review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Walerian Borowczyks La Bete (1975) was obviously received in different ways: Some were appalled, some were shocked others applauded the courage. I however am completely untouched, bored and cannot stop asking myself why the display of incoherent, inconsistent images which vaguely orbit around a central theme are considered an intellectual journey.<br /><br />What was this movie actually about? Growing sexuality in a woman? I've seen great films on this subject, but this is not one of them. How can one attempt to portray a growing sexuality in a girl without at least trying to characterize her as a person not only as a narrative device to dream (in the nude) of beasts. Where there are no characters, there is no character study. The woman persecuted by the beast was not adolescent, the girl having sex with the black butler (is he also characterized as a beast?) has a very grown up attitude to sexuality, so where is the consistency? Is it a movie about religion? If yes we would need a bit more thematic material than a priest without function, character and charisma, but with a strong desire towards two young boys.<br /><br />Is it about bestiality? The metaphoric feel of the movie forbids any realistic examination of bestiality, especially as realistic examination requires realistic characters. So no real bestiality here. Some mythic beast and two priests talking to each other about the sin of bestiality. Enough for a college essay on the topic? I don't think so.<br /><br />Is it about sex? Is it about anything? I don't know. I only know that showing a fired gun doesn't make a film a war movie. Dealing with a topic must mean more than displaying its own associations with the theme.<br /><br />So look across the controversy. Don't be scared by the bestiality, nudity, ejaculations, masturbation and stuff. I am not. Look at it as you look at any other story and you might discover that this is a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly acted, really poorly written (okay, some pictures are quite nice, and the main character is a really good looking girl) cerebral masturbation of a director who thinks beating around the bush in a hypnotic slow manner will make a story intelligent. It doesn't. It makes it boring. | negative |
How does this movie suck? As a fan of Michael Imperioli's work on The Sopranos I picked this up at Blockbuster based on his name and a story that sounded like it had promise. It still does, but this movie doesn't fulfill it.<br /><br />Every turn of the story is entirely predictable; I kept looking for the Lifetime bug on the bottom right corner of the screen. It's all there: the noble woman coming out of hard times, the guy failing to live up to his potential despite her best efforts, the kid who gets stuck in the middle, etc., etc., etc. The mysterious stranger's identity is what really made me want to throw stuff at the TV -- I would have been more satisfied with little Stuey waking up and realizing it was all a dream.<br /><br />The filmmakers may as well have had a "The moral of the story is..." bit before the credits, since as another reviewer pointed out this thing really does roll like an afterschool special. Don't gamble, don't drink, don't do drugs, stay with your wife, spend time with your kids...come on, how about a little nuance? How about some interesting bad guys? Writer/director A.W. Vidmer should be singled out for special notice: not only is the dialogue leaden, the pacing (within dialogue and at either end of many scenes) makes this movie at least 45 minutes longer than it needs to be (and believe me, it feels like longer). The talents of Imperioli, Renee Faia and some of the supporting cast (Steve Schirripa, natch) are the only things that keep this from a "1" rating. All of their good work is nearly offset, though, by the atrocious job of portraying the boy Stuey. Not sure if it was a casting mistake (hey -- it's a mob movie, so let's cast someone from Blue's Clues who can't do anything but over-overact with a big fake grin...next let's cast the sullen, brooding kid in the Disney flick) or just awful directing but those scenes are really painful to watch.<br /><br />I'd be interested in another filmmaker's take on this character and his story; it's a shame Imperioli has already been used up by this flick. Awful, awful, awful. | negative |
I thought this film was quite good and quite entertaining for a film heavy on emotion. I agree with what another user wrote about the script being sympathetic to the three main characters. I think that this is what what made the film good. It didn't villainies either Mr. or Mrs. Kramer and it was refreshing, I think, to see two people essentially work the issue out on their own and eventually do the best thing for Billy. And, although it was a little strange, I actually liked the music in this film as well. For some reason the music seemed appropriate for the journey that the three main characters embarked upon. This movie flowed quite well and didn't doodle, like some emotionally heavy films tend to do. It dealt with a serious situation but didn't take itself too seriously. It simply told the story in a straight forward way and it worked quite well. | positive |
This movie was recommended to me by several people, and after reading all the positive comments from this site I went ahead and bought a copy of the film off ebay. The acting in the film is average and a bit hammy, especially by the family of cannibals, one sequence comes to mind when Jupiter is ranting and raving to the burnt corpse, speaking right into the camera. Its one of those performances where you just cringe and feel bad for that poor actor. Its also evidence of some of the worst editing I've seen, theres a terrible jump cut right in the middle of his "speech". There are a few creepy moments though, and at times the music works well...but overall the film isnt that great and I dont know why people think Wes Craven is that great of a director. Thus far he hasn't showed me anything that I believe to be brilliant, the only thing that improved with Cravens films, production to prodution was his budget. | negative |
When I heard Patrick Swayze was finally returning to his acting career with KING SOLOMON'S MINES I was very excited. I was expecting a great Indiana Jones type action adventure. What I got was a 4 hour long (with commercials) epic that was very slow. The second and third hour could have been dropped altogether and the story would not have suffered for it. The ending was good (no spoilers here)but I was still left wanting more. Well all a guy can do is prey that Swayze does "RoadHouse 2" so he can get back into the action genre that made him famous. Until than if your a fan of King Solomon's Mines than read the book or watch the 1985 version with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone which is also not very good but its only and hour and forty minutes of your life gone instead of 4 hours. | positive |
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse. <br /><br />Just your average movie. | negative |
El Padrino has just been released in Europe and is really kicking ass. This film with its great cast - Damian Chapa ( Blood in Blood Out ), Robert Wager, Jennifer Tilly, Robert Wagner and many more ) - is the best gangster movie since SCARFACE. A Film that everyone MUST SEE. 2 hours full of action with fantastic unbelievable stunt !!!!<br /><br />GRACIAS JENNIFER !!!! We are eagerly waiting for part 2 !!!! Does anyone know if there will be one ? Keep up the good work !!! I loved it !! | positive |
Wow... I mean WOW this has got to be one of the best story's I've ever had the chance to read/watch. We all know this famous story. Two martial artist, a man and his son, go to train in the forbidden Cursed Springs and while ignoring their warnings they both fall in a spring each. The dad, Genma, the spring of drowned Panda. And 16 year old Ranma, the spring of drowned girl. Now with every splash of cold water they turn into the very being titled to the spring they landed in. Crazy enough yet? No, thats just the beginning. As if being one of the strongest teenagers to ever exist who turns into a female wasn't enough, Ranma has to deal with crazed martial arts teachers and hundreds of insane art styles, an insane high school principle, opponents right and left who have a score to settle with Ranma wither it be for messing up their life early on somehow or for "stealling" their loved ones. And speaking of loved ones, I've lost track of how many times a boy or a girl has fallen in love with Ranma. And not once has it been his fiancée, Akane. And thats just from the first few chapters/episodes of the series.<br /><br />The story itself is amazing. I have never come across something so crazy, so bizarre, so... so... out of this world and yet its so down to Earth and believable... I can't even describe it to its fullest. Its just a charming story thats so easy to get into. What I like about it is the humor. Not once have I laughed out loud this much from a manga, and it doesn't have to try any of the stunts you would catch in Simpson's or something of the sort. I could read any part of the comic and I would be laughing from beginning to end. Another thing is the characters. Ranma, you would think making him too strong would be a set back but nooo... with every little problem the story throws at him he's doing his best just to survive half the time and his personality is that of a foolish young boy it would seem but when worst comes to worst he can be a calculating genius. And to think, of the hundreds of perverts in the show, Ranma who hates the idea of perverts all together is considered by everyone in his town, more so by Akane, the worst pervert to ever live. His father Genma, you would think the father character would blend in to the background right? Correct! But whenever he does have some spotlight... he just gives you more reasons to hate him yet at the same love him! You think you know the worst dad ever from an anime? You haven't met Genma. Ryoga, probably one of Ranma's greatest rivals and my favorite character (next to Ranma)... and probably one of the only people he can actually stand. Most likely the strongest character in the series but has two faults, one is his curse that turns him into a baby pig but his worst fault... is his lack of sense in direction! Then we have... you know, I could spend hours at the computer explaining all the characters, the story's, everything positive about it but that would be just pointless.<br /><br />Check out the series if you haven't, NOW! You WILL NOT regret it! Though I would advise checking the comic out first. I like the anime, but I've had some trouble getting the series at a good price. And a small nitpick, the humor doesn't seem to translate to the anime as well as the manga. I think partly because the comic seems more cartoonish to me. But either way, its a win win! 10 out of 10! | positive |
Jimmy Wang Yu, an authentic Asian superstar, directed and wrote this film which I have only seen in a dubbed videotape version. The widescreen (Shaw Scope!)shape was lost and the original actor's voices absent but this is still good to watch. The story is the usual martial arts school fights villains from Japan plot with our young hero winning out in the end by beating up loads of assorted thugs.<br /><br />The combat gets better as the film unravels. Early in the film it looks stiff and dull but later there is a great scene where Wang Yu fights hordes in a gambling joint then walks out into a snowy scene and takes some more villains on with knives, sword and fists. That part is very exciting.<br /><br />Quite good then but it would be interesting to see a non dubbed widescreen version if there is one. | positive |
It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?<br /><br />I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.<br /><br />I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a "sit back with a few beers" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of "American Ninja" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.<br /><br />In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called "White Phantom" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.<br /><br />So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours! | positive |
I saw this movie when I was a kid and have been looking for it ever since.It rates up there with Cabin in The Sky, Stormy Weather and Carmen Jones as a must see in movies that showcased the awesome talent of African Americans.In the 60s the local Los Angeles TV stations would have a movie of the week and some stations would show the same movie for 5 days.Porgy and Bess was one of them and my whole family would be there all 5 nights in front of the TV and only moved on the commercials.South Pacific,Oklahoma and The Sound of Music are all musical classics that you can pick up at any video store. It would be a shame to let this collection of some of the best talent America had to offer be forgotten or locked in a vault.Please make the film available to the public. | positive |
"My Blue Heaven" is boring. The plot is insipid; the characterizations and dialogue stink; the musical numbers, while occasionally staged in interesting ways, are not only too often absurd, but also lyrically trite, painfully bright, and emotionally hollow to the core. The leads, Betty Grable and Dan Dailey, are attractive professionals; however, in spite of their every talented effort to uplift the drear and uncompelling material, they fail. David Wayne and Jane Wyatt, for all their demonstrated talent in other projects, are more or less cyphers here.<br /><br />There's really only one reason to watch "My Blue Heaven". One reason...one star: Mitzi Gaynor, in her film debut. Her total screen time is probably less than ten minutes, but so what? Her pert and promising screen personality, her feline beauty, and her exceptional charisma shine through gloriously and make these minutes the most watchable, memorable, and exciting moments in the entire film. If you would value an opportunity to see a tremendous young talent on the rise, then check out Miss Mitzi Gaynor in "My Blue Heaven."<br /><br />Incidentally, I scorn (and would urge you to avoid) Drew Casper's manic, obsessive-compulsive DVD commentary for this film. Wordy, digressive, unduly fastidious, frequently ill-timed with what is playing on the screen, and galloping throughout with an excess of nervous energy, his comments are absolutely indigestible. | negative |
One of the best war films I have ever seen, if not the best. It is very hard to talk about such films as it is very difficult to point at any film mistake made. The "problem" is as it looks too real and by that drags you in to the ruins of Stalingrad and make you suffer for both sides. This is for the reason that this film unlike the most of Hollywood films doesn't glorify the war or the heroism of the main characters. Instead of that, the film makes them heroes only for being human and by that is anti-war as much as the reason can offer. Extremely convincing war scenes and so impressive acting, most of the scenes look like isolated theater pieces. Also, German army is played by Germans which is so convincing as well. The film is produced and realized by Germans where you can see their love for details to perfection. This is the reason why "Stalingrad" is one of the films I can watch million times and never feel dull. I watched the film with my father who fought in WWII and the first thing he said was: "This is like real, this is how the war against Germans looked like". This is the place you can see how did it look to be a soldier in the worst nightmare of warfare in human history and turning point of WWII: Stalingrad. | positive |
Okay it is terribly, and I mean terribly, easy to pick apart this film. C'mmon what do you expect with the title, synopsis, and actors in leads such as Carol Gilley, Ralph Baker Jr., Dorothy Davis, Bill Thurman, and, my personal favourite, Roger Ready. Yes, B star John Agar is here as a sheriff out to rid the Texan landscape of a robot-like ape from a NASA experiment gone awry. The movie has dreadful performances, dreadful scenery, dreadful special effects, and dreadful lighting. I really cannot find much good to say about it other than as bad films go you could do a lot worse as far as finding something dreadful to sit through. It is bearably short and has many moments of unintended humor. Missed cues, lighting faux pas, off-screen terror, an unbelievably inane score, and of course John Agar trying his level best to be the core of the film with an earnest performance amidst this muck. The beginning is the hardest part to sit through as it seems like it takes forever for these two teens to get their comeuppance for traveling in the woods down the Texas back roads where great ape soon will reek his vengeance in his own terrible way...Yeah right! Night Fright! Bah! | negative |
I just watched this movie, by mistake. What a little gem. This film made in 1956 looks, and feels, like a late Seventies movie. And is in fact better, more restrained and correct than, say, Blue Soldier. The environmental, anthropological undertones are way ahead of its time. The understated cinematography is superb and terribly realistic. Much more than Dances with Wolves, The Last Hunt manages to convey the look and feel of the buffalo "killing fields" of the late 1800s. Probably because those in the movie were real killing fields. The movie was shot during legal forestry directed buffalo culls, so the animals you see are really being shot, the bones are real. In conclusion, a very under-rated western masterpiece, superbly acted, directed and shot. | positive |
In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. "Amazon Women on the Moon", "Kentucky Fried Movie", "The Meaning of Life", and "Mr. Mike's Mondo Video". Notice how I didn't mention "Tunnel Vision"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal | negative |
Hey; Belmondo! Look there's Anna Karina! Great American improvised New Wave (or Independent you want to call it that), not as good as Godard or Truffaut, and not flawless, but hey such realism, style, warmth and humor. I love that NY accent; "you don't know nothing!"; "forget about it". Just like the French New Wave, it's about young people; partying, falling in love or just hanging around. Lelia Goldoni is so cute; she's adorable; wonderful. Ben Carruthers' also good, reminds me of Belmondo. A film you won't forget.<br /><br />A steady 26.5 out of 31 ;-) | positive |
LATTER DAYS <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Trouble flares when an LA party boy (Wes Ramsey) falls in love with a handsome Mormon missionary (Steve Sandvoss).<br /><br />A huge hit on the festival circuit and on limited theatrical release, this likable movie - the feature debut of screenwriter C. Jay Cox (SWEET HOME ALABAMA) - is an exercise in 'opposites attract', in which Ramsey's shallow-minded character is changed forever after falling hard for vulnerable beauty Sandvoss, who is constrained by the dictates of his religious convictions. Here, the path of true love is paved with hardship, not least of which is the reaction of Sandvoss' fellow Mormons to his newfound sexuality, which results in his excommunication from the church and the wrath of his indignant parents (Mary Kay Place has a small but devastating cameo as the boy's outraged mother). But Cox's script focuses chiefly on Ramsey's path to redemption, as his hedonistic lifestyle is thrown into disarray by Sandvoss' influence, and by the responsibilities which emerge as a consequence of his developing maturity: He volunteers as an outreach participant, delivering food to AIDS patients living at home, leading to an unexpected friendship with former party boy Erik Palladino (TV's "er"), whose illness provides Ramsey with a much-needed wake-up call.<br /><br />Cox's script is laced with juicy one-liners and various pearls of wisdom (on Mormonism: "Your church doesn't like alcohol or homosexuals? Well, I'm definitely not joining - I can't imagine heaven without both!"), and the characters are surprisingly complex and well-drawn. Ramsey has the showier, sexier role (he's first seen doing something rude to a willing participant!), but it's Sandvoss who has become something of a gay icon, with his sensitive portrayal of a sweet-natured innocent whose journey from Darkness into Light leads to a startling revelation about his place in the world around him. He and Ramsey are well-matched, and their inevitable sex scene (brief but memorable) is followed by a compelling sequence in which Ramsey describes a childhood trauma which has defined his life to date.<br /><br />Filmed on hi-def video and transferred to 35mm for theatrical exhibition, the movie's meager budget places limitations on the scope and grandeur of Cox's ambitions, though the characters and situations are strong enough to survive this minor drawback. Jacqueline Bisset shines as a worldly-wise restaurateur at the diner where Ramsey waits tables for a living, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Third Rock from the Sun") steals everyone's thunder as Sandvoss' fellow Mormon, opposed to his friend's relationship with Ramsey on religious principle... but ONLY on principle. Though a little stilted in places, the movie aches with romantic longing, and deserves plaudits for its honesty and compassion. Best seen with a crowd of like-minded viewers, preferably with a loved one by your side. | positive |
One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because "It just won't be me" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew! | negative |
What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep. | negative |
Cecil B. deMille's 1922 parlor-to-prison tearjerker Manslaughter finds the lovely Leatrice Joy as a good-at-heart but decadent young lady with more money than she knows what to do with. Her recklessness leads to imprisonment, which in turn leads to her regeneration. Thomas Meighan is the crusading district attorney who has made it his personal crusade to bring out the goodness and wholesomeness in Lydia (Joy) but he gets sidetracked by alcohol and once she is released, it is up to her to rescue him!<br /><br />If the plot doesn't sound too bad, you'll be floored by the woeful presentation. The quality of deMille's direction is very low, and he does not show any particular skill that is unique to him. The photography is standard and flat, and the editing is hardly more dynamic. One could easily classify it as a fashion show and be pretty correct. DeMille gets to dress Miss Joy up in so many different types of clothes (evening gowns, golfing costumes, motoring costumes, piles of furs) that it's subtitle could be 'Fashions of 1922'<br /><br />One thing more disappointing than the photography or editing or the direction is the acting, which is mostly flat and wooden. When it is not, it is merely routine silent gesturing, rolling eye balls, twitching eye brows and deliberate pointing and arm movements. What would have been enlivened for modern viewers by mugging and scene chewing of some of the worst silent films, is here merely dull to watch. The only member of the cast who succeeds in any form of excellence is Lois Wilson, who is not only beautiful but is able to play her role naturally. She is convincing and endearing in tearful close-ups, as long as you don't read the moralizing title card that follows once she opens her mouth to speak. Like I said, everybody else is droningly routine, Joy, Meighan, even Julia Faye. Her performance here makes a good argument for why she never attained true stardom.<br /><br />The worst and most amusing part of this movie is the heavy moralistic tone that carries through all of it. Meighan's character has plenty of intertitles where he drones on about how the youth of America is declining in it's moral stance, and going right back to the decadence of Rome. (insert absurd flashback) This movie's moralizing has been described as Victorian, but it's further than that. It has so little bearing in reality that I have a feeling audiences at that time didn't take it any more seriously than modern viewers could.<br /><br />This movie is exactly what the unknowing tend to think of as a 'typical' silent movie, with it's archaic moral structure, wooden acting and bad direction. DeMille shows that he could be a terrible director, with no sense of pacing, camera placement, or skill in handling either script or actors. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind taking it seriously. Boring, slow and idiotic, I recommend it to hardcore silent movie dorks like myself only. | negative |
This seems like two films: one a dreary, pretentious lengthy saga about an ac-tor who is taken over by the parts he plays; the other a brilliant social comment about a middle aged divorce who is picked up by a waitress. Shelley Winters is wonderful as a waitress with another business on the side. She drops heavy hints about the need for connections, her certificate in massage and her desire to get into the modelling game. I love the glimpse of her seedy flat with a kitchenette behind a curtain, and her terrible seducing outfit of navel-revealing, puff-sleeved crochet top.<br /><br />Do actors get Oscars for Shakespeare? We know they Oscars for impersonating disabled people, wearing a lot of prosthetics, or pretending to be mad. The Shakespearean scenes (which go ON and ON) are embarrassing and dated. And so are the 'going mad' scenes where Tony looks distracted while listening to his own voice-over.<br /><br />By the way, Anthony John is not aristocratic. He makes it quite clear in an early scene that he used to be a chorus boy. When he quotes his father's advice, he slips into a Cockney accent. | negative |
Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic. | negative |
This snarky, homophobic thing was dated in 1976. It seems particularly mean-spirited now, filled with gay stereotypes, and characters that are meant to be laughed at, rather than with. Redd Foxx does his standard schtick, Michael Warren at least tries to bring humanity to a one dimensional character, and Pearl--Pearl what were you thinking--? Pearl Bailey deserves far better. | negative |
A meteor hit's Crater Lake (hence our title), awakening a Plesiosaur, who proceed's to snack on the hick population (in California, that hick capital of the world.) <br /><br />There's bad movies, and then there's "The Crater Lake Monster", which somehow managed to escape MST3K. Featuring grating acting, a decent stop-motion beast, and more, this is a dreadful piece of 1970's low budget exploitation/monster movie dreck.<br /><br />While the movie is guilty of many crimes, the biggest one is Arnie and Mitch, two obnoxious rednecks who serve as our comic relief. They bumble around, fight to stock "banjo music",ogle women, and act like pathetic excuses of humanity. The characters are so bad, they should count as a crime against humanity. | negative |
Two women, sick of their controlling husbands, taking a vacation in Italy for a month with two other very different women.They come back refreshed and energized in this wonderful little film by Merchant - Ivory.<br /><br />Great scenery and the location isn't bad either. Seriously, a very good period piece 7 of 10 | positive |
Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) has a crazy life: His wife (Kate Mulgrew) stole his book and left him, he has a new budding romance with a girl named Beth (Kim Greist), he doesn't know how to start his book, and his students of his screen writing class are stranger than most. However, one student (Danny DeVito) is extra strange. He lives with his evil Momma (Anne Ramsey) and he can't get up the courage to kill her. So than he goes to Larry for help, making his life go from normal crazy, to extra crazy! <br /><br />Stu Silver should have done more! The dialog, the characters, the whole script is near perfect! And Danny DeVito has proved to me he's more than a great actor: he's a great director! His kid's movie Matilda is among my favorite family movies and now this is one of my favorite comedies.<br /><br />It's a black comedy, most jokes are about murder, but it's damn funny! All of the actors are doing their full potential, whether they're main characters (Billy Crystal) or just one-bit minor characters (Olivia Brown).<br /><br />If you like comedy (Who doesn't?) than you'll like this! 8/10 stars. | positive |
Well, if you like pop/punk, punk, ska, and a tad bit of modern psycho billy, then seeing the live performances are about the only thing worth watching. This movie has tons and tons of band cameos, along with president of Troma, Lloyd Kaufman as a semi-major role, and lots of goofy death scenes. Sounds like it may be good, right? Well, the deaths keep coming, and repeatedly to many different bands of the Warp Tour and the fans at the event. Some of the deaths start of stylish, but then they are recycled over and over, to the point of being completely repetitive. Almost everyone dies of having their head smashed, or intestines being pulled from their stomach. The gore looks as if it was from Andreas Schnaas' "Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence"; with this being the "watered-down type blood", but now that movie is actually decent, and provides humor-something that this movie terribly lacks. Sure, the movie is made by Doug Sakmann from Troma, it's got great low-budget potential, and it tries...but just too hard. Everything is overly meant to be funny in this movie, and thats what brings it down. Everything tries to be too comic and goofy, by using intentional bad acting, an overuse of pointless deaths, and doing the same thing...over and over. It's basically "Mulva: Zombie Ass-Kicker", "Chairman of the Board", or any movie you have made with your friends: it's funny to those who made it, and that's about it.<br /><br />Great potential, great idea, great use of effects-but it's the same thing...over and over: A band plays, a band dies, fans die. Everyone dies, blood is sprayed everywhere, the process is repeated.<br /><br />The question is for these types of movies-which is basically 'bad slap-stick'-do they try too hard, or not at all? | negative |
This film was on late at night when I saw it. It was interesting at start but it didn't convince me as a whole. I am no Tyson fan. In fact I don't like boxing at all. It's barbaric, obscene and double faced (by society) that some get money for beating each other up.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I felt the start of the film was OK. Actors alright, especially George C. Scott (as Cus D'Amato). I don't know how reliable the flick is. I haven't read books and books about boxing or Tyson. I don't know anything about the man, but it was quite entertaining.<br /><br />As the movie went on I felt it lost a little of it's charm and I also lost interest. I managed to stay awake though but the last hour was just not good enough. | negative |
If you want to be cynical and pedantic you could point out that the opening where a RAF Lancaster bomber is mortally wounded on the 2nd of May 1945 is somewhat unlikely since German air defences were as lively as Adolph Hitler on that day but this isn't a movie that should be viewed by a cynical audience and I guess a character being killed in literally the last hours of the war adds to the poignancy . In fact you'd have to have survived the second world war to fully appreciate the intellect , beauty and soul of Powell and Pressburger's masterpiece . The scenes of heaven are painfully twee when viewed today ? Again you have to view the movie of the context when it was made . RAF bomber command lost 58,000 men during the war , the same number that America lost in 'Nam but during a shorter period and a far , far smaller pool of active combatants , there's no atheists in a fox hole and I doubt if you'd lost a relative during the conflict you'd view material atheism as being a sensible thing . When Richar Attenborough's young pilot looks down in awe at the sight below him many war heroes must have openly wept at this scene as they remembered much missed comrades who didn't survive the war . Also bare in mind that despite losing several million people from 1939-45 there seems to be very few people from Germany passing through the pearly gates . it's obvious Nazis don't go to heaven <br /><br />The plot itself where dashing young pilot Peter Carter arguing for his life in front of a celestial court wouldn't have had much appeal to me if it wasn't for the subtext , you see A MATTER OR LIFE AND DEATH is a highly political and visionary film that laments the end of the British empire as it's replaced by American ambitions . There's little things that show up the film as being made by people aware of American history and culture . One is the ethnic mix of America , even today many Britons think that the USA is overwhelmingly composed of White Anglo Saxon Protestants when in fact only 51% of Americans are " White European " . The film rightly contains a scene where a multitude of different races confess " I am an American " as Peter is judged by Abraham Farlan , an Anglophobe who was the first revolutionary killed by British forces in The American War Of Independence . As for the " special relationship " between Britain and America - What special relationship ? Powell and Pressburger know their history when it comes to Britain and America . They obviously know their future too <br /><br />So remember to watch this movie with some of your mind in the past and some of your mind in the present . It's strange , beautiful , poignant and clever but most of all it's a film that would never ever work if it were made in the last 40 years . Can you imagine if the story was set in 2003 and revolved around a British soldier killed in Iraq ? | positive |
I am not a footie fan by any means but watched this with a friend as there wasn't anything else on the box at the time.(thank goodness). Not only did we laugh from start to finish but about a week later in the pub, when we started discussing it, we made a right spectacle of ourselves with uncontrollable laughter. Does that sloping pitch actually exist??? I have released my e-mail here so if anyone hears about it's future availability or a repeat on the telly please let me know. Definitely the funniest thing I've seen on television!!! King Leek was good too!! another Tim Healy classic | positive |
A flesh-eating octopus, where does that guy Boaz(what the..?) Davidson keep getting inspiration? Anyway,even for the low,low standards of both the giant sea animal who kills people-genre and me,this one is just beyond awful.The octopus is one of the lamest,laziest,weakest monsters I've ever seen.I think he just ended up in the (ahum)East River because Sea World got sick of him.The actors can be seen repeatedly helping the octopus choking them.Bunch of idiots,that way he'll never learn!You guys want all the other giant killer octopuses(that's the correct plural,by the way)to laugh at him?Meanies.<br /><br />Up to stop the octopus are wind,razors that are hard to handle and also special sea agent Nick Hartfield and his partner,who will retire in a week but first has to be eaten by the octopus.Hooray,octopus won the fight!A couple more and he's going to evolve(the scars in my mind stay).Nick of course tries to help him by not doing a damn thing(doesn't he have a gun or something?)but no,that magically doesn't help either.<br /><br />Okay,enter sea cop's love interest Rachel Starbird.Is this based on some comic book or something?Anyway,together they try to stop the octopus by walking in the park.They hope this helps,cos it's the 4th of July in a couple of days,and the octopus might join the party.And you don't know what he's like when he's drunk.Rachel then gets a school bus from out of nowhere to make sure this movie won't end while Nick feeds the octopus some more sea cops.<br /><br />But all's crappy that ends crappy,Nick manages to blow the octopus to bits a couple of times,and a bunch of children who happened to be there cheer and laugh.You know,on tummy-vision,this would probably get an R.In real life,I'd say all ages but I kinda like all ages so my final idea is:Suitable for absolutely nobody.There's no sex,no gore,no nothing.Now forget this movie ever existed.Join the club. | negative |
An extra is called upon to play a general in a movie about the Russian Revolution. However, he is not any ordinary extra. He is Serguis Alexander, former commanding general of the Russia armies who is now being forced to relive the same scene, which he suffered professional and personal tragedy in, to satisfy the director who was once a revolutionist in Russia and was humiliated by Alexander. It can now be the time for this broken man to finally "win" his penultimate battle. This is one powerful movie with meticulous direction by Von Sternberg, providing the greatest irony in Alexander's character in every way he can. Jannings deserved his Oscar for the role with a very moving performance playing the general at his peak and at his deepest valley. Powell lends a sinister support as the revenge minded director and Brent is perfect in her role with her face and movements showing so much expression as Jannings' love. All around brilliance. Rating, 10. | positive |
I saw not so fabulous rating on IMDb, but I went to see it anyway, because I am a big fan of Bible related material. First thing that bothered me was a little too much Indiana Jones wannabe movie, but it also looked like Casper Van Dien didn't see those Jones movies through (but he should). I believe he tried his best, but script just stunk. Music tried to be kinda Jones style too. Great work, but for such movie it seemed like too much work, like the video part did't deserve all that great music. Robert Wagner gave his best acting skills, he did a good job, but somehow the script was bringing everything down. "Jokes" are old school, somewhere 20 years old; they brought only cynic smile to my face. There are some really bad camera angels, SFX looks like homemade and unrealistic. Kevin VanHook had probably a good idea on the story (in my opinion, but I love such stories), but things just didn't work out in the end. Maybe he should put it on a paper when it was still fresh in his head. When I (in first minutes) saw that movie was going to be one of those 'low budget movies', I hoped that I will at least 'hear' a good story, but sometimes movies just disappoint. | negative |
I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.<br /><br />"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.<br /><br />Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.<br /><br />In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.<br /><br />Avoid this steaming pile. | negative |
Yeah, I'm sure it really could be a nation . . . if four of them all stood at the four corners of the world and the other two cloned themselves a few billion times. Man, I am REALLY glad that I saw this movie on FEAR.net instead of renting it. I'm a big fan of the George Romero movies and I'm pretty sure that if he saw this movie, he'd probably throw up while laughing too hard. I mean, what was with the raccoon girls posing as zombies and walking around like Charlie's Devils? It really helped too that the music composer chose the crappy fashion show music for when the zombies walked up to their killer, especially the part where they go into the warehouse posing as the furniture shop/police station/apartment/flat/whatever room it was with the gong in the background, and the live woman was arguing about the closed furniture shop. I couldn't even tell what nationality the killer was, and the fact that his accent indicated some multiple nations didn't help either. Oh well, what can I expect from a movie where they throw in a random fight scene for no good reason in a warehouse where they apparently ship boxes of air around the world. So, for all of those who worship Mystery Science Theater 3000 or if you just like reaming on bad C movies (C for Craptastic), then this is the movie for you . . . or not. | negative |
This show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. There are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. It doesn't look like the writers know the difference between what's funny and what's just weird or gross.<br /><br />It has its moments. When Spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly, it hit it's peak. But the hilarious moments are too few, and there's too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark.<br /><br />The show's better than, say, watching a test pattern or the QVC network, but it needs some better writers.<br /><br />Reading the glowingly positive IMDb comments on this show, I am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of Spike.<br /><br />It just isn't very good most of the time. | negative |
Very dull show. Whats worse, its very racist. The white guys are dumb idiots and the only romance is between a black guy and a white woman. There is nothing interesting about this romance, it is not exciting, it is not fun, they don't even seem to care for each other at all, its more like the writers and directors wanted an interracial thing going on. Why this is so popular in media today? It is social programming and will lead to no good, there is always tension when too many people want the same thing. This show is not worth the 20 bucks for the season, its a waste of time and harmful to society. At least when they use TV shows to sell products they are more discreet, selling whatever agenda here is quite obvious, and without clear thinking some may feel wrong to oppose it, but some of us know better. | negative |
Well i am going to go against the grain on this film so it seems. Being a self confessed horror fan I sat down to this not quite knowing what to expect. After 2 or 3 mins i actually found myself scared (quite rare). The film obviously has a small budget and is set around charing cross station but the films lack of money does not distract from the story. Yes the story is a bit far fetched and doesn't explain itself very well but THE CREEP is a class act and proceeds to slash and dismember anything that comes its way. MESSAGE FOR LADIES !!! THERE ARE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE FILM YOU SHOULD CLOSE YOUR EYES AT OR AT LEAST CROSS YOUR LEGS !! you will understand when you see it.<br /><br />All in all a good film and it makes a change to see a good slasher movie that actually scares | positive |
I haven't reviewed on IMDb before but this documentary is so overrated that I felt compelled to vent. I wouldn't have even finished watching if I hadn't been a guest at someone's house. The film was poor on many levels: First - Treadwell's video footage was contrived. The more I watched, the more he seemed to be acting as a person desperate to be famous instead of one acting out of conviction.<br /><br />Second - The others in the film, with the exception of Treadwell's parents and the airline pilot, were just as contrived and corny as he was. God, they seemed artificial.<br /><br />Third - Treadwell's mission to protect the bears doesn't even make sense as he did more harm than good by making the bears grow accustomed to human presence. I believe that Treadwell really did love the bears but there is much research which indicates his efforts were misguided. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our enjoyment of wildlife to really help.<br /><br />Fourth - The film's entertainment value wasn't half that of other wildlife films such as "March of the Penguins" and "Winged Migration". The filmmakers, in my opinion, did a poor job of sequencing scenes and gave little incentive to keep watching.<br /><br />As a person who loves Alaska, bears, and other wildlife, I would love to see more people dedicated to the preservation of our wildlands. Hopefully their efforts will be less people-centered. | negative |
I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.<br /><br />Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces". | positive |
For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet. | negative |
This really is a cringe making exercise. Dressed up as a tribute to fire fighters it contain stupid scenes of "we're just a bunch of wacky guys" in the midst of the "my goodness this can be really dangerous" parts. Mostly it is just plain dumb. You couldn't believe for a single minute that real fire fighters act like this. It is so awful I couldn't bear to watch at times. If my daughter hadn't rented it and then insisted on seeing it through to the end I would have had no option but to turn it off.<br /><br />Thing is I'm a John Travolta fan. Every interview of his I've seen just raises my opinion of him. I think this was one strictly for the money. I'm sure he'll be happy when this one gets forgotten. | negative |
"A Guy Thing" tries to capture the feeling of "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet the Parents" but comes off more like it was edited up out of cutting-room rejects of those two films. Thankfully I rented it on a 5-day rental because I couldn't sit and watch more than 20 minutes at a time.<br /><br />The premise is decent and I liked the scenes where other guys automatically cover up for Paul's missteps (the checker at the Save-mart was great) but the script-writing is absolutely horrible. The dialog falls flat most of the time and just when you think that things are finally going to get on track some needless sight-gag is stuck in for no good reason. Plus how many toilet jokes does one movie really need?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, slapstick humor is great when it's smartly done as in the other films I mentioned, but this movie simply misses the mark. Too bad as I love Julia Stiles (Ten Things I Hate About You was great) but even that couldn't help me sit through this terrible movie. Save your dollars and go rent "There's Something About Mary" one more time. | negative |
Just saw ICE AGE, a very funny and especially nice looking film. The story is simple but effective, the characters lovable and nicely fleshed out but what really shines is the digital set design.<br /><br />More inspired by traditional animated movies than reality, the designs give you a really, really nice looking world in a astounding use of colour. Sometimes the touches of reality shine through (especially the water was impressive), but nonetheless, it's a fantasy-world based on reality. Including loads of vast landscapes especially helps to minimise the costs of rendering.<br /><br />Pixar films shine with technical brilliance, this one shines with effective uses of technical know-how.<br /><br />Enough technical babble, the film's entertaining, family-friendly and sometimes just hilariously funny. | positive |
I can't believe that in the 34 prior comments, nobody mentioned that this film is a blatant rip-off of Born Yesterday. A man is hired to bring an ostensibly dumb blonde up to the requirements of a gangster. Hired gun and blonde fall in love and live happily ever after. Gangster is left in the lurch. But Born Yesterday was an intelligent treatment whereas this is just so much fluff. Technicolor transfer to DVD is deplorable. Natalie Kalmus would be rolling over in her grave. Check out the paperboy. Recognize him? But, it's historically interesting to see the roots of Rock 'n Roll. Also interesting is Ewell's introduction to CinemaScope, a new format at the time. | negative |
I am amazed at how this movie(and most others has a average 5 stars and lower when there are crappy movies averaging 7 to 10 stars on IMDb. The fanboy mentality strikes again. When this movie came out just about everyone slammed it. Even my ex-girlfriend said this movie questionable. Years later I sat down to watch this movie and I found myself enjoying. Even laughing quite a bit. This and The Replacement Killers are the movies that had people labeling the director Antoine Fuqua as the black Michael Bay. I don't see how since most of Fuqua's movies are smarter than anything Michael Bay has came up with. At any rate...<br /><br />Story: Alvin Sanders(Jamie Foxx) is former convict that is used by a no-nonsense Treasury agent Edgar(David Morse) as a pawn to catch a killer named Bristol(Doug Hutchinson). Alvin's every moves are tracked by a bug implanted in his jaw after an accident. While these agents are after Bristol, Bristol is after the gold bricks that were taken in a heist gone awry.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx is funny as well as great as Alvin Sanders. Alvin is a fast-talker that is a lot smarter than he lets on. Doug Hutchinson is okay as Bristol. He can be over-the-top sometimes in his John Malkovitchesque demeanor. He was better here than he was as Looney Bin Jim in Punisher: War Zone. David Morse is good as the hard edged treasury agent. Even Mike Epps is funny as Alvin's brother Stevie. Both him and Jamie had some funny moments on screen.<br /><br />The only flaw of the movie is the some of the attempts at a thriller fall flat. The scenario at the horse race track is way over-the-top but I couldn't look away. The director went all out there so he gets points for that. Plus the bomb scene with the treasury agent tied to a chair while the detonator rests on the door was pretty nifty.<br /><br />All in all Bait is not a bad movie by a long shot. Its never boring, its always funny and I wasn't checking my watch every minute. That should count for something. Bait is one of the most underrated movies of 2000 period.<br /><br />PS: to the reviewer that claimed this movie is too violent.... How long have you been living under a rock? I'm pretty sure you've seen the Die Hard series and EVERY movie by Quentin Tarantino. But those movies aren't violent right? Weirdo. | positive |
I watched this film mistakenly thinking that it was that other radio station zombie flick. The shonky production values and low-rent cast soon gave away that this was another one of the those cheap sci-fi channel style knock offs.<br /><br />The central performance from Bill Moseley is initially quite engaging as the dubious radio shock jock but as the film goes on becomes less and less convincing as he is actually required to act. The rest of the cast have little to do other than look concerned and have no depth whatsoever.<br /><br />The cinematography is dull, flat and completely uninspired, like so many of these kind of films. It doesn't even manage a decent bit of convincing gore, the zombie make up is literally pathetic apart from one notable exception towards the end of the film.<br /><br />The film tries to inject originality and a message into it's concoction of half baked and ripped off ideas by somehow equating this outbreak with intolerance towards Islam and the war on terror. This is woefully handled with all the intellectual clout of a 6 year old. As the characters and seemingly the writers are unable to distinguish the difference between race and religion - describing all people of a certain skin colour as "muslims." Most notably one character is revealed to be Muslim by skin colour alone. At the same time the "muslim" terrorists who cause the outbreak are the usual psychopathic stereotype. <br /><br />Presumably the far far superior Pontypool had a similar budget as Dead Air yet shines everywhere where this film fails miserably. | negative |
Look, this movie is obscure, brilliant, and a classic that should sought out by any means necessary. I suppose the powers that be have decided that it will forever be relegated towards the bargin bin; nevertheless, we could only pray for the chance to see this one on DVD. I would say that it even beats the great Phatasm. If you like a dark movie, with plenty of spooky imagery, look for this one and see how an 80s horror movie is suppose to be. | positive |
**** SPOILERS THROUGHOUT **** This is a very strange film - particularly for its time - in every respect. For six years, American movies had shown American soldiers as everybody's son, brother, father.<br /><br />In movies like The Best Years of Our Lives and Til the End of Time, our hearts are tugged by the difficulty that the sweet returning soldiers have in adjusting to peace and their families. Yet in this same year, this film shows soldiers as a mix of people rather worse than the viewer - one message of this film is - "lock up your daughters." <br /><br />Even the good soldiers - with plenty of time on their hands - are gambling all the time, getting stupefyingly drunk, and are wholly indifferent to whether they even have wives any more. And their reaction to the police investigating a murder is -- to conspire against them.<br /><br />Mitchum, the most sympathetic soldier says things like "I don't know if my wife wants to make a go of it now after the War. Haven't seen her in two years. Do I care? Not really. Maybe we'll make a go of it, maybe not." <br /><br />Another soldier is shown as unusually sensitive because after years away, he would like to see his wife again.<br /><br />Later, when this soldier states at the police station that he spent the evening at a whore's home - without knowing his wife is sitting just behind him, there seems to be no question whatever that his wife will be fine. Indeed, she is - I guess it's "Hey, soldiers will be soldiers".<br /><br />The police detective played by Robert Young who is trying to crack a murder case, states convincingly and with infinite weariness about someone's account of their actions on the night in question, <br /><br />"Do I care? No. I don't really care about anything any more. I've done this too long, I guess." <br /><br />A man shows up at the whore's apartment. He says "I'm just a man like you, interested in" the whore. Then he says, "No that's a lie, I'm her husband. I'd like to be in the military, I was turned down before." T<br /><br />hen he says, "No, that's a lie, why would I want to be a soldier?" He goes through another series of lies when the police ask him who he is. To the end of the movie, we haven't a clue who he is or why he is there!He's one of the strangest characters in the history of movies! <br /><br />A man stands with his girlfriend at a bar talking to four soldiers, when a clumsy soldier knocks a drink onto his girlfriend. She leaves to change her dress - and is right back wearing another, no problem. Yet the man doesn't leave with his girlfriend - who simply disappears - but instead follows one of the soldiers when he leaves to go to another area of the bar! The man then extrapolates from the minimal information he's learned about the soldier -- to philosophize grandly about the problems of returning soldiers -- and immediately invites the soldier home because he is drunk and feels sick. This is strange stuff.<br /><br />Similarly, a dance hall girl is irritated by the sentimental soldier who would like to take her out "for a real dance - and dinner maybe". Yet she does dance with him - and immediately gives him the key to her home! <br /><br />Were people in the late 1940s always urging soldiers to come to their homes after they just met them? <br /><br />Robert Ryan kills his host, a stranger, when he's enraged that the Jewish host tries to get the steadily drunker Ryan out of his home. The reason for the murder? "No Jew tells me how to drink". "How to drink?" Huh? What does that mean? <br /><br />This movie is always off-kilter, quite deliberately so - the soldiers act consistently with total complete defiance of the law, and all the characters are as cold and tough as any movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />And yet the movie is utterly gripping! You simply have no idea how these people are going to act - or what new bizarre character is going to pop up - without anyone thinking the person's actions are strange in the least - e.g., the wife's behavior.<br /><br />The acting is about the finest I'e ever seen - from Robert Young, Robert Ryan, Gloria Grahame (who earned an Oscar nomination), Paul Kelly and other actors I'd never heard of.<br /><br />I'd never heard of this movie - and it's a complete delight that I've discovered one that I shall want to see again and again and again. it's really strange but impossible to look away from because you've no idea what these creatures will do next. | positive |
I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.<br /><br />Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:<br /><br />-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.<br /><br />And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!<br /><br />Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.<br /><br />On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).<br /><br />Save your time and money: don't see this movie. | negative |
We all know that countless duds have graced the 80s slasher genre and often deserve nothing but our deepest disgust. Maybe that's a bit hastey but damn if "Slaughter High" wasn't terribly unoriginal, even for a slasher flick. Pretty much, the plot involves a kid who experienced a Carrie-like shower humiliation in high school and returns to the dilapidated building to seek out revenge on a group of former-bullies who all show up to reminisce. As you'd expect, they are killed off steadily by a masked madman on April 1st by means of electrocution, burning, hanging, and chemically altered beer. I've got a number of problems with the plot details and settings of this movie, but considering the ending, I feel the need to discard my complaints and just say that this is a complete waste of time. Ignore any thought of viewing this movie... | negative |
It is not always certain that by mixing comedians together you will produce laughter. The comics involved have to actually like or admire each other, or be willing to put up with each other's crankiness. GO WEST with the Marx Brothers had Buster Keaton write the script as a gag man. Groucho did not think too highly of Keaton's ideas, and embarrassed him at a script meeting. And though some of Keaton's gems still appear in the finished film (such as the gun that turns into a brush that turns into a gun) the film was one of the weakest the Marx Brothers ever made.<br /><br />A better film, but also affected by dueling comic egos, was W.C. Fields and Mae West in MY LITTLE CHICKADEE, which jettisoned the script for a series of duels of one liners between the leads. But the one liners were equally funny, so the film remains a success.<br /><br />But SIX OF A KIND is an example of six film comics who worked well together. The reason is simple: it is really three comic teams working together: Charlie Ruggles and Mary Boland, George Burns and Gracie Allan, and W.C. Fields and Alison Skipworth. Ruggles and Boland were paired in about half a dozen comedies during the 1930s, usually with Boland as a somewhat bossy wife, and Ruggles as a nervous wreck of a husband. Fields (usually a single act) was paired three times with Skipworth (TILLY AND GUS and IF I HAD A MILLION were the other two times). Skippy always figured out how to control or counter the larcenous activities of her man - it the present film she takes action into her own hands with the stolen money that is being searched for (she knows that the local sheriff, Fields, is not the one to trust with this). As for Burns and Allan they manage to effortlessly involve themselves with the put upon Ruggles and Boland on their cross-country trip by car.<br /><br />Ruggles quickly gets to realize what a mistake it was to agree to travel with Gracie - at one point she manages to cause him to fall off a cliff, and dangle from a branch. He is relatively helpless when she insists on 1) photographing him on his perch, and 2) correcting his grammar. The presence of George and Gracie's humongous dog ("Ran Tang Tang" is it's name) does not make travel arrangements easier for Charlie and Mary.<br /><br />Fields has some choice moments. When he insists on shouting at the quartet, he says he's allowed to do so - he's the sheriff! He also explains, during a pool game, the improbable story of how he got his undeserved moniker "Honest John". You have to listen carefully to the tale, as it is interrupted with his attempts to play pool a few times (once getting accidentally beaned by a billiard ball), but it does show that there were items that even Fields would have had no reason to steal.<br /><br />Oh, in the "Summary Line", I mentioned a forgotten actor named Bradley Page - he was the man who is responsible for the trouble that Charley Ruggles is suspected of. Bradley has to have a reason to leave town in order to catch up with the unwary Ruggles and Boland, so he telephones his girl friend. He tells her to call back his job and say that he has to leave town because somebody has died. There is a pause as he apparently hears a question shot back by the girlfriend. "ANYBODY!", he says - clearly annoyed. Although the bulk of the humor in the film is carried by the sextet of performers, Mr.Page happened to have the most amusingly unexpected line in the film. | positive |
The Dukes of Hazzard will academy awards!! Best actor and actress 4 the persons who can say with a straight face that this was a great movie.<br /><br />This "movie" was a torture to watch. So sad how an weekly half hour entertainment was destroyed by these amateurs.The only good thing about this crap was the car! I remember when Daisy was a real threat to look 4ward 2. Who's the moron that decided that Jessica Simpson is hot?! We know she can't act but come on. In the TV show Daisy was a fox and brunette.<br /><br />All members who contributed in these waste of time please please please don't even think about makin a sequel, a prequel or anything that's got 2 do with a former TV show.<br /><br />I gave a empty DVD so this "movie" could be burned 4 me. I sat trough it and i want my money back! | negative |
This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask "why" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch "Lord of the Weed": it's a lot, lot more fun. | negative |
Well executed old and very dark house horror. Good set-up which includes the character of Poe, himself, alluding to the story in a London pub. Although from here it is pretty much the one guy who has taken the dare to visit the house on a particular night running from room to room either looking for or avoiding people, it is still most enjoyable. Plus we have the delightful and enigmatic Barbara Steele. There is some wooden dialogue and some unexplained bits and bobs but it is the super creepy atmosphere that is maintained throughout, that and the super musical score that keep this one moving nicely along. DVD originates from US and has a few extras | positive |
That's what I felt like yelling as well as stomping out of the theater, but I restrained myself. Yes the acting was great, no this wasn't the typical hollywood film, but the dialogue just wouldn't end (or get interesting)! And despite all the gabbing, you never get to really know or care about any of the characters. Definitely the most boring film I've seen since Sphere, but I was expecting that one to be boring. I had to sit through it, but please, spare yourself | negative |
Laughs, adventure, a good time, a killer soundtrack, oscar-worthy acting, and special effects/ animitronics like none other, what else could you want in a movie? If you see this will be on the telly, WATCH IT, otherwise, run out now to RENT IT!!! | positive |
As an ex (nuclear) submarine officer I must admit this is my favorite submarine movie (even exceeding Hunt for Red October). Someone knew something about submarines when they wrote the movie. OK - not realistic - but it is a comedy - and has all of the "inside jokes" from the submarine force. A great cast with the stereotypical uptight submarine guys on the "Orlando" and our heroes on the diesel boat. Definitely "DBF" by the way = that means diesel boats forever. But they want ten lines in order to post this - jees is the Admiral in charge here? <br /><br />Line 10. | positive |
Before films like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' 'Suspiria,' and 'Halloween' changed the view of horror forever, there was a more Gothic and far less violent era in the genre. Films like the Hammer Horror series and 'Rosemary's Baby' were what scared and thrilled audiences throughout the 60s and early 70s. I can't tell you how many times I rented this film during my childhood, but I did because there was something about it. I didn't want to limit myself to the slasher and zombies movies of the 70s and 80s and films like this production from the famous, but sadly long gone Amicus film company were a good start.<br /><br />Pros: A grand, eerie music score. Strong performances from a stellar cast. Brilliant cinematography. Plenty good old fashioned thrills and chills, especially in the first and last vignettes. Some haunting moments and images. Moves at a slow, but stead pace. The house is one spooky, oppressive dwelling. Great production design and set decoration, which give the film a real old Gothic horror feel. Depends more on mood and bloodless chills than on gore and gratuitous nudity for it's thrills.<br /><br />Cons: Some pacing issues in the first half. Aside from the 'The Cloak,' the rest of the stories feel like they've been done before. Clichés galore. The second story, 'Waxworks,' has fine acting and it's moments, but is the weakest of the four in terms of scares and suspense. The low budget really shows at times.<br /><br />Final thoughts: After seeing this film for the first time in many years I can see why I rented it so frequently. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good example of a time when horror films were made with style and class. Watch this one with the lights off.<br /><br />My rating: 3.5/5 | positive |
I need to be honest. I watched and enjoy this show because it was gross, offensive, hilarious, and raunchy. Yeah, there is a lot of humor for all tastes. If you are into the kind of humor that deals with making fun of people falling from skateboards, for example then you will have a great time for it.<br /><br />Or, if you enjoy people on extreme stunt actions going bad, you will also have a great time. And if you enjoy scatological humor and extreme situations oh , you will enjoy the show.<br /><br />I enjoy all three kinds of humor that "Dirty Sànchez" offers. I like to have a hard laugh with the situations of the show. "Jackass" is like a walk in the park compared to this one. So if you are tired of the typical American stupidity of Jackass, give it a try to English extreme stupidity on this show. With all due respect.<br /><br />This is a show that has little taste or class. It's not recommended for those who are easily offended or grossed out.<br /><br />Now, these guys need to see a psychologist. Specially the Paco character. | positive |
I can't understand why they decided to release this film to introduce the American audience to the dynamo that is Jet Li. Fist of Legend would have been a much better choice. Anyway, Black Mask isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't great either. The final fight sequence is well staged by Yuen Woo Ping who went on to coordinate The Matrix. But the English release suffers from rough editing and dubbing. (I'm begging the Hollywood studios to release these films uncut with subtitles.)Jet Li shows his characteristic charisma in the title role and Francoise Yip has a cool but brief role as the female 701.<br /><br />Black Mask has a strange goth style that adds some interest but it is overloaded with gun battles and explosions. More focus on Li's fantastic physical skills were in order. Black Mask is a decent film but do yourself a favor and pick up Fist of Legend if you want to see a tremendous film that really shows Li's skills. | positive |
Despite some mildly thought-provoking oddities in the script and the film's overall curiosity value, Fury of the Wolfman emerges as a dull, uninteresting excursion into lycanthropy, saved only by the statuesque presence of villainess Perla Cristal. The rest of the players, including the hammy Naschy, are a complete write-off (though admittedly none are helped by often atrocious dubbing). Although the screenplay packs in enough variations on werewolf/Frankenstein/Dr Moreau themes to flesh out a dozen movies, the plot is so unevenly developed, the characterizations so feeble and the dialogue so verbosely ridiculous (at least in the English version), that any latent interest in the turgid proceedings is soon quashed.<br /><br />Zabalza's direction seems jerky, even amateurish. His staging is clumsy and ineffective. He is not helped by Villasenor's over-bright lighting. Even promising sets are so unatmospherically photographed that the director's few attempts to give the audience a fright are signaled far in advance<br /><br />Other credits fall into a similar pattern of ineptitude, though the stridently over-emphatic music score and the laughably crude, totally primitive special effects deserve special condemnation. | negative |
Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing. | negative |
"Sasquatch Hunters" actually wasn't as bad as I thought.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Traveling into the woods, Park Rangers Charles Landon, (Kevin O'Connor) Roger Gordon, (Matt Latimore) Brian Stratton (David Zelina) Spencer Combs, (Rick Holland) and his sister Janet, (Stacey Branscombe) escort Dr. Helen Gilbert, (Amy Shelton-White) her boss Dr. Ethan Edwards, (Gary Sturm) and assistant Louise Keaton, (Juliana Dever) to find the site of some reputed bones found in the area. When they make camp, the team discovers a giant burial ground and more strange bones littering the area. When members of the group start to disappear, they start to wander through the woods to safety. It's discovered that a Sasquatch is behind the killings, and the team band together to survive.<br /><br />The Good News: This wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The movie really starts to pick up some steam at around the half-way point, when the creature attacks. That is a masterful series of scenes, as the whole group is subjected to attacks by the creature, and the suspense throughout the entire play-out is extremely high. The wooded area is most appropriately milked during these parts, heightening the tension and wondering when a single person wandering around in the forest will get their comeuppance. Also spread quite liberally through the movie is the effective use of off-screen growls and roars that are truly unworldly. They really do add much to make this part so creepy, as well as the other times the growling shriek is heard. It's quite effective, and works well. It's quite nice that the later part of the film picks up the pace, as it goes out pretty well on a high note of action. One scene especially I feel must point out as being a special scene on first viewing. As a man is running through the forest from the creature, he spots the expedition that has gone on looking for it. Raising his hands to holler to them for help, the second he goes to announce his presence is he attacked from out of nowhere and killed quite hastily. It caught me by surprise and actually gave me a little jump on first viewing.<br /><br />The Bad News: There was only a couple things to complain about here, and one is a usual complaint. The creature here is mostly rendered by horrible CGI, which made him look totally ridiculous and destroys any credibility it might've had. The air of menace conjured up by the opening of the film is almost shot out the window when the creature appears on screen. It's so distracting that it's a shame a little more work wasn't put into it. I've complained about this one a lot, and is something that really should be done away with, as it doesn't look that realistic and is quite fake. Another big one is the off-screen kills in here. Very often in the film is a person grabbed and then yanked away, and then finding the bloody body afterward. It's quite aggravating when the kills look nice and juicy afterward. Otherwise, I don't really have much of a problem with this one, as everything else that's usually critiqued about this one didn't really bother me, but it is called on for others beyond this stuff.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: I kinda liked this one, but it's still not the best Sasquatch movie ever. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, and if viewed that way, it's actually quoit enjoyable. Fans of these films should give this one a look, and those that like the Sci-Fi Creature Features might find some nice things in here as well.<br /><br />Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and some graphic carcasses | positive |
Really a terrible movie. It's to be expected, though. Clearly a low budget: nothing all that innovative, an actress (if you can call what she does "acting") who always has roles with nudity in a shower scene, a man in a reptile suit almost modeled after predator, a cabin in the woods, etc. But there are some redeeming points. Although the story is not new, for the most part, there's a few parts that aren't so regurgitated. For one, the black guy doesn't die when he's attacked (the first time) and he isn't even one of the first couple to die. But that's minor. More importantly, there's a very interesting twist regarding Kat's experiments and Wes & Steve that I didn't see coming. When Steve told Kat he knew what she did, I believed what he said and what Kat replied with. But when the creature revealed who he really was, I was pleasantly surprised at the novelty of the revelation. It could be because of my lack of experience with the genre, or that it's a genuinely clever twist.<br /><br />Either way, the movie's pretty bad and don't watch it if there's anything better on... Unless you're in the mood for a cheap scifi flick. | negative |
The movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the Novel. If you want to see the movie then don't read the novel first as it will shock you. However, cinematography was OK and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores Africa then go for it. Acting performances are adequate, however, many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. In the novel, Sir Henry Curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. Gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king. | negative |
This movie had potential. If it had been handled differently. What it needed was a different director. That's certain. And perhaps a different leading lady. I just can't understand the Minnie Driver character - or at least how she played it. She was completely unbelievable. I cannot believe she would have liked her performance in this movie either. She was probably abandoned by the director or incapable of delivering what the director was trying to get her to do. I am writing this as I am still watching it. I'm thinking I would have hated to be in her shoes trying to 'act' something I didn't understand. Well, we've just proceeded to the affair she begins with the son (I'm still watching). I'm now beginning to be profoundly embarrassed for everyone involved in this enterprise. If you enjoy watching movies that miss their mark in a big way, then watch this one. | negative |
Those childhood memories...when things were new, and we were filled with curiosity about the world around us; as we took those initial first steps in the long journey we call life.<br /><br />One of the initial memories I have from childhood is this animated program "Galaxy Express 999," about a young boy named Tetsuro, who goes on a train ride around the galaxy, in the hopes of gaining a mechanical body in order to avenge the senseless death of his mother at the hands of cold-hearted, trophy gathering mechanical hunters. Accompanying Tetsuro on his journey is Maetel, a woman of exquisite golden beauty who reminds him of the mother he lost all those years ago...<br /><br />Back in the early-80's, as a boy who attended kindergarten and the early years of elementary school in Seoul, South Korea, "Galaxy Express 999" was a phenomenally popular animated program imported from Japan, which inspired young boys who tuned in to dream of countless adventures in their often tumultuous and exciting journey through life that awaited them. The memories of tuning into this animated program on weekdays between 8 to 9pm before bed time...<br /><br />Those were some wonderful memories, never to be had again...<br /><br />As I moved to America, and while residing here for over 2 decades, I sometimes wondered about that time and place, in a country thousands of miles away divided from America by an enormously vast ocean, of this childhood program, with its hit theme song, and of the boy named Tetsuro, his protective companion Maetel, the enigmatic train conductor, and of the spacefaring train Galaxy Express 999.<br /><br />Many, many years passed...<br /><br />Last summer while I was in Korea, I was able to track down a copy of the original "Galaxy Express 999" (1979) on DVD, and it brought back a lot of nostalgic, heartfelt memories. "Galaxy Express 999" remains as captivating as the first time you discovered it all those years ago, opening up those nostalgic memories of new discoveries, an important stepping stone for young boys who tuned in and embarked on their life's journey into manhood.<br /><br />Here's to wonderful memories. "Good-bye, Maetel. Good-bye, Galaxy Express 999...<br /><br />Good-bye, to my childhood."<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
on this quagmire of mediocrity? You are SO much better than this.<br /><br />Simply put, Frostbite is worthless. Bad acting (and I use that term loosely), minimalist "plot," sophomoric humor, and lackluster snowboarding. There's not even a sufficient display of feminine pulchritude to spark the prurient interest of socially inept, but red-blooded, males.<br /><br />Top Gun had spectacular flight sequences to goggle at. Days of Thunder had heart-pounding racing action. Even Point Break had skydiving scenes to its credit. Frostbite has none of these. It's not worth your time, my time, Traci Lords' time, Carmen Nicole's time, nor the time of anyone involved with this destruction of celluloid that would have been perfectly usable on something worthwhile had it not been wasted on this fodder for the recycling center.<br /><br />The world will be a better place when we forget that Frostbite ever existed. | negative |
The only reason I wanted to see this was because of Orlando Bloom. Simply put, the movie was spectacularly average. It's not bad, but it's really not very good. The editing is good; the film is well-paced. The direction is competent and assured. The story is plodding. The film is averagely acted by Ledger, Bloom, and the normally great Watts and Rush. The accents are impenetrable if you're from the US so just sit back and enjoy the scenery (or as I like to call it, Orlando Bloom). By the end of the film, I was neither bored nor moved. Some people have asked what happened to Ned Kelly at the end of the movie. I have to say, I so did not care by that point.<br /><br />Really, the only reason I can recommend this is that Orlando Bloom kind of, sort of shows some hints of range (although the oft-present "I'm pretty and confused" look is prominent), so fangirls may find it worth the matinee price. Other than that, just don't see it. It's neither good enough nor bad enough to be entertaining. | positive |
The Dirty Harry series began with very gritty cop action, and was almost immediately lightened up for "Magnum Force". By the time that "The Enforcer" rolled around, Dirty Harry was little more than a television cop show (saved only by Tyne Daly). After a break of seven years, Dirty Harry has finally gone back to his roots. Maybe he's been gone for too long this time.<br /><br />Clint Eastwood makes the first well-directed Harry film since Don Siegel made the first, which helps considerably. Harry is a darker character once again, not the nice cop he had become. He can once again say things like "Go ahead, make my day" and really mean it. "Sudden Impact" is a true Dirty Harry sequel. "The Enforcer" should never have been made.<br /><br />7.2 out of 10 | positive |
I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago. | positive |
When A Killer Calls has got to be the biggest ripoff released by Asylum so far. It's about a sexy babysitter on duty who receives spooky calls from a creepy voice who asks her repeatedly, "Have you checked the girl?" Naturally she has the calls traced by the cops (after having to perform some realistically unnecessary tasks -- hanging up when "he" calls, waiting ten seconds, and dialing *57). Sound familiar? Yeah, that's why I rented it, too.<br /><br />Well, it should. And I hate to say it, but this could've been more entertaining than the big-screen crapfest that was released around the same time if not for one fatal mistake -- Rather than revelling in B-movie ripoff glory, it tried to do something original. It tried to make the lead character sympathetic, rather than having clichéd, campy fun with her. Mind you, this could've worked with a talented actress. But she wasn't. Sure, she looked good, and she screamed, and cried, but . . . oh well, whatever.<br /><br />Then came the horrific ending. Not horrific in that it was horrifying, horrific in that it was BORING. The pacing up until that point (about an hour in) was campy, clichéd, and fun. Then it heads in another direction, and it veers away from just another dumb, fun slasher movie with a sexy "teenage" cast to a Hostel-esquire gore/borefest.<br /><br />I guess this falls into the "Oh well, whatever" category. The lead actress flubbed a line? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like reshooting it. We forgot to give the killer motivation? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like rewriting it. The pacing completely changes halfway through? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like shaving fifteen minutes off. Continuity errors? Oh well, whatever.<br /><br />If you like this kind of movie (dumb, cheesy, predictable, campy splatter movie with sexy cast), then you'll be fine up until the ending. The ending is stupid, it's not fun, it's not scary, it's not campy or cheesy or quickly-paced. In fact, there was almost exactly five minutes of the character doing nothing but being tied up (and that's not a spoiler because it's on the back of the DVD) and looking around at the stuff in the room, then screaming, and . . . whatever. | negative |
PRICE OF HONOR aka PRICE OF POWER is an ambitious Western melodrama, light on the action, which seeks to tell an Old West version of the JFK assassination. In 1881, the president travels to Dallas and is shot from a window while parading thru town in his carriage. Corrupt officials have carried out the murder and have a humble slave take the rap. Our hero, the earnest but bland Giuliano Gemma, aims to unravel the conspiracy. An engaging story, audacious for its subject matter, but entertaining despite the paucity of shoot-em-up action. The film is a 7 out of 10, despite the poor presentation of the DVD, which is overly dark with poor sound. Look for a good copy. | positive |
Interesting tale of giant mammoth elephants running amok in modern India. Features transparent special effects-elephants dressed in shaggy coats sporting tusk extensions. All this said, we do have a good story and a fine cast at work, and an exciting climax. It's been said that the running time on this one was doubled when it showed in India-courtesy of Robert Lippert, a master at 'padding.' Given a choice, opt for the shorter version. | positive |
The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story. <br /><br />There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to "spice up" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's "mistress" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the "noble" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it. | negative |
The question is, can a movie this entertaining really be considered a "bad" movie? My husband and I picked this up at a used video store for 99 cents simply because of the title and the fact that the box had the words "Vestron Pictures" on it (Vestron has been highly regarded as a mark of quality ever since I first acquired the legendary films "Suburbia" and "Class of 1984"). We were not expecting a movie as full of win as this one was. Your basic plot as is follows: Grange, this goombaesque thug from planet Earth, robs "the bank of the Moon" and is sentenced to a penal colony on a remote planet (I don't even remember the planet's name) to mine for bauxite and other minerals. The "governor" of said colony and the owner of the mine are exploiting the prisoners for labor. Walker, a bounty hunter (apparently one of only three on the whole planet) reminds the prisoners that there is no escape, because there's only one shuttle out of the whole planet and they'd have him to deal with. Then there's the nameless "Colonel", a retired bounty hunter who suffers from a haunting reoccurring nightmare. Much of the movie centers around "futuristic" car chases (dunebuggies with plywood slapped to the sides) with explosions galore. The planet itself looks suspiciously like Hemet, CA or one of those other dusty Inland Empire outposts. But what makes the movie truly shine is a surprisingly awesome soundtrack featuring several LA punk bands of the mid-80s. I seriously doubt that this soundtrack was ever pressed to vinyl, but it's definitely worth buying the movie just for the soundtrack. I can't even remember the names of the bands (they're listed in the credits) other than Exploding White Mice, because that was the only one I'd heard of before I saw this movie, but I'm definitely looking into them.<br /><br />Basically, the movie is definitely not a waste of your time and would be best enjoyed with a 12 pack of beer and a few of your closest friends. | positive |
This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.<br /><br />For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.<br /><br />I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.<br /><br />Avoid. | negative |
Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) have been hired by the British government to protect a Swiss scientist Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.). He has a bomb that the British want to win the war. Unfortunately the evil Dr. Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) is working with the Nazis and will stop at nothing to get the doctor--and his invention.<br /><br />Moving Sherlock Holmes to the 1940s sounded like a stupid idea but it does work for one reason--Basil Rathbone. Arguably he is the BEST Sherlock Holmes ever put on the screen. He plays the character so well (and accurately) that it doesn't matter what era he's solving crimes. As for Nigel Bruce as Watson...everybody has problems with it. He plays Watson as a bumbling old fool...that is NOT the Watson of the books. You seriously wonder why Holmes puts up with him. Still, he does grow on you (in a way). Then there's Atwill having a whale of a time playing Moriarty--the discussions and battle of wits between him and Holmes are just great! I've never liked Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade--he's such an idiot. Makes Watson look like a genius. And Post Jr. is pretty good as Tobel (even though his accent amusingly keeps changing!).<br /><br />This movie is done elaborately and runs only a little over an hour. Still, it does have it's slow spots and I never understood the secret code section.<br /><br />Still, worth catching if just for Rathbone and Atwill. | positive |
It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it. <br /><br />But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.<br /><br />The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.<br /><br />In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.<br /><br />And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.<br /><br />Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?<br /><br />Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them. | negative |
Honestly, on the subject of the death penalty, I could take it or leave it. The problem I have with this documentary lies in the fact that it is a complete love-fest for the murderer, with absolutely no sympathy for the family. The Execution of Wanda Jean, with it's completely one sided view, only reinforced my view that she should have been executed for her crimes. It tried to argue that she was mentally retarded, but nothing in the video supported that view. She seemed uneducated, but so did her entire family, but that doesn't mean they were all retarded. I can completely understand if someone is opposed to the death penalty, but to completely ignore the crime, as if it didn't happen, and try to put Wanda on some moral mountain top, is offensive in nature, and that's not the side of the issue I would be associated with. | negative |
The alternate title of Ecstasy, is Symphony of Love; a title which appropriately describes the mood and feel of the film. Ecstasy is an early talkie, and could have very well been a classic film, if released during the silent film era. This film is a visual treat, and is deliberately paced so the viewer can savour its sensuous lyric quality, which is presented in an artistic low-key fashion. The director's style is distinctly European. The subject matter and approach to sexuality was far more sophisticated, than what was being produced in Hollywood, at that time. Consider the censorship code in the US, during the 30's, that pretty much sums it up. Hedy Lamarr, one of the great beauties of all time, was a perfect choice for this 'Symphony of Love.' | positive |
The Jungle is more of an adventure than a science fiction movie. The only sci-fi part is the Woolly Mammoths living in the present day.<br /><br />Elephants are attacking villages in a part of India and these attacks are also killing people. An expedition is sent to investigate and one of the members of this, an American hunter blames these elephants are being frightened by Woolly Mammoths, which are suppose to be extinct. Nobody believes him at first, but they do when the Mammoths appear at the end. An earthquake finishes them off.<br /><br />The Jungle was shot on location in India and has a lot of nice scenery and some good Indian music, including some songs which keep the movie moving along nicely. The Mammoths are actually real elephants with fur coats and long tusks stuck on.<br /><br />The cast includes Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero (The Lost Continent) and Marie Windsor (Cat-Women of the Moon).<br /><br />The Jungle is worth seeing, just for the scenery and music. Very enjoyable.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5. | positive |
Pretty decent for his early work and no Kokaku Kidotai without it, and gets an 2 points extra for the easter eggs. For Shirow definitely a rung in the ladder. I am biased as a Shirow fan but this was a big step from Dirty Pair which was what I knew of him. Violent fun with a porno soundtrack! You cannot help but notice that. I know people appreciate him for Ghost in the Shell..but all of the deep spiritual overtones were dealt with in Appleseed. ESWAT killing terrorists, the struggle for humans to stay viable as bioroids phase them out, and Deunan staying thin despite her intake of junk food. Definitely like the characters even the traitor..and I do not know why. | positive |
Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.<br /><br />The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.<br /><br />The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.<br /><br />The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.<br /><br />It ends very stupidly.<br /><br />All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off. | negative |
Blade Runner (Deckard is a Replicant!), <br /><br />City of Lost Children (augmented senses or whatever used and abused and mostly, well, just giving us far less than what we might dream of), and<br /><br />Dark City: <br /><br />These really ought to be added.<br /><br />For a while now, I've been waiting for an animated film that might affect me as much as Miyazaki's stuff has. This one is the 1st.<br /><br />Hmm, scratch the "animated" part of that.<br /><br />I have an intense love-hate relationship with film noir and, hey, if you don't leave, it must be mostly love, right? But, there are so many sci-fi and noir themes totally submerged in this film that it's just a wonder to watch.<br /><br />These people did an incredible job! | positive |
Before the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.<br /><br />Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.<br /><br />We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.<br /><br />More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.<br /><br />Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 out of 10. | negative |
Yes, the votes are in. This film may very well be the Plan 9 From Outer Space for our generation. But whereas Ed Wood's film, for all its flaws, retains a certain charm despite it all, this film defines the word "charmless" to the nth degree. In fact, I'd suggest to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to cite this movie as a key example defining the that word in the next update to the dictionary.<br /><br />Carrot Top is a performer of such abysmal ability that normally rational people that I know once they hear his name become homicidal maniacs dedicated to wanting to kill Mr. Top as soon as possible. Indeed, if one goes to Amazon.com and look at customer reviews for Carrot Top's movie and other performance DVD, one will find several that could be construed as death threats to Mr. Top.<br /><br />One other curious fact about this film, I recall that Mike Nelson, the head writer for MST 3000, in his book Mike's Mega Cheese about movies, good and bad, said he saw this film and shortly afterwords couldn't recall a thing about it, including the title. Obviously Mike was suffering a classic reaction to trauma. Viewing this atrocity was so soul numbing, Mike Nelson had to block it from his mind. (Evidently, in a later chapter in his book, Mike Nelson had recovered his memeory of this film. From the review he offers, Mike Nelson was definitely not grateful for the recovered memory.)<br /><br />The only comment I offer about the film, and it is not a spoiler, it's simply God's honest truth, it's not funny. None of it is, not even a nanosecond of it is funny. | negative |
.... this movie basks too much in its own innocence. It doesn't tell a story; it's more a big time snooze fest. While the actors are all personable, the story is so trite and goes nowhere. I think Victor Rasuk has great charisma, but deserves a real film from a real storyteller. | negative |
Clearly patterned after the first gangster movies that Warner produced the same year,Little Caesar (1931) and The Public Enemy (1931),this gangster movie is one of the better efforts I've seen. Although not quite in the same league as the previous mentioned classics, it has a powerful performance by young Sylvia Sidney.She's magnificent and delivers her lines more natural than perhaps anyone did at the time.Gary Cooper is better than usual at this stage in his career and shows signs of what would follow the next few years when he rose to the top. The movie has some fascinating villains in Paul Lukas (never seen him this detestable) and Guy Kibbee (what a shock to see him act the hoodlum).The direction of Rouben Mamoulian is very inventive,probably the first voice-over to show a persons thoughts appear in this movie. If you get the chance to see this little gangster flick, don't let the chance go by. | positive |
The Stunts sequences (as well as the Special Effects) are Brilliant, in this movie. Michael Scherer must be one of Canadas BEST Stunt Co-ordinators of all time. The explosion in the Café, is a wonderful combination of Stunts, Special Effects AND Visual Effects. The Director HAD an idea, that the Crew managed to create on film.<br /><br />Besides that; Donald Sutherland makes one of his best performances in this film....... | positive |
Sure, if you ask any mom who's the most beautiful baby in the world, she'd tell you her son is the most amazing kid in the whole world. She's right, at least in her own world.<br /><br />The producers of the movie were biggie's mother and his good friend Puffy. Oh, well, do I need to say more? I'll break it down for those who doesn't want to do a simple deduction.<br /><br />The whole movie was fake. You may just put a few biggie's MTV video together and call it a movie.<br /><br />The beautiful Angela Bassett played Biggie's mother. The real one in life looks like a dog.<br /><br />I just wonder why he called himself biggie small. Big body Small dick? Big mouth Small sound? Big fat Small eyes? Disclaimer: I'm a person of color. So keep your racist remark to yourself. | negative |
For years i've had a distant memory of watching this film , i looked on the net to find it somewhere and couldn't find it anywhere so i thought it must have disappeared.<br /><br />UNTIL...my gran showed me a box set she sent off for in the Daily Mail and i though nah there wont be anything decent in there, but to my great surprise there amongst other gems was The Water Babies! I hadn't been that excited ina long long time! Its a great light hearted film, the songs aren't memorable probably if i was a child during the time it came out i would have stuck in my mind more. Sadly it was just a film i watched at my grans 10 years ago when i was a little spud. And watching it back now the animation is terrible! and the re-recored voices they do to get a richness to the sound in films is totally off! But who cares when your a kid you never think of those things, even if they lead boy is about 10 and sounds like a boy in the middle of puberty.<br /><br />Great classic kids film! | positive |
Billy Crystal is Larry, a writer who hasn't written and is suspected of murder in "Throw Momma from the Train," costarring Danny Devito and Anne Ramsey. The phrase "black comedy" was invented for this insanity, which is a take-off on Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." In fact, Owen (Devito) gets the idea of having Larry kill his mother in exchange for Owen killing Larry's ex from watching that famous film. "I saw the movie. Criss-cross," Owen tells Larry. Not that Larry knows what he's talking about until it appears it's too late - just like "Strangers." Larry, a writing teacher, claims that his ex-wife, played by Kate Mulgrew, stole his book and put her name on it. She has become a big celebrity, appearing on "Oprah," where she refers to Larry as "a beast." Owen is in Larry's class. He lives with an abusive Neanderthal mother (Ramsey) and has visions of poisoning her, sticking a scissors in her head - you name it. It's not long after seeing "Strangers on a Train" that he's in Honolulu, stalking Larry's wife. While she's leaning over a boat railing trying to get an earring, Owen stands behind her and creeps up...Soon the police are looking for Larry to question him, but he's at Owen's where he's being encouraged to live up to his end of a bargain he had no idea he made. You know, "criss-cross." There are several scenes copied from "Strangers," which are hilarious. I especially loved Larry's confession to the sleeping Mrs. Lift, Owen's mother, similar to when Guy thinks he's talking to Bruno's stepfather.<br /><br />Crystal and DeVito are complete masters of comic dialogue and timing and will leave you laughing, often out loud. Ramsey is repulsively funny - a totally "out there" performance. Kim Griest and Rob Reiner also have roles - Griest is Crystal's girlfriend, and Reiner has what amounts to a cameo.<br /><br />The ending is very clever, and the whole film will leave you laughing. | positive |
I put in the DVD expecting camp perversion from the creators of Society and Re-Animator, and was quite surprised to become involved in an authentically suspenseful tale. Acting was top-notch (nice to see Vosloo in a protagonist role after a long string of villains), the storyline involving, and the few twists fairly surprising. I figured I would fast forward through much of it to get to the abduction scenes, but instead watched it through, only being let down at the very end.<br /><br />Maybe I'm being too lenient, but as I stated before, I wasn't expecting much more than alien sex. Of course, if you ARE looking for some hot alien sex, you will be let down. It was mostly quick-cut exam table nonsense with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it glimpse of an interesting 'impregnator' alien. | positive |
I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this. | negative |
I found it highly interesting that the film actually managed to bridge the gap between my own american culture and that of the originators, i.e. chinese. It becomes a story about values, and causes the watcher to reevaluate their own choices in life, and loyalties toward institutions. Amazingly enough, it managed to do this in a gentle, mildly humorous manner, which only in retrospect seens threatening to one's status quo. I enjoyed the movie, and would watch it again if I could. | positive |
This film by Friðrik Þór, director of Children of Nature, is powerful. It has great music by Sigurrós and good acting. It shows how sad insanity as a disease can be. There are many good jokes but the humor is dark. If that is not a problem then you should see this film. Note though this is not a comedy but a drama. | positive |
May and her husband go to visit their children and grandchildren. The visit is awkward because the grandchildren and "kids" don't really seem to know each other as one might expect. The warmth that should be there is missing. After dinner, May's husband says he doesn't feel well, blames it on his daughter's cooking, and irritably says he wants to go home. He dies that night.<br /><br />May, now a widow, is lost. She clearly did not have a passionate marriage or a very interesting one, but she had a purpose. She had someone who needed her, and even though her own needs had gone unmet for years, she had something to do with her days.<br /><br />She is depressed and unmotivated. She goes to stay with her daughter, Paula, who shortly after her mother's arrival, lets her mother know that she has never felt that her mother has given much of herself at all. She lets loose with anger over her mother's lack of nurturing. May seems disarmed and surprised, yet she also doesn't seem to have the energy or the desire to really make it right. "I'm your mother and I love you." What does really say? (I've heard this from my own mother way too many times and have yet to figure out what it means.) Paula is a bit (well, more than a bit) neurotic. Both women are needy, though they show it very differently.<br /><br />Paula has been involved with a friend of her son's, Darren, who is a handyman working on the house owned by her son. While Paula is working during the day, May begins to have conversations and lunches with Darren. Darren is a married man who has stayed with his wife because of their autistic son, Nicky, but supposedly doesn't live in the home with his wife.<br /><br />May becomes attracted to Darren because he is virile and she enjoys the connection they seem to have. Darren becomes attracted to May because she offers a kind of peace and understanding that he does not get from the other women in his life. (He also becomes too interested in money that May says she can give him to "get away from it all," though he is clearly not interested in her desire to join him on such a journey. They end up sleeping together in the spare room during the day, and May enjoys fulfillment as a woman that she has not known in years, nor had ever expected to know again. As her daughter Paula had often told her that she would leave the married Darren, this becomes part of May's rationalization that what she is doing is okay.<br /><br />At a writing group that Paula leads, May is introduced, rather forced to get together with a widower to whom she is not attracted. There is one scene where she has sex with the older man, who clearly can barely perform, and it truly painful and unsettling as we see the total disgust on May's face as she endures the one-time ghastly liaison.<br /><br />Eventually, Paula discovers through some very graphic sketches done by her mother, that indeed her mother and Darren have been having sex.<br /><br />This film will undoubtedly be seen by many in myriad ways. Sympathies will be divided. At one point, during Paula's writing group, May reveals through a short essay that she used to feel as though she hated her kids by the end of the day, and would leave for pubs after they were asleep, making sure to get back home before her husband.<br /><br />Clearly, a good mother does not think of leaving children alone while she goes off to the local pub. May, however, also had revealed earlier in the film that her husband didn't like her having any friends, so she didn't have any. She did what he wanted her to do. She was miserable but she put up with it because, as she said, "it was easier." So, while May was not the best mother, for those inclined to have any sympathy for her, one might see May's actions as the act of a woman just wanting to be sexual and to be a live for "a few minutes" in her lifetime. A woman who just wanted someone to listen to her, to know her as a human being, to have a friend and a lover.<br /><br />Paula, though neurotic and unhappy, perhaps has become that way because of the distant parents who raised her. Certainly, it is not difficult to understand why Paula feels completely betrayed by her mother.<br /><br />It is a well-done film, with more complexities than I have mentioned, and certainly one that will leave the viewer with many, perhaps conflicting, reactions. It is a film worth discussing and debating, and above all, worth seeing.<br /><br />One thing the film leaves us with is the horror and fear of a lonely life. No matter who is deemed "right" or who is deemed 'wrong" by each viewer, that theme of old age and loneliness, evoking a sense of dread in most of us, is inescapable. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.