review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Swayze doesn't make a very convincing Alan Quatermain. Compared to Stewart Granger; which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 "Scaramouche", the 1952 "Prisoner of Zenda" and the 1950 "King Solomon's Mines"; Patrick Swayze fails utterly. Even the portrayal of an older Alan Quatermain by Sean Connery in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was very good in an otherwise big flop. Also Alison Doody lacks the grace of Deborah Kerr in the role of the leading lady, and last but not least the impressive Siriaque in the role of Umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes)!!! For someone who was disappointed by Richard Chamberlain's 1985 version, I now highly recommend it if you can't get your hand on the granger version. | negative |
Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clichéd and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go. | negative |
I like vampire movies, I like B-movies, I love B vampire movies. But this one has nearly nothing going for it. Some of the acting is horrible, especially by 3 of the male leads. The story is not particular interesting. At a relative short 88 minutes it still seems too long and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding quite a bit. There are an awful lot of kung-fu vampire attacks. Sound cool? It isn't when it's done on a low budget. It gets repetitive very quickly. There is some minor blood and gore, nothing to get excited about. There some good wire work where you can see the wires. It has some good landscapes being filmed in Puerto Rico. <br /><br />Not worth the rental | negative |
Even though i sat and watched the whole thing,i must say it was not good.it was all over the place,with big chunks of information missing about how things developed and even inaccurate at some bits too.If you know nothing about Michael , you wont understand a thing.You have to rely on your current knowledge of the man in order for some bits to make sense..Acting was a bit dramatic, Flex Alexander looked nothing like Michael which was a put off for me and towards the end he literally looked grey.saying that portraying Michael as somewhat naive but highly positive, gentle and loving individual was okay even though they still made a fool out of him time to time.If you want to watch MJ's life story check out "An American dream". It is much better but the only thing is it will cover up to "Bad" era. I have no doubt that they will eventually make a big budget movie of MJ's life story, cos Michael You rock ;-) !!!! | negative |
This movie was to me a fairly enjoyable watch, I mean it wasn't great but it was one of the better horror movies of late. It seems to have been low, almost state benefit budget size but it has it's charms like the lovely ladies in it. The atmosphere was good also (which is what is missing froma hell of a lot of horror movies these days). The acting was your typical 80's low budget affair, that being in case you don't know is that it is "dud" acting. But that is what Lucio Fulci's movies were full of, they like this movie had atmosphere what they were lacking in storyline and money etc. They more than made up for in the horror & gore & atmosphere for the movie it's self.<br /><br />It is just a typical low budget horror movie that is watchable, I watched it all the way and I love horror movies. I've seen movies where I just turn off within 10 to 20 minutes or sit and fast forward it if it's on video, or skip scene's on the DVD. This movie didn't make me want to do that, I sat and watched it all the way to the end, without wanting to skip parts.<br /><br />I would have liked it however if the zombie type folk in this were a little more scarier as they were about as scary as having Freddy Kreuger as your babysitter, not. But seriously though if they were a little better it would have been low budget perfection, maybe.<br /><br />The music in this movie was top notch stuff, ideal horror music so it was. I've seen horror movies where the music is good or average but it could have been better, thank goodness though this movie didn't have nay of the Metal music in it.<br /><br />I've been a die-hard Metal fan since 1990 but in horror movies metal music spoils it, the movie looses atmosphere a lot when any type of music other than a score is playing. So i'm glad there was no music in this movie other than just your typical score which was rather creepy, well done.<br /><br />It could have use "Profane Grace - Epitaph Of Shattered Dreams" on it though. As it is keyboard music no guitars no nothing except "really" creepy keyboard tracks. Like track one "Forever Sleep" you hear the wind blowing all the way through it and some goose bump inducing keyboard music that follows it. Ever track on that cd is the same, ideal horror music at it's best, it would have suited this movie perfectly.<br /><br />The only unattractive chick in the movie to me was the one who got chibbed/killed (or so we are led to believe) and hung up as a scarecrow, only to get free and try to escape later. Every other woman in the movie was lovely indeed, a big 9 out of 10 for them all except the one I mentioned above.<br /><br />I wish that Hollywood (mainstream side of things) would give money to Romero and the guy who made this movie. As giving it to them for movies is way better a decision made than giving it to a goon muppet called Paul Anderson of the "resident evil" mince.<br /><br />Well done guys, it is not bad, not bad at all, I loved the part at the end credits when they kept showing you clips of them making the movie (behind the scene's) Not many movies do this kind of thing, which I thought added a little to the movie, as it also showed you some outtakes of sorts and that's always a good thing if you ask me.<br /><br />Rating for this movie 8/10, rating for the lovely ladies in the movie 9/10, rating for the atmosphere in the movie 9/10, rating for the score for the film 9.5/10. | positive |
If you haven't read Tolkien's masterpiece; prepare yourself for maybe the best movie experience ever! If you have however... After having read the books several times, over many years, I have come to love the characters and story, and feel I Know it intimately. I have my own personal vision of The Shire, Hobbiton and the character-gallery. Thus for me the movie was a disappointment. Why? It dictates the appearance of the characters (unavoidably), it changes events, it removes important storyline, it removes not-so-important storyline. Great chunks of what makes The Lord Of The Rings what it is, is simply ignored. Even 2001 special effects can't do Tolkien's (and your own) imagination justice. Peter Jackson has made an honest attempt at the impossible, and I don't think anyone else could have done it better! But the fact remains, I regret seeing the movie. The next time I read The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson's limited vision will leap forward, not my own. | negative |
"The Crush" is a pleasant enough 40-something friends romantic chick flick for the first two-thirds or so, as it tries to be a Brit "Sex and the City". <br /><br />I particularly enjoyed the turn-around of the trophy young hunk whose character is not much fleshed out (come to think of it we didn't see all that much physical flesh of him either and Kenny Doughty is worth seeing more of). <br /><br />They sure make a lot more deal of young man/older woman than was made of the opposite in either version of "Sabrina" (neither movie do I like) or for that matter with the Douglas/Zeta-Jones or Dion/Svengali nuptials.<br /><br />Surrounding Andie MacDowell as an ex pat otherwise are welcome familiars from Brit dramas and comedies, such as tart-tongued Anna Chancellor. <br /><br />The plot twists towards the end feel very deus ex machina. But it wasn't until the credits came up at the end that I realized what might really be wrong. Just as with "Sex and the City," the writer/director is male, here first-timer Scot John McKay, and I think he really wanted to do a script about three gay men, probably about them coming out in relation to their lovers and at work (the characters are a school principal, a cop and a doctor), which would have been a better and more interesting movie. The working title for the film was "The Sad F*cker's Club" which would have made its parallels with the gay "Broken Hearts Club" even more obvious.<br /><br />(originally written 4/6/2002) | negative |
This documentary follows the lives of Big and Little Edie Beale, a mother and daughter, who lived as recluses in their family mansion in East Hampton, NY from the mid-50s through the late 70s. By the time the filmmakers find them, the mansion is falling apart, and the women, one 78 and the other 56, share a squalid room. The older Edie Beale is the aunt of Jackie Kennedy Onassis and the younger is her first cousin. The women were originally going to be evicted from the house due to its decrepit condition, but Jackie sent them money for repairs so they could keep living there.<br /><br />At times this movie can seem exploitative, as neither woman seems in the best of mental health, but at other times, the movie is hard to look away from. "Little" Edie blames her mother for her current state, and her mother fires back that Edie was never going to be the success she thought she was. "Little" Edie often seems trapped in the past, focused on choices she made decades ago, and loves showing off pictures from her youth, where she clearly was a beautiful debutante. Her mother seems more resigned to her fate, to live out the rest of her life in terrible conditions. There are definite hints of the glamorous life both women once lead, from the pictures that show a happy family, to the grand portrait of the older Edie next to her bed. From what we see of the house, most of the rooms in it are empty, the walls are cracking and falling apart, and "Little" Edie leaves food in the attic for the racoons to feast on. And of course there are numerous cats running around.<br /><br />At its heart, this documentary is incredibly sad. While neither woman seems particularly depressed by their lot in life, the squalor they live in is utterly awful. It's not particularly clear if there is even running water in the house, and you get the impression that they have essentially been abandoned by their family.<br /><br />However, as a documentary, the film is a wonder to behold, and is highly recommended. | positive |
The last film of John Huston, the great American director of the Irish descent is an adaptation of the last short story in the early collection "Dubliners", of the greatest writer ever came from Ireland. The film is a family affair. The dying director made it based on the script adapted by his son Tony Huston from one of the most poignant, beautiful and profound short story ever written in this language and considered by many THE BEST English language short story. John directed his daughter Anjelica in what could be her finest screen performance. The film is short, only 83 minutes. It's got no action sequences, no plot, it is almost non-eventful, and it may seem slow. The guests, friends and relatives come to the party that takes place in Dublin during the Epiphany week in January 1904, at the house of two elderly sisters who give annual dinner with music and dance. What viewers see for the first hour, is the ensemble conversation piece. The guests talk, listen to the music, discuss the latest opera premiere, and make jokes, sometimes awkward. Gradually, the conversation turns to the long dead friends or relatives the memory of whom never faded away.<br /><br />This is the film you have to stay with, let it pull you in, listen to what and how the guests at the party say, how they communicate. Pay attention to the body languages, to the looks at their faces when they drift away from the light, laugh, and music of the present to the long gone but never in fact left most precious memories where the Dead of the title are not dead but forever young and so alive. If you do, you will be awarded with the final scene of such emotional power and impact that it will always stay with you. It will break your heart to pieces, pull them together and put it back transfixed. The film as well as Joyce's story centers on Gabriel Conroy (Donal McCann as James Joyce's alter ego gave a very moving understated performance) as one of the party guests who arrives with his wife Gretta (Anjelica Huston). Gabriel is still in love, feels close connection to and fascinated with her. It is after the party, he discovers that even after many years of closeness, he does not know all about her past, her pains, her regrets, and the unforgettable emotions and loss she had lived through as a young girl, and he is no part of. For the first time, he looks at her and thinks of her not as the indelible part of his existence but as another human being with her own inner world, her own loneliness and sadness, and for the first time, "a strange, friendly pity for her entered his soul." It is he who narrates the final most powerful and profound lines of the story: "Snow is general all over Ireland. . . falling faintly through the universe, and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead." <br /><br />If you have not seen the film or read the Joyce's story, please do. They are truly the works of Art that leave the everlasting impression and would change something in you to the best. | positive |
The Comebacks is a spoof on inspirational sports movies, and let me just tell you-it is not a good one. Tom Brady (the director) probably found it hilarious that referencing sports films (from Gridiron Gang, Invincible and even Miracle! to The Longest Yard and Dodgeball-yes Dodgeball!) and tossing in a couple of sex jokes, would be the funniest thing since Airplane! Well, he was wrong. They did such a slipshod job, you'd thought it was written in a week. I have found it that if a director loves the genre, the movie will be good. Obviously, Brady does not love the genre he is spoofing. This movie is a rancid piece of garbage not worth viewing, so don't see it! | negative |
Given the history of the director of this movie, it is hard to believe that this was such a painfully bad movie to sit through. I was at the European premiere last night and one of the Executive Producers was there. He was yet to see the movie and, boy, was he in for a surprise. I have not read the book that this is based upon, nor do I know if it highly rated or appreciated, but I have read "Captain Correlli's Mandolin" and given how poorly that was adapted for screen and how bad this movie was, I can only presume that something similar has happened here. The acting wasn't bad albeit that there were a couple-too-many raised eyebrows from Farrell. Honestly, I can't believed how little I cared for any character in this movie. Situations play out on the screen in an empty sequence of nothingness. Donald Sutherland's part comprises a few scenes where he opens a door, says something and closes it again. I kept looking at my watch when I wasn't cringing at the dialogue on the screen. I have never walked out on a movie but I was tempted to start during this. I gave this movie a score of '2' for reasons which seem horrendously shallow to me but these are the best things that I can say about this movie. The first is that I really enjoyed the all-too-short earthquake scene and the second is that Salma Hayek got naked and looked beautiful. I can say little else positive about this movie. Don't ask the dust anything, it can't talk! | negative |
Don't get me wrong. I really love the "arena-martial arts genre", and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already). | negative |
Its really been a long time since the last time somebody created a movie such as like this on. A so called B movie. Maybe it was not a great movie, but it is fun to watch, classic Bruce Cambell, it has its Good parts, funny ones, Disgusting ones, even artistic ones. <br /><br />******Spoiler Ahead*******<br /><br />----------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------<br /><br />The part where his wife as a dummy-robot-avenger is about to die, I don't know about you, but it made me feel so weird, so sad and disgusted in a good way. I compare this scene with the scene form the Fly 2 where his dog as a monster dies. Makes you think oh my god.<br /><br />---------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------<br /><br />********No more Spoilers********* <br /><br />If you are a Bruce Cambell fan, you definitely wanna have this movie in your collection. If you are generally interested in movies, you might wanna. Just think that the movies target is to make you smile, gross you out(Don't worry not that bad though) and make you have a good time with your buddies. Attention, I said buddies, not possible future girlfriend. | positive |
What's the point? Hasn't this been done before, better? And again? Why is Werner Herzog wasting his good talents and time with junk like this? Shouldn't he be shooting a movie somewhere--I mean a real movie? <br /><br />It all felt fake from the beginning. Werner Herzog would never have sought to make a film about the Loch Ness myth--at least not on such a small scale surrounded by losers--so the plot was not believable from the beginning. The actors who are supposed to act like they're not acting were obviously acting. The story was not interesting, the "everyday people" requisite in every mockumentary were invisible, the personalities were stale, the jokes were not funny, the effects were unconvincing and the ending was nowhere to be seen.<br /><br />I just don't see the point. It's a fake movie about a fake movie. Hah, hah. Perhaps if those who thought up such a movie sought to make one that mocked people who really were out to find a real Nessie, now that could have had some potential. But Herzog is not a believer and never claimed to be. A mockumentary about the cryptozoologist crowd would have had so much more fuel.<br /><br />It was a miss. | negative |
This is absolutely awful. It's everywhere & nowhere & doesn't have any sort of point. I have never understood what is good about Jeff Garlin or Sarah Silverman. Bonnie Hunt is so above this drivel she must have been personal friends w/people involved because there is no way she would have read any part of this so-called "script" & thought, "Yeah I wanna do that!" Most movies I can find at least one or two things that are redeemable or funny. There is ZERO of that in this. It's extremely dumb. There really isn't any other word to describe this. This is quite possibly the biggest waste of money on making of film that I have seen in a long time. Skip this at all cost, you'll be glad you did. | negative |
Starring Tomas Milian and Manny Perez 'Washington Heights' is a low budget drama set in a Latino neighborhood in NYC.<br /><br />A young comic-book artist (Manny Perez) wants to escape his Latino neighborhood. When his father is crippled by a robber's gunshot, the young man is forced to run the family bodega.<br /><br />The movie was shot in a budget (low resolution video and poor audio) with low profile actors.<br /><br />The plot flowed well for 85 minutes but the last 5 minutes were just terrible. We don't know for sure if Perez and his girlfriend remained together and if Angel ended-up in jail for the shooting.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
"The Brak Show " is good .Probably not in the same level than "Aqua Teen Hunger " or "Space Ghost Coast to Coast ", but definitely it have many brilliant moments .Basically it follows the life of Zorak and Brak that have normal lives and go to the school ,living in a neighborhood on the style of the 50 'sitcoms . The humor and the animation of this show it's very much as "Aqua Teen Hunger " (and in one episode you could see Meatwad) with bizarre situations and strange characters .But it is good ,it have funny parts . Some of the songs are great ,others not very much but I like this show . The funniest character is the father of Brak . (that is a human ,nobody knows why ) | positive |
PLAN B has the appearance of a quickly made, unedited, sloppy script for a movie with the attempt for an outing for the actors involved - an outing that should have been nixed from the start. It is just another Mafia-based 'comedy' that has nothing new and lowers the standard for those participating.<br /><br />Joe Maloni (Paul Sorvino) is the crime boss more concerned about clothing and appearances than about his business of control. His personal assistant Mario (Anthony DeSando) is dumber than dirt and his ignorance is supposed to be funny. Maloni has whacked one of his debtors (who just happens to be married to bookish Fran - Diane Keaton) and Maloni takes Fran on as his assistant to work off her dead husband's debt by being Maloni's 'hit man'. Fran is afraid of her own shadow and is unable to carry out Maloni's assignments, electing instead to transport her 'whackees' to Florida to hide at her brother James' house until she can figure out what to do next. This alternative to killing the three candidates is called Plan B, Plan A being to kill them! The ending is wholly predictable just as is every line assigned in the script to the characters.<br /><br />Diane Keaton has made a lot of fine films and is one of our most talented actresses and comediennes, but here she screams and rants and twitches her way through a ridiculous part that quickly becomes annoying to watch. Paul Sorvino is, well, the Paul Sorvino type cast from other mobster films. The supporting cast is likewise allowed to play to the balcony in the broadest slapstick, pratfall fashion imaginable. What is supposed to be a comedy ends up being just silly and overdone. Director Greg Yaitanes needs to go back to TV sitcoms: had this flimsy story been compressed into a half-hour gig it might have had a chance. Grady Harp | negative |
Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from **** | negative |
"on our own" is a touching story of four kids who run away from foster home after their mother dies, with only one suitcase, their dog Ralph and $9 they set off in their mums old car in search of their uncle Jack. On the way their car breaks down and they meet Peggy Williams, a schoolteacher on holidays and she offers to help them out. Together she and the children search for uncle Jack but are forced to hide from the authorities that plan to take them back into foster care as they do so. This film tells a story of love, friendship and how important it is to stick with your family as the children venture out on their amazing journey. | positive |
Manna From Heaven is a light comedy that uses exaggeration of human foibles to entertain the audience. Throughout the film there is the expectation that goodness will surface in each situation. The result is that the movie goer finds himself/herself sitting with this silly grin on his/her face, peace in his/her heart, and high expectations for human kind. Watching this movie was a most pleasant experience. (I would venture to say uplifting experience, but some would say that sounds corny!!) | positive |
I had several problems with the movie: <br /><br />(1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.<br /><br />(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.<br /><br />(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.<br /><br />On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me. | negative |
Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: "What does that have to do with this movie?" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.<br /><br />The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.<br /><br />But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).<br /><br />If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say "Ha ha, you had sex with your mom," which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.<br /><br />I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight. | negative |
A blackly comic tale of a down-trodden priest, Nazarin showcases the economy that Luis Bunuel was able to achieve in being able to tell a deeply humanist fable with a minimum of fuss. As an output from his Mexican era of film making, it was an invaluable talent to possess, with little money and extremely tight schedules. Nazarin, however, surpasses many of Bunuel's previous Mexican films in terms of the acting (Francisco Rabal is excellent), narrative and theme.<br /><br />The theme, interestingly, is something that was explored again in Viridiana, made three years later in Spain. It concerns the individual's struggle for humanity and altruism amongst a society that rejects any notion of virtue. Father Nazarin, however, is portrayed more sympathetically than Sister Viridiana. Whereas the latter seems to choose charity because she wishes to atone for her (perceived) sins, Nazarin's whole existence and reason for being seems to be to help others, whether they (or we) like it or not. The film's last scenes, in which he casts doubt on his behaviour and, in a split second, has to choose between the life he has been leading or the conventional life that is expected of a priest, are so emotional because they concern his moral integrity and we are never quite sure whether it remains intact or not.<br /><br />This is a remarkable film and I would urge anyone interested in classic cinema to seek it out. It is one of Bunuel's most moving films, and encapsulates many of his obsessions: frustrated desire, mad love, religious hypocrisy etc. In my view 'Nazarin' is second only to 'The Exterminating Angel', in terms of his Mexican movies, and is certainly near the top of the list of Bunuel's total filmic output. | positive |
Terrible acting, terrible script, wholly unrealistic. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway exemplifies the cliches and sentimentalism that movie studios love to cram down viewers' throats. Elijah Wood is unimaginably bad in the primary role, and the plot points are contrived and sappy. Cook's and Wood's relationship is laughable at best. But the worst element of Bumblebee is the script. This is some of the most mind-numbingly bad dialogue I have ever had the misfortune to hear. Bumblebees actually crawling inside my ears and stinging my eardrums would be preferable to hearing Elijah Wood robotically spit out his pseudo-profound lines. I wish a "Bumblebee Project" would be performed on me, so I could mercifully have no memories of this stinker. | negative |
I saw this picture in 1940 for $.11 and I would like to secure a DVD in 2006 The film was the greatest adventure of the time and,like all epics,is still an entertainment marvel (B&W and all)You get a sense of real bonded friendship in the chemistry between the actors and the performances of Sam Jaffe & Eduardo Cianelli are outstanding (This could not be done today I particularly liked the ending where the colonel recites the end of Kipling's poem over the body of Gunga Din and tells the "Untouchable" "You're a better man than I am Gunga Din"They don't make movies of this character today.The only cast member that is still alive today is Joan Fontaine | positive |
I absolutely love this movie. I just managed to get a copy and saved it to watch on my birthday. This movie brings up several questions. One is. Who are the monsters of this world? To be different is just that. Different. The real monsters hide behind masks of ordinariness. They are those that everyone considers "a nice quiet bloke" who "didn't bother anybody". Or they are worse they are the characters such as played by Croneberg. Men who draw pleasure and power from carving up people and creating their own Books of Blood. I love the shapeshifters, people with gifts and those that may be abhorent for people to look upon. This movie touches on and explores what IS normal. Who are 'other' and what fear does to some. Even though I gave this movie 10 I am still sick of women who either scream or are so set in their ways that they cant see what is happening and being a vehicle for the things that destroyed Median. My other complaint was why didn't they ever make a second film. I for one would have loved to see a continuation of this most intriguing story that keep me captivated from beginning to end | positive |
Non-stop action and just about every conceivable (and inconceivable!) sci-fi/horror cliche can be found in this blatantly silly but fun, big-budget epic. The pace never lets up, especially in the shorter US version, which tightens things up considerably. | positive |
OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie! | negative |
Poor Paul Mercurio. After landing the role of Scott Hastings in Strictly Ballroom, the best film in history, he managed to find himself doing a lot of rubbish. None of the characters in this film is very unlikable, or even hateable, but Mercurio's lead is the sort of person you prefer to ignore - completely unloveable and he wears OVERALLS. Big mistake in costume design, that one. | negative |
Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly Recommended" video list.<br /><br /> | positive |
I had never read any of Sarah Waters' novels, or watched Tipping the Velvet. I only heard about Fingersmith when i was flipping through "The L word" websites. The storyline of Fingersmith interested me, yet i passed it away, thinking "Lesbian in Victorian period, that never ends well, i have enough of those lesbo series and movies that go no where"<br /><br />However, during Christmas my local DVD store gave Fingersmith a discount, i brought the DVD, and my life has never been more colourful<br /><br />This mini series deserves to be cherished and praised. The acting is so great that i call it rare. Sally Hawkins, Elaine Cassidy, Rupert Evans, Imelda Staunton, and many more that i can't name all, brought light and darkness to their characters. Just by a little gesture, a little look, a little touch, they made their characters real and as a viewer, i couldn't help it but take them home, keep them close. <br /><br />Fingersmith, sets in Victorian area, is a story of Sue-a thief who loves and lives with her "Family" of pick-pockets. Little did she know that her fate is linked to Maud Lily-a somewhat shy, timid girl grows up in a Mansion miles and miles away. Maud's mother left her a fortune, but Maud herself can't touch it, unless she married. Worst of all, Maud's uncle makes sure she never will by keeping her prisoned in the house. <br /><br />Enter Mr Gentlement, a charming, good-looking thief with a heart as bad as any. He wants Maud's fortune for himself, and in order to do so he sets Sue up as Maud Lily's maid, asking Sue to Persuade Maud to elope with him. as time goes by, Things would be simple, if Sue didn't fall in love with Maud. <br /><br />And things would be simple, if the story was what i have just told. I do not wish to spoil, so i would like to stop there. But i can asure you that everything is twisted and turned before you can even aware of what has happened. Once it happened, you then question what would happen next. On top of that, the story is filled with passion unlike any others. There are no self-searching, sexuality questioning, "Oh my god do i like girls" moments, because the girls in Fingersmith are buried so deep in their own darkness that they barely be able to care. the story with such twisted plot moves as smooth as water, running passionately, but strangely calm. <br /><br />Weeks have passed since i watched "Fingersmith", yet Maud's eyes still haunt me, and Sue's words still warm my heart "You pearl, you pearl, you pearl", she said. And such pearl it is. | positive |
If you enjoyed the TV Series, Diagnosis Murder, you'll love Murder 101. It's great to see Dick Van Dyke in a murder mystery again. If we're lucky, this one will be a start of a TV series or at least series of movies.<br /><br />This movie definitely had some great and notable actors filling the roles. But, it didn't feel like a "face" movie. It was really a story that drew you in making you forget about the fame of those on the screen.<br /><br />I made a guess as to the ending and was so pleasantly surprised at the end that I had to watch it again! This is a must see for any mystery buff or Dick Van Dyke lover! | positive |
I like the film, it´s the best pirate-movie I watched hitherto (forget silly Errol-Flynn-stuff and Pirates of the Caribbean). This movie is wonderful melancholic. I compare it with "Johnny Guitar" at the sea-side (but 3 years earlier), two women fighting for a man, where mad love might lead one.<br /><br />The character of the female (anti-) heroine, Anne Providence, is superb, acting without compromise like a child, lost alone on her search for a own female identity in a real man´s world. She´s a quite strange movie-hero, not a funny pirate, as most of her companions in this genre, not making jokes all the time, fighting for the poor and good and only killing the stupid spanish or british soldiers or - better - sly governors, but she´s murdering all the poor prisoners of war, after she captured a ship (look careful at this at the start of the movie), she´s primitive (she can´t even read), she is desperated and she get´s an alcoholic, she looses all her friends as consequence of her obstinacy and she´s wearing rags most of the film. This film shows a pirate "hero" a little (!) bit as he (or in this case "she", but there has been a female "Anne" buccaneer, Anne Boney) might have been in brutal reality.<br /><br />The film is quite short and the story is told in a breathtaking manner. Certainly, a film from the 1950s has no exciting special effects for present time viewers (the ships swim very obvious in a bath tube), but this real drama about love (that kills), trust, betrayal, revenge, hatred and sacrifice drives one crazy. Maybe, Anne is even supposed to be Judas Iskarioth and Jesus from Nazareth in one person, being betrayed by her friend (the french LaRochelle) as Jesus; after being disappointed by the friend, delivering him to a death penalty (as Judas); than getting remorse about this (like Judas, who commits suicide according to the gospel of Matthew); and in the end sacrificing herself for the rescue of the beloved enemy (as Jesus). But, even if you are not interested in this philosophical questions of guilt and atonement, the film brings a lot of (cheap) action as sword fights and burning (plastic) ships for a very short one and a half hour. | positive |
This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.<br /><br />Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button. | negative |
Canthony is correct that this little short is just an excuse to hear a very young Judy Garland (fourteen years old!) singing with a slightly older (by one year) Deanna Durbin. But I must disagree with everything else he or she said, including the running time -- which is only about ten minutes, not twenty (a single-reeler).<br /><br />The song is not her best, obviously; but it's enjoyable and definitely worth the ten minutes to watch on Turner. The duet with Durbin is quite interesting: two conflicting styles that nevertheless dovetail reasonably well.<br /><br />The short is just a throwaway, but it's nowhere near as bad as the other reviewer made it out to be. Honestly, I enjoyed it.<br /><br />Dafydd ab Hugh | positive |
The St. Francisville Experiment claims "this ain't no walk in the woods", a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.<br /><br />Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!<br /><br />I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's "paranormal consultant" Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.<br /><br />Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.<br /><br />What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as "surround yourself with the white light" and "I love the ghosts", The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant "I love the ghosts!"<br /><br />Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the "seance" which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:<br /><br />"The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie". | negative |
If this film was a comedy, I would have given it a 10. Oh my, where do I begin? Put it this way -- I've seen lots of terrible horror films, but this one makes Troll 2 look like freakin' Saving Private Ryan. It's as if a group of porn filmmakers decided to make a horror film, changed their mind in midproduction and decided to do a comedy, then went back to horror, and then decided that they should have just stuck with porno (softcore at that). Everything about this film is simply terrible: the musical score (someone shoot the guy who invented the Yamaha keyboard), the script, the directing, the cinematography, the acting. There simply are no words to describe this. Oh wait, yes there are: Holy $*%!. | negative |
Director Nico Mastorakis has made a cynical cash-grabber (by his own admission) that is too cynical to impress anybody but a sophomore genre fan.<br /><br />The most extreme, confronting genre pics, to paraphrase a character in VIDEODROME, "have a philosophy"; that is what makes them dangerous.<br /><br />ISLAND OF DEATH's philosophy is to throw many "shocking" elements into a cinematic mix and stir slowly. The result is a dish with no taste but an ugly appearance.<br /><br />Not to be confused with Serrador's brilliant WHO COULD KILL A CHILD? (sometimes called ISLAND OF DEATH), Mastorakis's effort is set on a Greek island which is a stage for various forms of slaughter, a little bestiality and some wholesale perversion.<br /><br />Everything moves at a snailish pace and the violent set pieces are poorly directed.<br /><br />Touted as "The movie that the censors didn't want you to see", I'd hazard a guess that the censors never saw it, they simply read the presskit until their knees jerked upwards. | negative |
What happens to washed up rock-n-roll stars in the late 1990's? They launch a comeback / reunion tour. At least, that's what the members of Strange Fruit, a (fictional) 70's stadium rock group do.<br /><br />Tony (Stephen Rea) has the concession on condom vending machines when he runs into the son of the promoter of a famous music festival. It was at that festival in the 70's that Strange Fruit broke up. The 70's are "retro" and the time is right to wide that wave. He sets off in search of the other members of the band.<br /><br />Part of what broke up the band was the death and replacement of Keith, the lead singer and brilliant song writer. The band was known for its excessive lifestyle and now they are all back amongst the working class from which they came. Beano, the drummer, played by Timothy Spall (who was brilliant in Secrets and Lies) is a layabout, the bass player is a roofer, and their lead singer is still a rocker. While he owns a huge mansion he has been forced to sell it, as his fortune has not lasted. Brian, the lead guitarist, is dead, so a young guitarist is hired to replace him.<br /><br />Somewhat reluctantly the band agree to give the reunion a try. Abandoning their day jobs, they begin to rehearse, and their manager approaches their label about reissuing their albums. But he wants them to start touring again first. And so they hit the club circuit around Europe. The club scene is not kind to these overweight, dated, old rockers.<br /><br />It is on tour that the film really starts to develop. All of the old conflicts rearise, with the figures of Keith and Brian hovering throughout. They all hang together because they are all in search of a second chance for the greatness that eluded them earlier. And they rediscover some of the interpersonal chemistry that made playing together so enjoyable.<br /><br />Still Crazy starts as Spinal Tap II but gradually becomes a more dramatically focused film, following the relationships of the band members. While it is still a very funny movie, it is the evolving characters, struggling to deal with the deaths of Brian and Keith and with their own personal demons, that make the film work. | positive |
The Egyptian Movies has A Lot Of Filmes With High Level Of Drama Or Romance Or Comedy Or Action Even Sports... "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam" Was banned In Egypt Because It Content Nudity (Full Frontal Female Nudity) And This Kind Of Nudity Is Prohibited In The Egyptian Movies.. When I Saw this Movies I Felt Down... Fool Story.. Nude Actress.. Bad Action.. Some Horror & Awful Colors.. Dear Friend.. If You Wanna See A great Egyptian Movie...Simply: Stay Away Form "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam".. We Have Great Movies In Egypt... We Have A Great Actors Who Won A Global Wins Like: Omar El Sheriff Or Gameel Rateb.. We Have Great Directors Like "Yousef Shahin" So Believe Me Pall.. You Don't Need To See This Movie.. | negative |
L'OSSESSA, also known as THE TORMENTED or THE SEXORCIST, or the ridiculously titled THE EERIE MIDNIGHT HORROR SHOW, is a forgotten EXORCIST rip-off which contains one of the best horror moments I've ever seen. The scene is when the crucifix comes alive. This great spooky scene is unforgettable and totally effective (great FXs). It's a shame the rest of the movie doesn't maintain the level of creepiness exemplified during that scene.<br /><br />This is one of the most frustrating movies ever. Imagine the producers deciding to to make an EXORCIST copy but while making it, they actually succeed in creating something truly original (a possessed sculpture of crucified man, which is shocking when you think about it) but then completely forgets their original idea in order to make a boring and uninspired EXORCIST rip-off. Had the film continued with the possessed sculpture concept (with the characters trying to destroy it, etc), this film would have rocked. But once the girl becomes possessed by the spirit of the sculpture, she never tells anyone from where the demon came from. She, and the script, completely forgets the haunted crucifix, which is STUPID!!!<br /><br />If you like so-called "Euro-cult" movies, the first 45 minutes deliver unlike any other Euro-cult movies. But after the scene when the girl has a vision of being crucified and she gets stigmatas, the remaining 45 minutes SUCK. Boring. It goes nowhere fast as it tries to emulate (badly) THE EXORCIST. So, watch the first 45 minutes of L'OSSESSA and enjoy the 1970s fashions, the sleaze and the amazing statue-comes-alive-to-ravish-the-girl scene but after the first 45 minutes, press stop and eject, and might as well go clip your toenails. | positive |
Kurt Russell IS Elvis, plain and simple. His dedication to this role resulted in what I think, is the best movie bio ever. If you're an Elvis fan, see it if you can.<br /><br />The made-for-television film was made two years after Elvis' death.<br /><br />One piece of advice, there are two versions - one at 180 minutes and one at 117 minutes. The only one to watch is the longer one. The shorter one has more than one hour of footage edited out. It just does not work because the scenes in it are often dependent on the scenes that were cut.<br /><br />This masterpiece takes you from Elvis childhood through his emergence as entertainment's greatest star. Shelley Winters and Bing Russell (Kurt's real dad) are excellent as Elvis' parents. And Pat Hingle delivers a very competent Col. Tom Parker.<br /><br />Long live the King! | positive |
<br /><br />Won't be long on this movie. The first half an hour was one of the most boring i have had to face since i've started watching movies. The story didn't advanced, nothing was explained about any of the characters. It felt like a non-movie. (A lot of people had already left the audience at this point).<br /><br />A lot of the scene were totally unjustified and unexplained.<br /><br />The director should have studied film a bit more to know that each sequence, each scene, has to make the story go forward. He never did that.<br /><br />The supposedly funny moments were contrived, and only a few people laughed (people with a weird sense of humor, i guess).<br /><br />Prize of the Jury in Cannes 2002.....don't know what the jury was thinking about....probably the "politicly correct effect".<br /><br />I would have loved to love it, the disappointment was therefore even bigger.<br /><br />You have to see it to believe it. But wait for the video. | negative |
Of course, he did have to INVENT EVERYTHING about cinematography, film directing, etc. before he could make classics like "The Gardner," so I suppose he may be forgiven this initial excursion into mere sociological documentary. Today we call them "home movies," and they are just as boring now as this one is | positive |
The movie that would be included if Mystery Science Theater 3000 had a home game version! The source material for tacky comments in this movie are endless. I found the video of Terror in the Jungle at a garage sale. What a find! | negative |
I had been very curious to see the original six-hour miniseries that Steven Soderbergh's latest movie was based on, and now that I have, I am happy to say that one is not better than the other. They are both intelligent, involving and extremely entertaining. The only real advantage that the miniseries has over the movie is that it is three and a half hours longer, so we get to know the characters more in depth.<br /><br />There isn't a false note to be had in this production, one that you should definitely make time for when PBS re-broadcasts this miniseries sometime in 2001. You won't regret it. | positive |
I was initially interested in this film after reading a synopsis and seeing a few striking screenshots, and the promise was there for a gripping horror film of the Dario Argento style. Admittedly I must say that Argento's films have occasionally been rather incoherent, and some feel like a handful of visually impacting set pieces loosely strung together with a vague connecting plot.<br /><br />Since Argento is credited as writer for this, I have to say, I'm not really surprised. Even his masterpiece Suspiria, when examined, exhibits the same tendency to string along sometimes unrelated scenes purely for the aesthetic impact. However, Suspiria also had the benefit of a singular main character and clear antagonists, as well as scenes that contributed ultimately to the eventual resolution.<br /><br />The Church, on the other hand, has none of these things. It has no main character, no protagonist whatsoever; it furthermore has no real plot to speak of, and no crescendo, no climax, no denouement, and no resolution. It is a completely hollow, incoherent work that views as if Argento sat down and thought 'hey, that would make an interesting scene visually...let's do it!' The film is a series of these scenes.<br /><br />Initially it might be interesting, and Soavi's direction is excellent, I must say. Soavi cannot be faulted for the material, as it is made as compelling as possible. However, such good direction calls attention to the horrible failings of the script, and there is absolutely no sense in it. The attempt at a central unifying plot is nothing more than plagiarism of Carpenter's film Prince of Darkness. Events happen solely because the script wishes them to, and reactions to those events are completely implausible. The narrative flow is irreparably damaged after a point, simply because there is no ability to suspend disbelief; it's too ludicrous. Added to this are numerous factual errors that are so glaringly showcased that it becomes embarrassing.<br /><br />If it had been more overtly artistic and edited down into a different work, it might have been chilling or tense. If it had been fleshed-out into an actual cohesive narrative, it might have been gripping. But it was none of these. The best it managed was confusing and, at times, infuriating. Plots are introduced but never followed. Characters are forgotten about and altered arbitrarily. No logic is ever applied to any situation. It might have been scary or interesting, but to elicit that sort of feeling takes more effort on the part of a screenwriter...much more.<br /><br />All in all, The Church is not worth viewing for anyone but total enthusiasts of Italian horror that is more style than substance. This is Argento's style at its worst, and it is a strong justification for the usual criticism. | negative |
Having lived in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (30 miles from Escanaba) in the mid-1990s, I was eager to see this film. It begins promisingly enough, with some superficial understanding of the values and quirks of U.P. life. But Jeff Daniels apparently was not content with a low-key approach that would have been fitting given the place and the people. Instead, he introduces extremely crude humor and some wildly inappropriate mystical/supernatural elements. Although there is a good movie to be made about this practically unknown region of the U.S., this is NOT it. | negative |
I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere... | negative |
There are good-bad movies and bad-bad-movies and enjoyably bad movies...this isn't one of them. This is a movie that doesn't realize just how bad it is.<br /><br />I saw this at a screening on November 14, 2006 at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles as part of the "Grindhouse Cinema" this theater puts on every month. Hopefully presenters Eric Caiden & co. will think twice before letting writer/director Lawrenece Foldes anywhere near them again. What a con man. The guy got up to speak before the film -- you would think he was Orson Welles talking about "Touch of Evil" or some other lost classic. Hardly. Nice of him to take up 20 minutes of the audiences' time with his incoherent rambling. <br /><br />"Young Warriors" has been described as a cross between "Animal House" and "Death Wish" but if you are expecting something along the lines of imitations like "Revenge of the Nerds" or "The Exterminator" you will be in for one sad disappointment. The script makes zero sense. The direction is so poor the actors looked embarrassed and what can you say when the best thing about the movie is watching a car blow up?<br /><br />Poor Richard "shaft" Roundtree. In this movie he plays another character with the first name of "John" but that's about the only similarity his character here has to the aforementioned classic. I hope this film allowed him to pay the rent for another month. Other actors who look like they wished they could be anywhere else included Ernest Borgnine and Linda Day George. <br /><br />This is a complete waste of time. Even the audience did not seem that into it (except for the one spazz-boy sitting in the back who yelled "whoa" every five minutes and his girlfriend who giggled with the fervor of a lobotomized talking Barbie every time he opened his mouth).<br /><br />For real films about vigilantes, I would suggest the following:<br /><br />Death Wish I, II, III, Exterminator I, Vigilante Force, Ms. 45, Rolling Thunder, the No-Mercy Man (the latter two being a pair of films presented at this theater a couple of years ago -- probably the same budget as "Young Warriors" but both were a million times better!) | negative |
The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined? <br /><br />Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.<br /><br />Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale. | negative |
so, i won't disagree with the critics but I really was not all that moved by this movie. i was a little hesitant to rent it,as I am going through some of the same things the protagonist is supposed to be experiencing. yet, i did rent it thinking that I might experience some catharsis, or at the least understand that I am not alone. while i understood the protagonist's irritation with his careless cousin, I didn't feel his internal struggle with isolation as much as I would have liked. i felt that much more emphasis was placed on his disruptive cousin overstaying his welcome. it is a beautifully filmed movie, and I did really appreciate the use of silence to bring out the feeling of isolation. | positive |
This story starts at the end ! So the film's opening credits advise us. Unfortunately that's not true as we then are treated to around 70 minutes of a typical B science fiction movie of the 1950's. The story is dreary; the plot is very weak and has clearly been filmed on a low budget, as was often the case in those days.<br /><br />The story could have covered any situation where people are taking refuge in an isolated house and being threatened by someone outside. it just happened to be adapted to fit round a sci-fi story.<br /><br />The scenery consisted of a few rocks, bushes, and smoke. - Oh yes there was a pool of water as well. Someone wore a rubber mask with a beak like face and what looked like feathers.<br /><br />Written by Lou Rusoff, who penned several sci-fi stories around that time including The She Creature and It Conquered The World The filming was completed in a matter of days, not allowing the actors time to develop their characters to better advantage. The low budget restraints also prevented this film reaching its potential. It could have been a much better film than it turned out to be.<br /><br />Mike Connors and Richard Denning brought some life to the film, but even they could not lift this film into the category where you could say- 'I enjoyed that film' Richard Denning's acting career began in 1937. He starred with Gregory Peck and Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember and later became more well known on television in the series Hawaii Five-O and The Flying Doctor series.<br /><br />Directed by Roger Corman who has many films to his credit both as a director and producer. He has made some good films and is still making them. He became very well known for his direction of films from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, often starring Vincent Price. He also made other low budget films; some were good and entertaining for one reason or another, and most were much better than this.<br /><br />I would not recommend this film to anyone.<br /><br />Darnmay <br /><br />10th September 2007 | negative |
I think cheaters needs to be off the air and end the reality show once and for all i don't care what anyone says you can attack me or agree with me but its times like this that the show is just spewing out propaganda and the host of Cheaters Joey Greco is a little bastard who wants to think that showing people on camera is effective and unawares no it just will show disgusting he is also the wiretapping and following of people by "cheaters spy's" is illegal and a federal offense we are living in a police state like the Soviet union and Nazi Germany rolled into one i am happy that there is poor reviews on this trash this needs to end soon or we are going to lose our liberties as a nation no wonder our country is going to hell its because of this and other filth shows i liked the older shows better from the 1950s-1980s i hope you all agree with me on that thank you infowarrior | negative |
I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.<br /><br />the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.<br /><br />but again, that's the point ;)<br /><br />If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.<br /><br />It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying. | positive |
The film notes describe the main role family, as Turkish immigrants which living in Denmark. However, it is so clear to understand that the fact is, the behavior and the culture point the family is absolute Kurdish. Similar social pressures and even cultural murders keep going on Turkey today on Kurdish ethnicity societies. What a worry...<br /><br />It is widely accepted issue in Turkey today, the Kurdish immigrants living in European Countries today, which have moved from Turkey at 70's are culturally connected to the feudal moral laws system, by growing daughters and women under pressure, are giving harm to the Turkish International Image. Also, as same as widely accepted another issue is the Turkish or Kurdish immigrants on these countries are the reason negative aim about the Community Europe Nominee. | positive |
John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ | negative |
This wonderfully witty comedy-drama wowed the crowd at the Philadelphia Film Festival, whipping them into wild applause at its conclusion. Buttressed by adept performances by a nuanced cast, sturdy execution by director Jeff Hare, a brisk pace, and one of Peter Falk's best performances in years, the film emerges as a loving homage to the highs and woes of family life.<br /><br />Falk excels as Jewish ninetysomething Morris Applebaum, a wildly eccentric Shakespearean thespian who decides to end his life, but not before rounding up his three grown children and throwing a "big fat Jewish suicide party." The film brims with indelible delights. There's Morris's "tushy room"; Laura San Giacomo's passionate rendering of Morris's cynical daughter; rapid-fire comedic dialogue that recalls the work of Neil Simon and Woody Allen; the wry timing of David Paymer, who plays Morris's tightly wound psychotherapist son; and Morris's patented egg creams (but be careful, drinking them too fast will cause a nasty brain freeze). It's all enveloped in a feel-good, intimate atmosphere set in New York City.<br /><br />Director Jeff Hare proves to be a master craftsman, drawing out memorable performances from his cast and lending the film a mirthful humanity. I was fortunate to see an earlier film by Hare: the dark and powerful "Perfect Little Man," starring Neal McDonough ("Minority Report") as a Los Angeles man spiraling into madness. The visceral grit of "Perfect" and the nostalgic breeze of "Checking Out" are a testament to Hare's eclecticism and wide-ranging talent. I'm looking forward to checking out his future work.<br /><br />I heard "Checking Out" lacks a distributor at this point. Some wise company would do well to pick up this crowd-pleasing gem, for it's a potential box-office titan in the vein of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Most nobly, it would give people around the world a chance to experience the joys of this movie. | positive |
Have you ever wondered what its like to feel FREE? I am sure that each one of us know the meaning of freedom and never seriously think of using it to our advantage. HARI OM shows the audience what freedom actually means. In this film freedom is described in the form of style represented by Isa's discovery of India. Isa discovers her inner true love when she is in a Rickshaw journey with Mr. HARI OM. She looks at life differently and portrays freedom that every woman restricts in herself when she is in a relationship.<br /><br />This film is definitely "worth a watch", and I saw this the first time in Dubai International Film Festival (DIFF), and I left the cinema hall with complete satisfaction.<br /><br />"Watch it"! | positive |
The story of a drifter, his sheep ranch boss, and the boss's daughter is not for all tastes, but it's still very intriguing. It takes place in the beautiful country of New Zealand, amongst the scenery we've come to know so well through other films from this region.<br /><br />This movie was the first time I had ever seen the excellent Mary Regan, and I've been a fan of hers ever since. The cast also contains Bruno Lawrence, who is probably best remembered by American audiences from the film "Smash Palace". Terence Cooper takes a turn as the ranch owner who pays a little too much of the wrong sort of attention to his daughter (Regan). <br /><br />Sharply acted, with unforgettably shattering performances from all of its leads. I first saw this movie in extremely edited form on late night television here in America, but believe you me, the unexpurgated version is not to be missed. | positive |
Ross Hunter's musical remake of the 1937 fantasy, based on James Hilton's enduring bestseller, was written off by critics and audiences almost immediately in 1973, sounding off a backlash against musicals in general that gave the genre a bad reputation in Hollywood for years. Group of disparate British and American individuals end up on an emergency flight out of a war-torn Asian country, but their plane is hijacked and crashes in a snowy mountain terrain; a rescue party arrives and leads the group to an isolated community called Shangri-La, where the sun is always shining and most of the residents are youthful and blissfully content. Some of the performances by the classy cast aren't so classy (the effervescent mood of the piece, the lilting Burt Bacharach-Hal David tunes, as well as the lightweight direction all conspire to make the performers look just a bit silly). Peter Finch is the international peace keeper who becomes involved in a somewhat constipated romance with resident Liv Ullmann; Sally Kellerman is a malcontent who spits out lines like, "I got tired of taking pictures of people with their heads blown off, so that people with their heads STILL ON--and usually under hairdryers--could get one last kick before turning to the latest recipe"; John Gieguld "as Chang", an Asian who learned to speak English while attending Oxford, is humorously self-amused (but why no songs for Chang?). Hal David's dopey lyrics are sometimes jaw-dropping ("On the Good Ship Lollipop/how did Christopher Columbus/sail across the sea?") and the pacing gets bogged down with all that chatter about the outside world and how nothing is more pitiful today. However, the production is lush and the general handling strangely affecting. The two-dimensional characters are so overly serious they actually become endearing, and the movie's silliness is infectious. It ends up being a lot of fun. *** from **** | positive |
This sword-&-sorcery story of an appallingly brutal and callous "hero" vanquishing an evil king is worthless in almost every detail. The acting is horrible from the leads to the supporting roles. The leering, gloating glee with which the director shows the hero smearing blood around is absolutely disgusting; nor is it redeemed by any justice to his cause, since he is as bad as the people he's fighting. Z-movie editing is abundant, including a scene where a character "dies" from a sword thrust that very obviously missed completely!<br /><br />The movie is clearly banking on the charms of the female leads, Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson, who are paraded around mostly naked throughout the movie. As a 20-something male, I will not pretend that female flesh on the screen doesn't attract me. But the treatment of their characters is so degrading and the sex scenes so casual and joyless, that I couldn't enjoy even this aspect of the movie.<br /><br />Most cheesy movies of this era are at least somewhat redeemed by a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek feel (the sequel is better in this regard), but DEATHSTALKER seems to take itself completely seriously as heroic fantasy. No way! Avoid at all costs!<br /><br />Rating: 1/2 out of ****. | negative |
This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.<br /><br />The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).<br /><br />Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.<br /><br />This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.<br /><br />The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.<br /><br />Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.<br /><br />The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.<br /><br />Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank. | negative |
When I was 13 or so I was lucky enough to find this film. It was part of an endless Danish series of really cheesy stuff. This however was the cheesiest I ever owned - but I guess I sold it, too bad. Well what to write... Better than "Manos: the hands of fate" and worse than "Critters 4". But it's definitely worth an hour and a half since this was made by people who wanted to make it. The acting isn't that terrible compared to several other eighties trash - in fact I kind of like the old man even though he did'NWT look that Indian to me. But I guess you can't have everything... Do yourselves a favour and look this up... | negative |
Seriously Reality Charity TV These producers must think that the masses are full of non-thinkers.<br /><br />These shows are called reality, which means they are suppose to resemble something real, with truth or facts.<br /><br />I suppose the characters are really acting in all the pathetic-ness.<br /><br />At one point I wonder if these type of shows decrease or increase the collective unconsciousness.<br /><br />We live in a world that already contains individuals that are not authentic. <br /><br />Is it necessary to promote an inauthentic way of being? | negative |
This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two "heroes" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.<br /><br />Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His "crying" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.<br /><br />The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The "effects" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.<br /><br />This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage. | negative |
This is a difficult movie to watch, and would have been even more difficult had I known then that the actor playing the protagonist was in fact killed in his home by police at age 19. Pixote (PeeWee) is a street kid in Sao Paulo who is caught in a roundup triggered by a murder in which he had no involvement. He is committed to a juvenile prison where he witnesses brutality and exploitation that ordinary citizens try very hard to believe doesn't exist. When finally he escapes, he and three comrades survive by the only means they know, which is crime. What makes the film so heart-rending is that both Pixote and the actor portraying him clearly do not wish to be the characters life circumstances have made them. Pixote tries to trust and to love and to bond, but there simply is no room in his world for the gentle side of human nature. One is left at the end wanting desperately to do something for the Pixotes of the world, but what? Building more children's's prisons with higher walls surely is not the answer... | positive |
I cannot believe this woodenly written and directed piece of cliche film got made. There are about four good looking shots (the director should think about switching to still photography) and that's it. A strong cast is utterly wasted, scenes repeatedly end at the least interesting moments and the script says nothing new. Please spare yourself this movie. | negative |
I liked Chiba in Street Fighter, and I figured hey, no matter how stupid this movie will be, I'll at least get to see him kick some ass, right? Wrong. This is a dull, dreary mess of pointless talking, half-assed scriptwriting and meaningless scheming. There are few action scenes of any kind, even fewer martial arts scenes, and the few that are are shot and edited so poorly that you can't even make out what in the world is going on. The dub is also atrocious, and perhaps the idiocy that is this movie is best illustrated by the fact that it supposedly features the Italian Mafia... EXCEPT THEY'RE ALL Japanese! Avoid like the plague--you would see better martial arts by looking through the window of your local preschool karate class for five minutes. | negative |
It was probably watching this TV movie that got me interested in the debate as to whether "Anna" was really Tsar Nicholas's daughter Anastasia. Since seeing it I have made a point of watching various documentaries and also bought a book. Despite the evidence that has been discovered since the film was released, I sometimes still think she was. Such is the power of Amy Irving's acting in this 2-parter which is somewhat liberal with the historical facts, but packed to the brim with tear-jerking drama and Irving's totally convincing performance.<br /><br />I was not consciously aware of Irving before this, though I must have seen her without realizing it in "Carrie" (another favourite film). In "Anasasia", I never felt for one moment that "it's only a film". For me this woman WAS Anastasia, and when part one ended with her in the railway carriage meeting members of the royal family, I knew that come hell or high water I had to see the second part. I just wanted to see how she would prove that she was who she claimed to be, and as the story progressed I felt an intense hatred of Rex Harrison's character, though I greatly admire him as an actor.<br /><br />When I saw the movie listed again in the TV guide, I convinced my Mother that we should watch it, and afterward she thanked me for doing so, being almost as keen as I had been to watch part 2. Then I bought the video and can totally recommend it. "Anastasia" is one of those rare TV movies that you simply must watch for the sheer enjoyment of watching the finest acting I have ever seen on TV, and it doesn't really matter whether you believe the legend or not. | positive |
Well, what can you say about sitcoms. There often quite lame, morale dedicative, and just plain. So is this show! It got a boring cast, although A.Bynes is okej in her perky way, the rest is just stereotypical crap....as always. We have all seen it before, and will probably see it all over again when this show is cancelled. Cause, lets face it, its a mediocre and self righteous show. As the most sitcoms are....<br /><br />Well, in short. If you wanna see some good entertainment, you can rather take a twenty minute pause in front of the mirror. Do some faces and move on.... Its more entertaining than this show! | negative |
This movie is proof that film noire is an enduring style, and extremely worthy of stay alive. For me, it is he best example of film noire since Chinatown.<br /><br />It will, unfortunately, never get the recognition it deserves. It was never promoted properly when it was first released and has had to build its cadre of fans through venues like Vanguard Cinema and word of mouth rental referrals.<br /><br />I highly recommend that people looking for something more than mindless entertainment rent this movie and delved into its highly convoluted plot. | positive |
Mahatma has been depicted as a man who neglected his own son in this movie. Don't get me wrong I am not condemning the movie; it is such a wonderful movie and walked out of the cinema with a lump in my throat. We need to understand Mahatma's spiritual standing, he is a true spiritual leader. Only a fully enlightened man could possibly detach himself from his loved ones. A man with such caliber leads his family and followers by example. According to the movie, he spoke to his son and try to make him understand where he is coming from, but poor Harilall with so little intellect could not understand his father. When things went wrong with Harilall, Mahatma could remain calm and accepted that his son is a big tragedy. <br /><br />Had it been any other parents, they would have compromised their values to assist the son to get on his feet. Mahatma didn't do that, he is true leader who leads by example. | positive |
This film simply has no redeeming features. The story is incomprehensible, and the script is gross, sadistic, and stupid. The sex scenes are a joke, as is the inevitable car chase. The music is awful. The acting is limited largely to growling and smirking. A half star dud. Shame on DirecTV for putting it on pay-per-view. In a theater, people might well have thrown soda at the screen. | negative |
Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).<br /><br />Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us! | negative |
Life is really too short for movies like this. I knew it couldn't be good when I realized what I'd already suspected - that David Schwimmer would be playing the exact same type of person he plays in 'Friends'.<br /><br />Let's face it, either the guy can't play anything but a nerd or he is never offered any other parts. I have a feeling that it's a mixture of both.<br /><br />And I have to say that it is extremely difficult to like a movie that utterly wastes the considerable talents of Gwyneth Paltrow, Barbara Hershey, Toni Collette and Carol Kane!!! | negative |
I thought this movie was hysterical. I have watched it many times and recommend it highly. Mel Brooks, was excellent. The cast was fantastic..I don't understand how this movie gets a 2 out of 5 rating. I loved it.. I have seen other movies of his and they were also funny but this one really stick out in my mind because of the humor.. His I just can't say enough about this movie. I look for it to be on periodically but it never on enough for me. The people playing the homeless people were by comparison up to the funniest standards also. Please put this movie on more often. I can't see it enough..Leslie Ann Warren also was another favorite of mine, ever since Cinderella. I always thought that she wasn't really funny but loved her acting. In this movie she was very funny..and her and Mel did a great job together. They should put more of his movies on TV. | positive |
I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.<br /><br />Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.<br /><br />And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it. | negative |
It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation. | negative |
Quite frankly it seemed like seven hours of boredom as well. What is it? What is it about Will Smith that I just can't stand any longer? I guess he just seems too hellbent on being taken seriously and obtaining an Oscar. I understand how bias this is, but unless he undergoes some new acting lessons I can't ever see him winning one. He's a huge name and is therefore generally confused with being a talented and diverse actor. He's just not. I give him credit for trying so hard, and being able to cry at the drop of a hat. That's about it.<br /><br />Seven pounds was kind of an eyeroller for me, right from the start. The suicide 911 call didn't intrigue me in any way. I wasn't curious to know why he was calling in his own suicide. There were absolutely no surprises. The best I can say is that Will Smith and Rosario Dawson had some decent on screen chemistry. Also, I don't know her name, but the hispanic woman did an excellent job with her role as a scared and beaten wife. Woody Harrelson had very limited screen time, but I'd say he stole the show whenever he was on.<br /><br />All in all, just an extremely run of the mill unoriginal plot. I couldn't help asking myself the whole way through why I cared about any of these people. Never once felt sorry for 'Tim/Ben'. He killed himself with a jellyfish? Was the only survivor in an 8 person accident? Geewiz..didn't see any of that coming...<br /><br />5/10 is pretty generous. | negative |
Poor second-string feature from Universal Pictures about a mama's boy movie actor doing criminal investigation work for the military, fending off the advances of the brash young woman he's been assigned to romance. Robert Montgomery directed and stars in this adaptation of the short story "Come Be My Love", and his acting performances of this era are unrelievedly lazy. The plot is sappy, predictable stuff, and writer Robert Carson has given all the really funny lines (as usual for films of this period) to the feisty black maid. It's always nice to see Ann Blyth and Jane Cowl in support, but they can't do much with this hokey material. * from **** | negative |
Jamie Foxx leads a brilliant cast in this powerful voyage through the life of the blind, emotionally troubled, African American genius of pop jazz, Mr. Ray Charles. Though the entire cast performs wonderfully, Mr. Foxx earned more than simply an Oscar. If it were possible to nominate an actor in consecutive years, I would consider doing so for Mr. Foxx. Foxx doesn't just play Charles, he re-creates him. CJ Sanders and Sharon Warren also deserve special mention for their portrayal of Ray's mother (the inspiration of his life) and young Ray. These two provided the strongest support in the film.<br /><br />The dramas of Charles' struggles with guilt, the death of his younger brother and mother, blindness, discrimination, addiction, and success, are neatly woven into the tapestries of his music. The music is beautiful, the script is, as far as I can tell, perfect, and the acting is nothing short of legendary.<br /><br />The directorial method of the film warrants discussion. Taylor Hackford - a director I am generally ambivalent about - had to choose what aspects of the larger-than-life and complex life story of Mr. Charles would tell his story most honestly, dramatically, and understandably. Though some disagree (seemingly wanting a documentary instead of a dramatized biopic) I believe he selected his themes admirably. A big part of the success of this film is its consistent focus on a few persistent themes in Charles' life - his profound love and respect for his mother, his need to be loved and accepted, his addiction and guilt complex, his musical genius, and his deep-seated fear of responsibility for others. Charles is depicted as a man struggling valiantly against an army of personal demons. I learned more than I could have imagined about one of the men I used to listen to on my old turntable with my dad in his livingroom on Sunday nights while football games were on the TV. And nothing was sugar-coated in "Ray." The themes are carried forward with power and human dignity. These themes create a unifying drama which span the length of his long and illuminated life. The power of these themes, the strong script and directing, the music, and the acting make this one of the most enjoyable and evocative biographical films I have seen.<br /><br />Recommended for everyone. | positive |
From the What Was She Thinking? file: Whoopi Goldberg plays a cop in the future who is teamed with a talking dinosaur (!) for a crime case involving a madman who wants to start another ice-age. Straight-to-tape oddity is embarrassing and ridiculous, a high-concept in search of itself. Apparently this was a labor of love for its writer-director, Jonathan Betuel (who also served as one of the producers); sadly, the end results are anemic, to be charitable. Goldberg's mere presence on-screen can often spark good will and laughter no matter how poor the script, but here she's drowning and you can see the unfunny results. NO STARS from **** | negative |
This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.<br /><br />Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.<br /><br />How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.<br /><br />We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.<br /><br />Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.<br /><br />Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT. | negative |
I am appalled to see that so many people have given positive reviews for this "film". This movie has no redeeming factors. The music is not good, the acting is pathetic, I have a difficult time understanding how someone could enjoy this movie, let alone sing its "praises". The idea is horrible, certain scenes linked to the plot (such as the continued love story even though the male romantic interest is a SHRUNKEN HEAD) are so bad that I wanted to do myself bodily harm while watching them. The fact that there is scene in which a shrunken head flies under a girls' shirt so he can "feel her up" AND she likes it is reason enough for everyone associated with this film to perish. The link to West Side Story can only be a mockery, since to reference such a great movie in such a horrible one is grounds alone to destroy all copies of this movie. To make a long story short, this film is horrible in every way. And if I had my way, everyone who likes it should go straight to hell.... | negative |
With part reconstruction and part direct shooting, the directors made a formidably limpid documentary on a coup d'état against President Chavez in Venezuela, organized by a foreign secret service and fully supported by the wealthy Venezuelan minority, the political opposition, the Church (a cynical laughing cardinal) and the US government. It was another chapter in the history of US foreign policy, which Steven Kinzer calls 'Overthrow' or 'sowing democracy American style'. In fact, this foreign backed intervention was not only a coup d'état against President Chavez, but also against the democratic majority which elected him. <br /><br />That this is a brilliant documentary is mightily confirmed by the violent reactions for and against it on Internet. As Saint Augustine said: 'Men love truth when it bathes them in its light; they hate it when it proves them wrong.'<br /><br />This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in. | positive |
This is a generally nice film, with good story, great actors and great songs. The cinematography was unfortunately bad. One of the film's weakest points is the annoying chain of sequences copied from Pretty Woman. Why? Does it hurt to attempt some originality, Abbas? Mustan? Anyone?<br /><br />The film is about a newly married couple, Raj and Priya (Salman - Rani). Priya cannot conceive after an accident she had during the previous pregnancy, and they finally decide to use a surrogate mother, who will carry their child. They pick Madhubala, a vulgar prostitute played by Preity Zinta. The film is not really realistic, I mean, isn't it easier to adopt? And even if they pick a girl, does it mean the man has to sleep with her? Have you heard of insemination? Anyway, I guess if the writers had heard of all this, the film wouldn't have been made, so the concept is apparently intentional.<br /><br />Salman acts very well. It's nice to see him playing a serious character. But his character suffers from unnecessary and cheap dialogues about his great love to his wife and how hard he finds it to sleep with another woman. Come on, it's cheesy and unrealistic. Rani is just about OK; she is generally effective and does try to do something with the role but gets completely overshadowed by Preity Zinta.<br /><br />The film belongs to Preity, who steals the show in a big way with her flawless performance. She makes the transformation from a loud prostitute to a sensitive woman easily and naturally. She lives the film, emotes and makes you love her and admire her at the same time, partly because of her role, partly because of her magnetic and positive personality. This is one of her career-best performances. There is no doubt she is more talented than her industry contemporaries. She just should do more such roles.<br /><br />The film's ending only highlights what I said above. It is tear-jerking, exciting and very well-acted. Watch it for Preity.<br /><br />7/10 for the film! 10/10 - for Preity! | positive |
I don't understand why everyone hates this movie, aside from the fact that they're just jealous their music careers never took off like mega Popstar Aaron Carter. Like it or not Aaron has seen more success in his young life than most people could ever dream of having, so it only seemed natural for him to do a movie. Lou Pearlman and company have been known for over-exploiting their pop protégées, you remember Justin Timberlake's foray into TV movie Model Behavior? Granted this movie isn't big scale and impressive, but it's not supposed to be. It's not trying to impress people or be an Emmy award winner, it was released straight to DVD. It's just a cute little movie about an awkward teen who gets her dream of being with her favorite Popstar; I know a lot of you out there have had that dream at some point or another about you favorite singer, don't deny it. It's sweet and gentle and I applaud it for not stepping into the realm of sex, violence, and vulgar language that seem to be creeping into more and more of our movies today. Where's the decency? Where's the line? Teen dramas come in dozens these days because teens are a big market for companies, at least this one is more tolerable to me than Bratz (aka Slutz) with all the fake little girls running around going "Oh Mah Gawd!" in tank tops and mini skirts and is fathoms better than those gore fest movies like Saw. I feel for the main character girl because I was nerdy outcast girl in High School who loved Aaron Carter and NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys and other pop music and still do; and like Aaron's character would get crushing "testophobia", especially in Math. If you judge this movie solely based on the fact that you don't like or are jealous of Aaron Carter and his fame, then of course you're going to hate it and trash talk it in reviews. The only reason Britney Spears' dribble Crossroads got a higher score is because she has boobs. Accept this movie for what it is, not what you want it to be. I think this happy formulaic teen movie ends on a high note and makes you want to sing. | positive |
After 'Aakrosh' , this was the second film for Govind Nihalani as a director.Till this movie was made there was no audience for documentaries in India.This movie proved a point that a documentary can fulfil the requirements of a commercial film without diluting its essence. It was one of the successful movies in the year in which it was released. This movie contested against the big banners of the bollywood like'COOLIE', 'BETAAB','HERO' in 1983.<br /><br />SmithaPatel, in this movie acted more like a conscience of the hero whenever he drifted away or lost his composure she was there to remind him. She was not like an usual heroine to do the usual stuff of running around the trees and shrubs.At one time,she even gave up her love when the hero's ruthlessness touched the roof top.<br /><br />There was another character in this movie, which was played by Om Puri contemporary, Naseeruddin Shah.He played as an inspector-turned-alcoholic character.The role conveyed the message of the end result of a honest cop who rubbed the wrong side of the system which also gave the viewers a chance to forecast the hero's ending.<br /><br />In his debut film,Sadashiv Amrapurkar captivated the audience with his cameo role which ultimately won him the best supporting actor by the filmfare.The cop in the movie was not a complete straight forward personality he was able to adjust to the system to an extent. The anger which left half handedly continued in Govind Nihalani's other film "Drohkaal". Even after two decades, this movie is remembered just because of the director and the entire crew. Each one played their part par excellence. | positive |
I will spend a few days dedicated to Ron Howard before I swear off his work entirely. Having, unfortunately, dealt with Lucas at such a young age, Howard is now caught up in so many of Lucas' traits. How else do you explain his rampage of disasters? His only useful film, of course, has been 'Willow'. Everything else, including this, is too reliant on superficial junk.<br /><br />Some spoilers.<br /><br />He can't even have semi-intelligent focus like Peter Weir. No, poor Howard so stuck on his Spielbergian knockoff qualities that he will be quickly forgotten. <br /><br />Here we have the old adage: "love conquers all, even disease." Too bad for Howard that Lynch already got through the whole subtext with more skill. Heck, even Disney did better than this. Ron even goofs up on the possibilities presented by imagined realities.<br /><br />Howard's commentary track is just awful. Don't even rent the DVD.<br /><br />Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud | negative |
Excellent story-telling and cinematography. Poignant, biting social commentary.<br /><br />Superb effects. Well-filmed and acted.<br /><br />However, the parallel action between the present and the travel adventures (though very well done) at times drags on a little too much (about 3 hrs), and over-interrupts the flow of the story.<br /><br />I first read the book as a child, and enjoyed the parts about the giants and the tiny people -- but the book lost me when it got to the floating island and the land of the "yahoos"! Well, although the adventure plot may sound like a children's story, it's in fact a very adult story, full of symbolism about the moral decay in England at the time of Jonathan Swift, the author of the novel that the film is based upon. | positive |
Chilly, alienating adaptation of Rebecca West's book about an Army Captain returning from duty in WWII with his memory impaired (now there's an original idea!). It seems he remembers old flame Glenda Jackson but not current wife Julie Christie, which should be enough to set off some emotional sparks. This extremely well-cast soaper brings together leading man Alan Bates with director Alan Bridges and co-stars Jackson, Christie, Ann-Margret, and Ian Holm, but the burners are all on low. There are a handful of good scenes (particularly whenever Jackson is on-screen), but Bridges' pacing is unrelievedly sluggish and the film's dulled-out color is enervating. Long on the shelf, this "Soldier" is best left forgotten. *1/2 from **** | negative |
As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.<br /><br />I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.<br /><br />If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.<br /><br />If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.<br /><br />So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself. | negative |
if you are dating a girl that is into wicca!<br /><br />many parts of this movie were killer and the feeling you get from this movie while watching it and immediately after is enough alone to sit through it all but some things really bothered me about this film that i cant really put my finger on...<br /><br />i definitely think that this movie is one that any art student or photography student should see b/c of the camera style and graininess that ive never seen but that is just it...it looks like an art student made it and the plot if there is any is so jumpy that you really need to be on a lot of drugs to get just what is going on | positive |
If you can stomach the campiness, this movie should make you laugh out loud several times. It did for me, at least. I'll only mention one of my favorite elements: the "underwater shots" of the "fish" "swimming". The sound which accompanies those shots is great too.<br /><br />One last note: William Katt is actually a pretty decent actor. I hope he gets another day in the sun; watching him as "The Greatest American Hero" was a fun part of my childhood a couple of decades ago, and he hasn't been very visible since. He seemed kind of depressed in this movie. Somebody give him a fun job on a good show, or something. | negative |
I can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a "family" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.<br /><br />My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins. | negative |
The only reason to see this movie is for a brilliant performance by Thom-Adcox Hernandez who is underused in the movie within the movie. As usual Tom Villard is good, too. Otherwise it's c**p. The possesor doesn't even exist how does he magically change the letters on the theatre marquee to spell out "The Possessor"? Lame. | negative |
The movie may be great. I just watched it last night, but feel unable to give an honest opinion of it because I read the book first. The book is so much better than the movie that I was disappointed with the film. If you plan to watch "Of Human Bondage," don't read the book beforehand. On the other hand, the book is so good, and contains so much more than the love affair Phillip has with Mildred, you could still enjoy it after seeing the movie. I do not make this claim lightly. I average reading a book every 4 days, and read such disparate authors as Danielle Steel, Ovid, Faulkner, Plato, and Shakespeare. "Of Human Bondage" gets my vote as one of the top ten novels ever written. | positive |
But the fun is in the journey.<br /><br />I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.<br /><br />Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.<br /><br />The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.<br /><br />Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry... | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.