hope there's a lot of people out there that feel the same way. | positive |
"Think like a Dinosaur" was an well-produced & executed show of the -Outerlimits- series. The actor (Enrico Colantoni as Michael Burr) plays an impressively well and convincing protagonist-role. You can actually identify yourself with him and his 'introspective' feelings on what to do to the girl whom he has fallen for (because, he's been alone and disappointed for 2 years and feels hopeless until "Kamala" comes to his life with a timid fear of performing the task of being transported. He then consoles her and let's her know it's all going to be alright; which ends up being an deception to both of them. More so something bad occurs and she (prototype) comes back....and her (clone) is sent to the other inhabitant planet. Although, the -Dino- and "Micheal" have yet to find this out, when they do it's up to Michael to decide to either kill her or to let her live. Yet what happen to him prior upon meeting her (kamala) was very much related to what happen to his wife, his wife died similarly. This show professes irregularity and sorrow thru-out most of it. After the show you're left pondering...about what SHOULD have been done and you're stuck with the 50/50 of what's right from wrong. Hence, The "balance" equation being solely there is no one.<br /><br />10/10 Highly recommend watching this show. | positive |
Now all the kids and teenagers of Springwood, Ohio are all dead expect for one teenager (Shon Greenblatt) is still alive. Freddy (Robert Englund) is letting him go and the teenager doesn't have much of a memory, when he's arriving in a new town. When a tough female psychologist (Lisa Zane) tries to break though the new patient. She's finds out, where he's from. She brings him along to Springwood to spark some memories but three teens (Lezlie Deane, Breckin Meyer and Ricky Dean Logan), who unexpected came for the ride. Once they arrived in Springwood, the psychologist has some memory that she did lived in that town before as a child. While Freddy knows the true secret of her true identity.<br /><br />Directed by Rachel Talalay (Ghost in the Machine, Tank Girl) made a grim but somewhat oddly different sequel with some visual style and funny moments for this horror/fantasy/thriller. Yaphet Kotto (Alien) has a supporting role as a Psychologist expert on dreams. This has some ingenious visual effects (Not everyone will love the climax, especially in 3-D) and some good style in its storytelling. This one did out gross some of the film's series at the box office.<br /><br />DVD has an strong anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) transfer (also in Pan & Scan) and an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the original theatrical trailer, Jump to a Nightmare opinion and Cast & Crew information. The "Elm Street" Series Box Set, the eighth disc has interviews with the the cast & crew of this sixth film. The sixth film is also in 3-D for the film climax but you could watch it at 2-D also. This is the last of the "Elm Street" films until Wes Craven resurrected Freddy into a different, darker style in "New Nightmare" and the silly but surprisingly enjoyable spin-off horror film "Freddy Vs Jason". Watch for Robert Shaye (Co-Owner and Co-CEO of "New Line Cinema"), Roseanne Barr, Tom Arnold, Johnny Depp and Alice Cooper in amusing cameos. Written by Michael De Luca (John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness). From a story by the director. (*** ½/*****). | positive |
Mary Pickford becomes the chieftain of a Scottish clan after the death of her father, and then has a romance. As fellow commenter Snow Leopard said, the film is rather episodic to begin. Some of it is amusing, such as Pickford whipping her clansmen to church, while some of it is just there. All in all, the story is weak, especially the recycled, contrived romance plot-line and its climax. The transfer is so dark it's difficult to appreciate the scenery, but even accounting for that, this doesn't appear to be director Maurice Tourneur's best work. Pickford and Tourneur collaborated once more in the somewhat more accessible 'The Poor Little Rich Girl,' typecasting Pickford as a child character. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.