review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.<br /><br />The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.<br /><br />The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.<br /><br />Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.<br /><br />Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.<br /><br />None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses. | negative |
This is 2009 and this way underrated gem has lost nothing of the power it had 31 years ago. It connects a pretty wide variety of different characters and stories without appearing to be cluttered.<br /><br />Clothes and music might have changed over time, but in the end this is a story that will never lose its up-to-dateness. And especially this movie does the job pretty well. Of course it is cheesy at times, but very touching as well.<br /><br />Jodie Foster's performance is striking, and it shows that she is really a natural born actress who showed her true potential especially in her earlier movies.<br /><br />Don't miss this one. | positive |
It's got Christopher Lee, it's got huge banks of 1970s computers that make Teletype noises as letters appear on the screen, it's got radioactive isotopes that not only glow in the dark but emit pulsing thrumming noises, it's got volcanoes! evil aliens disguised as nuns! tidal waves! earthquakes! exploding cars! exploding coffee machines! and as a climax the entire planet blows up. How on earth does this film managed to be so incredibly, mind-numbingly DULL? The answer, my friend is because 90% of this movie is made up of establishing shots, most of them involving long tracks, pans, or zooms in combinations, or occasionally all three, that do nothing except give the crew something to do. There are endless shots of our protagonists driving, getting in and out of cars, driving again, walking around looking at stuff, getting in cars and driving... I just sat there watching endless parade of nothingness in stupefaction muttering "Say something, please somebody, just say something... DO something... anything!..."<br /><br />The dialogue, when it does come, is terrible.<br /><br />"Maybe their minutes are measured on a different scale than ours." was a typically meaningless line. The script culminates in the destruction of the world by stock footage, justified in this speech from Lee as the head alien:<br /><br />"The planet Earth has emitted an over-abundance of diseases, they are contaminating the Universe. All the planets light years away from here will suffer unless it is destroyed!" <br /><br />This is is Neanderthal SF script writing. This is the sort of motivation you find in the sort of 1950's Japanese monster suit movies aimed at 7 year olds. It is, and I collect such things, the most god-awful line from an English language SF movie since Buster Crabbe retired. It beggars belief that this movie was released in the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters.<br /><br />Lee, who always struck me as a smart, useful actor with a sure knowledge of his limits, delivers his lines as if he is going to kill his agent for getting him into this pile of drek. I don't blame him. | negative |
Strangeland is a terrible horror/technological thriller. Dee Snider plays Carleton Hendricks, a disgusting computer freak who prays on young girls through the chat rooms. His ridiculous philosophies on pain and suffering are both misguided and totally unfounded. There is no tie to reality with the ideas that are presented in this film, it is more like Dee Snider sat down and tried to think up the weirdest stuff possible to impress horror fans and maybe some of his old fans, but the end result is just awful.<br /><br />Unfortunately for me, as a horror fan, the cover of this movie looks very good and it immediately caught my interest, which is the main reason that I was tricked into watching it. I assure you that this is not a quality horror movie. It is a disturbing yet boring attempt to suggest what might go on in the minds of people who treat themselves the way the Carleton Hendricks did in this film. The sad part is that NO one does this stuff to themselves. Marilyn freakin' Manson doesn't even go that far, and the fact that he had a song on the soundtrack makes it clear that the film wasn't meant to poke fun at his type of music (that would be a stab at Snider himself), it is more like Dee Snider was trying to raise himself from the career-dead and present himself as a sick-minded individual once more. Dee, it seems that the time has come to let it all die... | negative |
"Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski"... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed "Linda" in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!<br /><br />Watch at your own risk. | negative |
This is definitely one of the better documentaries I have seen looking at family relationships and marriage. I saw "capturing the friedmans" a short while ago and have to admit I thought this was better.<br /><br />The story is not an incredibly shocking one, but it is a great examination of trapped personalities and relational cold war. Block deftly guides the viewer through diaries, family footage and after-the-fact interviews; his interview style is sensitive and probing, and his insights are clear and measured.<br /><br />51 Birch Street is a great examination of personalities and relationships over 40-50 years of social change, the social fallout, and potential for redemption. | positive |
This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />It's marketed as as Sci-Fi when in fact it's nothing more than a Christian recruiting tool.<br /><br />It tells you quite a bit about the state of the Christian church, when they have to resort to deception just to get you to listen to their sales pitch. But then again what do you expect from an organization that would go through such great lengths to help protect such an enormous amount of child molesters in their organization.<br /><br />Religion is full of nothing but sexual deviants, hypocrites, and war mongers. Let's not forget, our bumbling former President actually came out and said that "God told him" to invade Iraq. And nobody questioned if he was hearing voices, or seeing things? <br /><br />Anyway, going of the subject here. No this movie has nothing to do with UFOs whatsoever, it's nothing more than a religious production. | negative |
Spoiler Alert <br /><br />I have never seen comments on a movie, that I disagree with more then the comments people made on this. One could learn from critical viewings of this movie. As an educational film, I rate it highly because it teaches "how to succeed"! We do not watch movies to learn; we generally watch for entertainment. As entertainment, I rate it low: the ending is downbeat and cerebral/intellectual. This conflict results in my eight star rating. The movie follows Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), a television news producer. The network executive introduces Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), to study for the on air news anchor position. Tom immediately charms people with humbleness. Another potential news anchor has been waiting for years for his on air opportunity, Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks). Altman knows all news stories, inside and out.<br /><br />The Network executive wants Grunnick on the air and Jane argues, saying Grunnick is not ready, he doesn't know the news. They do not listen to her. Forced to place Grunnick on the air, Jane contacts Altman to get information on the news story and relays Altman's comments through an earpiece to Grunnick while Grunnick speaks. We watch the sharp contrast between Altman's/Jane Craig's words and Grunnick's, as Grunnick skillfully rewords everything Altman and Jane Craig say in his ear, in order to make it understandable, likable and entertaining the audience. Altman gets a chance on air and the network execs require him to seek coaching from Grunnick, the new guy. This new (news ingnorant) guy coaching him? This is something Altman does not see justified, but agrees reluctantly. <br /><br />Grunnick coaches Altman and gets excited noting hundreds of Altman's shortcomings in appearance, audio and vocabulary. Altman never considered these things before, when he became an expert on the news itself. The complexity of understanding what Grunnick taught him, causes Altman to have a panicked sweating attack ("Flop Sweat") when he is on the air. Grunnick eventually becomes the top network anchor and Altman resigns prior to being fired. But Grunnick fails in his attempt for a romance with Jane Craig, because she finds out from Altman, that Grunnick sometimes fakes circumstances in order to make people like him. This turns her off of him. This sends the message that in relationships, we want people who are genuine and not trying to make us like them. <br /><br />This movie sends the message that getting people to like you is the most important skill in a job, but it is especially true in Broadcast News. There are many people commenting on how this is the dumbing down of TV News and how Grunnick represents a good looking, but dumb guy or all style, but no substance. The opposite is true, Grunnick possessed skills and very complex intellect, to get people to like him, including the presence of mind to know exactly how he appears and sounds, when he is on camera (He coaches Altman to Punch a word in every sentence). Grunnick's flaw that costs him the relationship with Jane Craig, is that he is too driven to be likable and will fake a situation. Many people are calling Altman very intelligent or brilliant. Altman played by Brookes is not as intelligent as Grunnick and the "Flop Sweat" scene shows that his mind could not handle the complexity that Grunnick handles when on the air. Altman is angered by this fact that he knew the news and Grunnick suceeded more by getting people to like him. There are also people commenting that these things are exclusive to the TV News industry. The concept that winning friends is the most important skill in a job, is obviously, not popular, but my experience indicates it is true in most jobs. As an education on how to succeed, this movie is fantastic, albeit unpopular. Educational, yes, but it does not have an uplifting ending. | positive |
This was a very entertaining movie and I really enjoyed it, I don't normally rent movies like these (ie. indie flicks) however, I was attracted to the film because it had an incredible cast which included Jamie Kennedy, whom I have loved since the Scream trilogy. The movie director took a risk (and it is a risky risk) in telling the lives of many (and I mean MANY) different people and having the intertwine at various intervals. Taking that risk was a good idea because it's end result is an exceedingly good film. <br /><br />The film has a few MAIN characters; Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) - a disgruntled fortune cookie writer whose relationship with his girlfriend is on the rocks because of an argument. Wallace Gregory (John Carroll Lynch) - an airplane loader/technician who has a love for all living things (except, perhaps meter maids) and who despite his good heart has an increasing amount of bad luck. Cyr (Brian Cox) - the owner of a Chinese restaurant/donut shop who is a germaphobe and because of is his fear of germs places his assistant/cook Sung -(Alexis Cruz) under pressure to keep up with his phobia. Ernie - (Christopher Bauer) is married to Olive - (Christina Kirk) who he is convinced is trying to; stop him have fun, look ridiculous, go insane, and not live a normal life. They begin to have petty and almost crazy arguments and Olive seriously begins to have doubts about Ernie. Gordon - (Grant Heslov) is a man whose life isn't going very well, as bad things begin to add up in his life he decides to take it in hand. Mitchel - (Jon Huertas) is convinced that Gwen - (Alexandra Westcourt) is the girl of his dreams and that they are destined for each other, though she is more skeptical. He attempts to woo her every chance he gets and he certainly makes attempts! Johnston - (Michael Hitchcock) has just been fired from his job and has doubts about his role as provider, he takes another job that he just isn't suited for. His wife Annelle - (Arabella Field) is comforting through out his job loss experience until she learns that Johnston wasn't quite the loving husband she thought he was.<br /><br />All in all I definitely suggest this movie!<br /><br />-Erica | positive |
When this film was released in 1997 the 'special effects', such as they are, were poor. They would have been dated even for the 1980s, and even some films made in the 1970s and 1960s have had the same or better SFX work. Certainly no-one involved in the production of this film was looking for an Oscar. It's a wild departure from director Fred Olen Ray's usual stuff, most of which has the word "Bikini" in the title (Bikini Pirates, Bikini Chain Gang, Bikini Girls from the Lost Planet, etc) and are little more than T&A flicks, but here we are with a film rated "U" and aimed squarely at the kiddies. You've got to give him credit for diversifying!! This was a minor direct-to-video cult hit which later resulted in a couple of sequels - Invisible Mom 2 and Invisible Dad. Dee Wallace-Stone (whose career went downhill fast after 1982s "E.T.) plays the 'invisible mom' of the films title and would return for the sequel. Russ Tamblyn (whose career had been in free-fall even longer since 1961s "West Side Story") plays the villainous Dr. Woorter. It's probably fair to say that most of the cast were at the point in their careers where they would be prepared to work on almost anything just to pay the bills that month - except maybe young Trenton Knight as Josh. It's rather telling though that although he worked prior to this movie, this child actor didn't work again after the sequel, "Invisible Mom 2". Maybe the film was cursed. After all, he wasn't that bad in this film. For a child actor, he's pretty good - no better or worse than any of his more experienced co-stars.<br /><br />As mentioned above, the "invisibility" effects are naff to say the least, the direction is poor, the writing obvious and the acting nothing to write home about. There are plenty of worse films out there though, and for anyone under the age of about ten, this film will no doubt be quite watchable. Most adults will probably want to do a disappearing act of their own while it is on though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit! | negative |
definitely the best game for N64 ever. I most say i was farely disappointed with tomorrow never dies, but the world is not enough promises to be better then goldeneye (according to the website).I love goldeneye so much i find something to do every time I play it. I have even made up my own missions for the levels. Multi player is the best of any game out there, and the graphics are astounding even now. The first day I got this I remember wishing that they would go back, and make all of the bond movies into games. Can you imagine driving that speed boat in live and let die and making those incredible jumps, or fighting off ninjas or fighting jaws in the spy who loved me and moonraker. (i think fighting him in those games would be more fun then in the aztec) what about chasing Sanchez in the gas trucks or scalling St. Cerils in for your eyes only. oh well let me get back to the game at hand. All of the levels are unique and make for very fun killing environments. there are many places to hide so you can sneek up on people (especially statue park) well this game is not worthy of renting you really need to buy it today. | positive |
I was so disappointed in this movie. I am very familiar with the case, having read not only Mark Fuhrman's book but also the far superior "A Wealth of Evil: The True Story of the Murder of Martha Moxley in America's Richest Community" by Timothy Dumas. Anyone who watches MURDER IN GREENWICH should be aware they're watching The Mark Fuhrman story, not the Martha Moxley story. This film is nothing more than an ego-trip for Fuhrman. Just watch his character strut around as if he is the second coming (yes, even being ogled by women). The actors playing the kids look way too old for their roles and the flashbacks to the 1970s are totally unconvincing. If there is any hero to this story, it's Martha's family, her mother Dorothy and brother John. They kept this case alive for two decades before Fuhrman walked into it in order to make a name for himself. They, and Martha, deserve to have the true story told. | negative |
I happen to be the director's nephew. It's taken me years to get my hands on a copy of this film and I can confirm that it is indeed one of the worst movies of all time. My uncle doesn't even have a copy of it anymore (I asked). I'm looking forward to bringing him a copy.<br /><br />Currently the film's average rating is 1.9/10. As far as I can tell, that should put it somewhere in the mid-30s in the IMDb "bottom 100," however with only 206 votes, it hasn't yet placed.<br /><br />It's sad that the film doesn't even get the respect of a bottom 100 title.<br /><br />Anyhow, I'm giving copies of the movie to family members this year for holiday gifts. Best/Worst gift ever? | negative |
Dryly irreverent, but sadly unfunny satire of detective movies, with stony-faced Michael Caine playing a British author of trashy crime stories traveling to the Mediterraean to assist in writing the memoirs of a would-be gangster; soon, he realizes he's being followed and his life is in danger. Caine narrates the proceedings with considerable sly wit and low-keyed sarcasm, but his actual performance is bereft of energy (Caine's shrill bursts of anger or frustration seem to come out of nowhere, and he connects with nobody on the screen). Other cast members (particularly Mickey Rooney, a silver-haired Lionel Stander, and Lizabeth Scott) do very well in colorfully outré roles, though Al Lettieri has an insulting part as an apparent cross-dressing homosexual (Lettieri gets insulted without being able to defend himself, an unenviable position). Writer-director Mike Hodges has the germ of a good idea (satirize the detective movies of the 1940s without compromising the hard-boiled talk and milieu), but he hasn't a very sharp sense of humor. When a Bogart lookalike--asking a question about a falcon--is the best joke, what follows is anemic indeed. ** from **** | negative |
So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod "defacing" the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's "freedom of the press" line sounded silly compared to "..Care to step outside" which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the "turn back the world to go back in time" effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more. | negative |
While in one country, Spain, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali combined forces to create the benchmark of short-subject, cinematic surrealism, Un Chien Andalou, Walt Disney and his collaborator Ub Iwerks in America worked on Steamboat Willie, the most prominent of the early synchronized sound cartoons (it was revealed that this was not the first, contrary to other reports). It's also one of the more successfully simplistic and funny of the Mickey Mouse shorts (still in a silent-film way- the only sounds are little irks and bleeps from the Mickey and the animals). It also goes by fairly quickly for its less-than-ten minute run. But in these minutes one gets the immediate sense of how much fun Disney has with his characters, and how the newfound use of sound changes how his creation uses the animals as musical tools. There's no story to speak of, just random things that happens and occurs because of Mickey (err, Steamboat Willie) on this boat on a river. And like the better Mickey Mouse shorts, his lack of speaking acts as an advantage. It's a must-see if you haven't seen it as a kid, but if you have it might still be worth another look. | positive |
It must be a long time ago that I have seen such a bad movie. I have to say it is really hard to make a good and/or realistic movie about air disaster but this movie was such a waste of time and money. Also I think this is an unofficial way trying to get a bad reputation on Airbus. First, the cockpit look a lot like an Airbus cockpit, second you got a stick, third using computers to control rudders/elevators/aileron via "fly by wire". When I saw this movie I thought like the intention of the film was "don't fly with computerized airplanes like Airbus, use Boeing instead they have a direct connection of steering and rudders."<br /><br />All I can say: Bad story, horrible acting (most of the actors), worst film trick ever... | negative |
Surprised to see the rather low score for this movie. Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years, and was reminded why I like it.<br /><br />Come back with me, children, to a time when Michael Keaton was a straight-up comedy guy, and you might find some joy in this film. It's a gentle comedy -- the kind Ron Howard specializes in -- but if that's your thing, you should check this out. Keaton's low-key charm is just right for this project.<br /><br />"Gung Ho" is a bit dated, because it takes places in the last stage of the pre-global economy world, when it still mattered what country a business was based in. That said, it delivers laughs as well as a lesson on how people can learn from each other, to great benefit.<br /><br />You could watch this film and enjoy it without remembering one scene in particular you really liked, but that's because the whole movie provides a slow but constant stream of laughs. It's like an I.V. drip. And I mean that in a good way. | positive |
Spoiler This movie is about such a concept. Williams will go to any low in order to replay the football game that haunts his life. Russel plays the ex jock who peaked in high school. Finally the under dog get its shot, and Williams can save face, instead of being the clown. A great reverse tragedy. 7/10 | positive |
In NYC, seaman Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles) rescues Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth) from a mugging & rape as she takes a horse & carriage through Central Park -and lives to regret it. Titian-haired Hayworth's a platinum blonde in this one; as dazzling as fresh-fallen snow -but nowhere near as pure...<br /><br />To reveal any more of the convoluted plot in this seminal "noir" would be criminal. It's as deceptive as the mirrors used to cataclysmic effect in the final scenes -but the film holds far darker secrets: From the NY Times: "Childhood Shadows: The Hidden Story Of The Black Dahlia Murder" by Mary Pacios "Mary Pacios, who was 5 years old when she was befriended by 15 year old Bette Short, retraces Short's steps, interviewing friends and associates. She also offered a detailed, if speculative, analysis of Orson Welles -particularly in regard to his movie "The Lady From Shanghai". According to Ms. Pacios, the movie, along with related archival materials, has many of the same ritualistic elements associated with Short's murder. She raises the question: Could Welles have been the killer?" Interesting theories -and with the spate of books now out on "The Black Dahlia", much more may come to light. Fritz Lang's brutal "film noir", "The Big Heat" (1953), was a roman-a-clef telling of the "Dahlia" killing in "The City Of Nets" that was L.A. -but it's the Orson opus that the "Dahlia" had a "hands-on" connection to. In reality, it was Bugsy Siegel (and the Hollywood mob wars of the 1940's) that did the "Dahlia" in ...but that doesn't negate much of what Pacios wrote. Almost all of Hollywood intersected with Elizabeth ("The Black Dahlia") Short and her tale/aura/legacy/curse is encoded in a number of Golden Age films.<br /><br />The "Black Dahlia" was always on the peripheral edges of "Shanghai"-even before it started filming. Barbara Payton on Franchot Tone: "It was when he was thinking about making "The Lady From Shanghai", before he lost the option to Orson Welles. Franchot said he'd been in a bad state over that deal when he ran into the Dahlia in the Formosa Cafe* across from the Goldwyn studios..." *The floor above the Formosa Cafe was Bugsy Siegel's office and "The Dahlia" one of his on again/off again working "girls".<br /><br />It gets deeper and darker- After the 1951 brawl over Barbara Payton between Tom Neal and Franchot Tone that sent Franchot to the hospital with a concussion and "never talking the same way again," Barbara said, she married Tone "just to spite Neal." Tom ("Detour") Neal also knew "The Dahlia" (who didn't?) and became obsessed- From "L.A. Despair" by John Gilmore: "The January 1947 slaying of the young, beautiful would-be actress Elizabeth Short, known as "The Black Dahlia", was one of the most grisly murders in the annals of modern crime. A project, called "Who Killed The Black Dahlia?" was being kicked off by actor Tom Neal, a hell-raiser from WW II movies. Potential producer Gene Harris: "Someone will have to come up with a more imaginative business proposition than what has been presented by Tom Neal and his cohorts..." Not long after: "It would be very clear one beautiful day to come, when Tom would sneak up on his pretty, new Palm Springs wife as she lay on their sofa and shoot a .45 bullet through her head." Barbara Payton and Norma Jean Dougherty (later Marilyn Monroe) knew the "Dahlia" and their stories are well known. It seems all who crossed the path of the "Dahlia" (like the proverbial black cat) entered a "Twilight Zone" darkness and/or had an incredible string of bad luck afterward. Tone/Neal/Welles are only a few -and this includes a butchered film called "The Lady From Shanghai"...<br /><br />"Lady From Shanghai" took two years to be released, thanks to extensive re-editing -and all because Columbia president Harry Cohn couldn't understand the story. It's dark "noir" to be sure -one of the darkest, in fact. It's also a wicked satire on life in the new Atomic Age.<br /><br />Nicolas Christopher:<br /><br />"Shanghai" pushes forth an insistent subtext of nuclear apocalypse and contains the definitive noir statement concerning the atomic bomb and the American city. The film's principal murder victim (and there are many), a psychotic and double-dealing lawyer, manically foresees Armageddon at every turn, claiming he can "feel it." He announces that he plans to escape to a remote Pacific island -a particularly acid joke on Welles' part since this was the very year the U.S. began testing atomic bombs at just such a place, the Bikini Atoll, relocating all the inhabitants and destroying the ecosystem. By the time of Bikini, the erotic identification of Hayworth with the Bomb appears to have been institutionalized, with the blessing of the military brass; the first bomb dropped in the Pacific testing ground in named "Gilda" and has Hayworth's image, in provocative dress, painted directly on its casing..." <br /><br />Its ironic that Orson Welles' broad interpretation of an Irishman is considered a detriment to the film by many. Welles is giving a clue to viewers that "Michael O'Hara" is only the storyteller - not part of the story even though it revolves around him. "O'Hara" contradicts the shark motif throughout the film. Sharks on a feeding frenzy won't stop until there's nothing left. "Michael O'Hara" lives to tell the tale. "Elsa Bannister" causes a feeding frenzy during "O'Hara's" trial and her netted chapeau suggests she's caged in -so as not to devour the human spectators to a Roman Coleseum. The spectators are on a feeding frenzy of their own, gossiping and carrying on about "Elsa" -a human aquarium correlating to the San Francisco marine museum sequence. That's the human condition ...except for "Michael O'Hara". And yet he'll be spending his life trying to forget his past ("Elsa") -or die trying. "Elsa" is part of "Michael" and the tale eats its own tail in the end and the viewer is cautioned to stay out of trouble. | positive |
The Great Dictator is a beyond-excellent film. Charlie Chaplin succeeds in being both extremely funny and witty and yet at the same time provides a strong statement in his satire against fascism. The anti-Nazi speech by Chaplin at the end, with its values, is one of filmdom's great moments. Throughout this movie, I sensed there was some higher form of intelligence, beyond genuinely intelligent filmmaking, at work. | positive |
Amazing documentary. Saw it on original airdate and on DVD a few times in the last few years. I was shocked that it wasn't even nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar for 2002, the year it was released. No other documentary even comes close.<br /><br />It was on TV recently for the 5th anniversary, but I missed the added "where are they now" segment at the end, except I did catch that tony now works for the hazmat unit.<br /><br />I've seen criticism on documentary film-making from a few on this list. I can't see how this could have been done any different. They had less than 6 months to assemble this and get it on the air. The DVD contains more material and background.<br /><br />I'm also surprised that according to IMDb.com, the brother have had no projects in the four years since. What have they been doing? | positive |
Consistency is perhaps this movie its biggest problem. The movie starts of as a fast, stylish and just plain fun political satire but in its second halve the movie gets more serious of tone, in an almost Oliver Stone kind of way. It's of course also a very serious subject but I would say that the movie would had been way better and also more effective if it had been completely done in the same style as the first halve of the movie got shot in.<br /><br />For a biography and a movie concerning the subject of this movie, the movie is also quite short with its mere 102 minutes of running time. The movie because of this feels like it isn't telling the whole story. Of course the following up of the events after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gets hinted at in the movie but the movie doesn't go deeper into it and it doesn't explain much about it, which feels like a cheap way to just glorify Charlie Wilson, without showing the other side of the medal. Also the actual events in the movie itself gets rather simplified, even though the story still gets told (needlessly) complex at times.<br /><br />Yes, the movie would just had been way better if it was not trying to be so serious at times and overall more light with its style and atmosphere. The movie should had been for instance more like "Wag the Dog", that achieved to find a right combination of satire and sensitive political issues.<br /><br />Because of this incoherent style and way of storytelling, the acting performances are also mixed. When Tom Hanks is playing his character more playfully and in a more comical kind of way he's just excellent. But this just makes it sort of hard to take his character serious in the more serious and sensitive/shocking moments of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is always excellent though, as he is in any movie that he plays in. He also received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. Most of the other actors just seem to walk around in this movie, just to be in the movie. This goes mostly for Julia Roberts, whose character I found just too mysterious to seem to have a clear enough purpose for the movie. She made a redundant impression on me and is therefor also really forgettable in this movie.<br /><br />It's not that the movie is a bad watch, it actually is quite good and also enjoyable but if the movie would had dared to be a bit more edgier the movie would had been a better and foremost also more effective one at what it tried to obviously achieve.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
10 ITEMS OR LESS is one of those 'under the radar' pictures that is drenched in the simplicity that most independent movies have: honest, ad hoc performances by its two leads -- Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega who establish quite a complementary if unlikely duo. The great thing is, this entire movie looks improbable despite its 'road movie' roots. How Morgan Freeman's unnamed character psychically (not physically)arrives to where he meets this jaded check-out girl who has an unhealthy relationship with her current supervisor (who also happens to be getting it on with her philandering husband played by Bobby Cannavale in a small role) is somehow left for us to witness more than deduce and their witty banter -- two people on opposite sides of the coin of society -- is deceptively simple. So, in a nutshell, while there aren't any bang! moments of Earth-shattering revelations, this movie is a quirky little mood piece that probably otherwise got lost in the shuffle of indies which came out in 2006 but deserves to be seen, if only for its honesty. | positive |
I love musicals, all of them, from joyous Oklahoma, to Poignant Porgy and Bess, to the touching romantic "Damn Yankees." And I know most of the songs, sometimes singing them spontaneously, with a crowd or humming them alone.<br /><br />In a "real" musical, as differentiated from this vaudeville show, every song is painstakingly crafted to fit the exact moment. It is an expression of sadness, regret, love, joy or exaltation--a natural extension where mere words fail. So, in Guys and Dolls, "My Time of Day" describes the adventurous life of Sky Masterson as it is about to be compromised by the most unlikely woman. Every song in this brilliant exemplar of the genre sets a mood, or develops a character, creating a phantasmagoria of place, turned absolutely believable by the self disclosing evocations of song.<br /><br />For this lover of the Broadway Musical, and their adaptations to the screen during the last half of the 20th century, Mama Mia is somewhere between satire and a cruel fun house distortion of the genre. There, the songs of these musicals advanced the often elaborate, often delightful, plot lines. While here, the songs, simply picked up from a collection, only interfered with the shaky premise of the film.<br /><br />Perhaps most of those viewers who are making this film into a monumental success simply have no exposure to the art form of 20th century Musicals. They have no idea of the magic performed by writer and lyricist that can turn a dance hall floozy into someone whom we know and love, as achieved in "Sweet Charity."<br /><br />Let me offer an apology for the arrogance of this review. Perhaps, another day, another mood, I could have gotten into it, and not have been so critical in this review.<br /><br />But I can't help but imagining what Richard Roger, Oscar Hammerstein, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and so many others could have done even with with this silly premise. I think about it, while the memories of seeing this film is fresh, and I can not help but to mourn the great loss. | negative |
I remember seeing this film years ago on, I think, BBC2. I would very much like to view it again - does anyone know how I can obtain a copy? As I remember, it was an especially powerful movie, in particular the scene that stands out is of the horses wearing gas masks. Apart from that I really can't recall too much about the story - which is why I want to view it again! I have trawled the web but am unable to find a copy, which is unusual in my experience - perhaps there is no DVD or VHS of this film on the market. Would appreciate any help anyone can give me on this. Thanks very much in advance for your assistance. Best regards, [email protected] | positive |
A truly masterful piece of filmmaking. It managed to put me to sleep and to boggle my mind. So boring that it induces sleep and yet so ludicrous that it made me wonder how stuff like this gets made. Avoid at all costs. That is, unless you like taking invisible cranial punishment, in which case I highly recommend it. | negative |
Terrible. There's no way to get around it. A script at the level of one from some Mexican soap opera, a choice and use of the places of shooting that make the movie labyrinthine and at the same time, repetitive and monotonous, with disastrous performances of almost the entire cast. The references to Tarantino's work, so poorly made, are more an insult than anything else. I suspect that was not for the shameless and plot-unrelated exploitation of Matadinho's generous curves , nobody would take the effort to go watch this film to any theater.<br /><br />These are the kind of films that make me have no desire to watch Portuguese cinema. | negative |
Take a few dark and stormy nights, fog coming in from the coast, obsession and doubt, two brothers who have a mysterious connection based on hatred, a suspicious disappearance, a shoe in the night silently grinding out a glowing cigarette butt, and, finally, a tremulous heroine who finds herself threatened as much by her own doubts as by one -- but which one? -- of the men around her. Sounds like we might have a good 80 minute noir. Instead, under the direction of Vincente Minnelli and with two A-list leads, Katharine Hepburn and Robert Taylor, Undercurrent becomes a nearly two-hour matinée melodrama, a long slog of threatening angst amidst the perfectly groomed, coifed and dressed cast. When you glance at your watch half-way through a movie and with a sinking heart see that you have another hour to go, both you and the movie probably have problems. <br /><br />Minnelli, in one of his earliest non-musical movies, doesn't lay on the rococo hothouse approach as heavily as he later was known to do. Still, what is basically a simple story of greed, murder and obsession is turned into an endless Katharine Hepburn vehicle. Hepburn shows us in carefully lit close-ups how to demonstrate fear, love, anxiety, giddiness, happiness, doubt, suspicion and terror. Robert Taylor is more or less along for the ride. <br /><br />Hepburn starts the movie as the tomboyish Ann Hamilton, an energetic young woman in slacks who helps her father with his inventions. Their housekeeper is determined to get her married. When Dr. Hamilton decides to sell an important formula to Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor), it's love at first sight. Garroway is the smooth, handsome, dynamic inventor of the Garroway Distance Controller, which was vital in the war, and which has turned him into a hard-charging millionaire manufacturer. He's a captain of industry, as one of his many Washington friends says. Ann Hamilton, now Ann Garroway, may still be a bit of the tomboy, but her husband shows her how to dress and how to be a successful social hostess for all those Congressmen and judges her husband knows. She learns fast and eagerly. They both are obviously and blissfully in love. <br /><br />But wait. The canker is about to gnaw. Ann realizes she knows nothing about her husband's family. None of his employees or friends seem inclined to talk about them to her. When she learns bit by bit that Alan's mother died in the old family home in Middleburg while seated at the piano, or that he has a brother, Michael, who has disappeared, Alan becomes very quiet...and sometimes goes into a rage. He always apologizes. But wait once more. Did his mother really play the piano? Didn't she really die in bed? Wasn't Michael caught taking money from the family firm and Alan sent him away? All this plays out against the exquisite hotel suites, the manicured country home in Middleburg with the horse stable and the tasteful ranch house by the sea. Everyone in the movie except employees are dressed to the nines. There are exclusive cocktail parties and intimate dinners for twenty. Even in a black- and-white movie, Minnelli can't help but give us dining tables filled with crystal and china, tasteful and elegant furniture and lots of gowns. <br /><br />By the end of the movie, when all is finally known, when Ann on horseback is chased along a high, extremely well-designed mountain trail by the bad guy on another horse, when she is threatened with death by boulder and her pursuer finally meets death by horse, it's a relief. Even Robert Mitchum, who plays Michael, is unable to bring much tension to the movie. What might have been in lesser hands a taut little B-movie, instead with the A list is just an overwrought melodrama, too big for its bones. | negative |
I enjoyed the beautiful scenery in this movie the first time I saw it when I was 9 . Dunderklumpen is kind of cute for kiddies in a corny way. It reminded me of HRPUFFINSTUFF on sat mornings, Its Swedish backdrops make it easy on the eyes . Don't expect older kids to be interested as the live action/animation is way behind the times and most older kids will get bored.This is definitely an under 10 age set movie and a nice bit of memories for those of us who were little kids in 1974. | negative |
*********Ten out of Ten Stars********* <br /><br />It's hard to believe this was a made for television movie. Just the phrase, "made of TV", makes me shudder. The production values for made for TV movies are almost always remarkably lower than production values for professional movie studios. That being said, this version of the "Christmas Carol" should have been released in theaters, because it IS that good. It's my personal favorite of all the "Christmas Carol" movies because every aspect of this production are of the highest quality. Yes, there are some minor on screen glitches with two of the ghosts that visit Scrooge, but there isn't a movie in existence that doesn't have at least a couple of mistakes.<br /><br />Scott turns in a stellar performance as Scrooge, he's a pleasure to watch. In fact, I can't think of one performance in this film that shouldn't be applauded. The costuming, location shooting, and winter backdrop are mesmerizing. The musical score is endearing and heart warming. Add to that, solid directing, flawless cinematography, and faithful scripting; we have here what will one day be considered a holiday classic. It really hasn't been around long enough to be a classic, but mark my words, one day soon it will be. This film has turned into a yearly Christmas tradition in my home because it embodies the true meaning behind Christmas: Love, selflessness, and giving. In as selfish, greedy world, my family and I can lose ourselves in "The Christmas Carol", starring George C. Scott. | positive |
This film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.<br /><br />First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.<br /><br />As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.<br /><br />The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British film industry. | negative |
Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure is a cool movie that many kids today can really relate to. It's a well-presented story about a kid who longs for the freedom to do things his way, and how he goes about getting this freedom is only a part of what makes this film interesting. Just forget the itty-bitty disappointments, like the fact that there were only adults in this movie based on a pup's point of view, because that's just 0.5% or less of the movie's wonderful effect on the viewer. Great music, lively acting, talented animation and directing, and a powerful storyline tell a tale of the difference between freedom on the streets of New England and a cozy home with your family. And that no matter how bad things seem, your family and friends are "always there" to help you though any tight spot.<br /><br />I can't wait to get the soundtrack! | positive |
I saw this film before two weeks. It's kitsch, boring and totally unintelligible for people, that haven't read the original book. There are many fact mistakes too... actors plays rather poor, you must laugh even in the sad moments. It was a totally waste of time. | negative |
There have been countless talking-animal films in the past, the majority of which either feature animals' mouths digitally animated to nearly match the voice acting, or are ridiculously amateur. 'Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey' is neither.<br /><br />This film doesn't need the infant-pleasing addition of moving canine lips, or gesturing feline limbs. It has the ability to make you believe that the animals are authentically talking to one another, and you can get rather emotionally attached to them at heart (as all great boy-and-and-his-dog films should).<br /><br />Homeward Bound is the epitome of all family-friendly animal romps to me, and boasts some beautiful cinematography, an inspiring soundtrack (from the genius of Bruce Broughton), and an impressive cast...<br /><br />Michael J. Fox ... Chance<br /><br />Sally Field ... Sassy<br /><br />Don Ameche ... Shadow<br /><br />Frank Welker (Voice God) ... Various<br /><br />It is a modernised version of the children's classic work of fiction 'The Incredible Journey', which was made into a semi-documentary film by Disney long long ago in 1963. The sequel (Lost in San Fransisco) isn't nearly as good a film, but extends the adventure of my favourite furry-footed friends, and is a fun urban-twist on the grand-outdoor-adventure theme. Want to entertain your children with a witty, pretty, heart-warming mini-epic, without the idiotic and often utterly ridiculous comedy of modern children's cinema? Parents, buy all three films for your children - now! Thank you, Disney, for bringing a tear to my eyes with each time I watch this early-90s classic! | positive |
A quick resumé: Almost nonexistent, badly chosen musical soundtrack, steady-cam filming done without the steady but with lots of coffee and a hyperactive cameraman, NO plot, and nothing ever really happens. The film goes from one dialog into another, sounding hollow, never achieving depth, never creating the illusion that you really are inside a cobweb of conspiracy, and the everybody-has-an-affair-with-everybody is just a boring excuse to show the main actress in nice underwear. (which, combined with her rusty voice certainly is nice, but nothing to base a movie on) The high point for me is the opening scene, and the film just degraded from there to a point where I just wanted to quit the film about 45 minutes into the story. I regret sitting it out. | negative |
Let me say this new He-Man cartoon is not destroying childhood memories, as I didn't like the old He-Man cartoon either. I loved the action figures, but I found the cartoon to be corny and I hated the storyline (the He-Man I liked was the one from the very early, pre-cartoon mini-comics included in the figure boxes, where He-Man was a Barbarian, the Sword of Power was split in two pieces, and there was no Prince Adam, no Shazam-ripoff premise, and no Orko). Anyway, let's leave the old stuff alone.<br /><br />The new He-Man cartoon (or at least this pilot) is a disgrace on its own, s it represents both the worst cheesiness of the old show, and the worst tendences of nowadays. I watched it because I had heard the in-your-face morals of the old show were (thankfully) gone, and this one had more swordplay and character development. But I encountered an awful mishmash of the worst clichés of the genre, characters I couldn't help but hate, and the sadly inevitable Matrix-esque visual style.<br /><br />I think it was a good idea to give a bit of a background to the characters, as it was showing a pre-face-peeling Skeletor, but that's how far the character development goes, aside from the usual coming-to-age rubbish I see coming in the subsequent episodes, where this teenybopper Adam will be learning the responsibility of his new-acquired powers, blah blah. At least in the old show Adam was not a spoiled brat! I found myself hating his guts. That's what we get when they put out an adventure show aimed at pre-teens: pretty faces and wanna-be-cool-and-look-juvenile clothes. I should check new episodes to see if N'Sync make a special appearance. Man, does this show remind me to the 1996 Flash Gordon stinkbomb cartoon!<br /><br />Dialogue? Ha! It follows absolutely every cliché in the book, from the goody-lil-two-shoes Randor in the opening scene to Skeletor's immortal "Oh, and He-Man... I lied!" in the ending. And Skeletor's voice is still the same high-pitch kind than in the old series. 20 years, and nothing we have learnt.<br /><br />And sure, nowadays there can't exist something remotely action-related that's not Matrix-style. Leave Anime to the Japanese, folks, think fresh ideas. And seeing the characters' poses while fighting didn't help either.<br /><br />Of course, we have our usual dose of PCness: Evil-Lyn (now I think about it, who the hell comes up with these names?) has no yellow skin now, but grey-ish. Oh, so no Asian people will be offended. I bet Jitsu won't appear in the show either. Shades of the 1996 FG again, where Ming the Merciless was a green, toad-like alien!<br /><br />People are complaining about Cringer's lack of speech. I don't think I would have liked this more or less if Cringer spoke, he's corny enough this way. And you have your extra ration of cheese with Orko! The shocking thing is, probably many of the people who (rightfully) hated Jar Jar Binks, might be huge Orko fans...<br /><br />I watched the feature-lenght pilot, and I've had enough. Leave the series alone. 2 out of 10. | negative |
I grew up on this classic western series, and as a child always considered it a treat being allowed to stay up late on Sunday evenings to watch it. Bonanza is still infinitely re watchable in re runs.<br /><br />The series chronicles the adventures of the Cartwright family, who live on a ranch near Virginia City, Nevada around the Civil War era. Their ranch (called the Ponderosa) is run and defended by the widowed father, Ben, and his unmarried three sons, Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe. These three brothers have different mothers, all of whom have passed away years earlier.<br /><br />The Cartwrights are a hard working, prosperous, and honourable family, highly respected in those parts. The Ponderosa is large so reaching its extremities requires a lot of horseback riding. Also, trips away are often necessary in order to buy or sell cattle and so forth. Needless to say, few of these excursions pass uneventfully. Although hospitable, much of the Cartwrights' energy must be spent defending their ranch from interlopers, or protecting themselves from townsfolk jealous of their prosperity and stellar reputation. The Cartwrights do a fair bit of firing their guns up in the air and such, but only shoot to kill when deemed absolutely necessary. They are involved in various town affairs, even the political life of the Nevada territory.<br /><br />One of the main assets of the series is the underlying warmth that is always present (despite occasional disagreements) between Ben and his three sons, and (despite frequent disagreements) between the three brothers. Now, one brother might beat up another every now and then, but generally has a good reason for it at the time and his anger never lasts long! The characters are all very well drawn. Ben is portrayed as a successful and noble man of great integrity. The oldest son, Adam, the most rational and suave of the brothers, left midway through the series. The middle brother, Hoss, is a gentle giant of a teddy bear, who has an insatiable appetite for food and is a little shy around the ladies. The youngest, Little Joe, is a hot headed, handsome charmer who, by contrast, has quite a way with women. This trio of brothers enjoy various romances but their love interests are typically killed off by the end of the episode or else marriage proves impossible, for whatever reason.<br /><br />The actors are all stellar in their roles, including Pernell Roberts (Adam), Dan Blocker (Hoss), Michael Landon (Little Joe), and of course Lorne Greene as the principled family patriarch, Ben. I also love the ranch cook, Hop Sing, played by Victor Sen Yung.<br /><br />This is a wonderful action packed western with great values. The Cartwrights are always the noble heroes and most of the bad guys quite villainous. If only there were more programs like this vintage western on TV these days! | positive |
"Jake Speed" is a fine movie with a wonderful message. It has its flaws of course. At times it's a little slow. It introduces its villain too far into the story. It's action is paced at the rate of a snail's heartbeat. It has a Z-grade cast (Although I've always admired the work of Karen Kopins, who has the straight-laced good looks of Sandra Bullock).<br /><br />But with all this going against it, "Jake Speed" really is inspiring, thanks to a charming script by Wayne Crawford(who plays the title role) and Andrew Lane.<br /><br />Why do I find it so inspiring? Because it says to me "Hey, why not try to be a good person."<br /><br />The story is essentially a "stranger in a strange land" premise, that is good-and-heroic Jake Speed is placed in the real world where bad things happen to good people. Jake is more than a Boy Scout. He's more than a knight in shining armor. Jake Speed is the patron saint of optimism in a dirty, mean and evil world.<br /><br />It's because of this that "Jake Speed" really needed to be a hit. It has a great message that should have gotten out to Hollywood and then to the rest of the world.<br /><br />Imagine a movie industry that really pushed itself to portray good and decent people. I'm not saying that we should be watching the Waltons in every theater at the cineplex, but that it would be nice if more movies such as "Jake Speed" would get a chance. ("Due South," a TV show about a Canadian Mountie, is a good comparison of what can be done to brighten up American entertainment.)<br /><br />Sure, "Jake Speed" has violence, blood and guns, but the overall message is that if you try hard enough to be a good person, you'll beat the forces of evil every time. 10/14/99 | positive |
Not bad performances. Whoopi plays the wise/warm role quite well. Still, the storyline and situations can not be believed (forced PC stereotypes). At times it is good Jews and Blacks vs. the evil White Christians (ho-hum). A typical Hollywood fantasy. The film does have its moments, but it is not one that I would recommend to go out of your way to view. | negative |
The premise is a bit better than the execution, but that doesn't mean the film is worth a look. Splendid supporting cast makes this a fun mystery to unravel. Raines is great as the resourceful woman determined to solve this puzzlement. I always enjoy Thomas Gomez. | positive |
Hilarious and low-budget comedy at it's best. This set of unique individual sketches with extensive self-referential humor is reminiscent of a really raunchy Kids in the Hall. Be prepared for some of the most random and recitation worthy lines, filled with ethnic slurs and awful language. Sex toys included!<br /><br />There should be more comedy like this around today. This collection of sketches on one DVD will warrant many viewings and reviewings in order to appreciate some of the parts. If you enjoyed The State and/or Wet Hot American Summer, get ready for some more glory. If you are even considering this for younger audiences I would say that every child on earth should see this. | positive |
If you have ever seen a Bollywood movie, you know they are longer than most movies due to the multiple song and dance routines (each one is over five minutes long). Fortunately, this one has fewer song and dance routines and fits into the "standard" movie length. Don't get me wrong, I like Bollywood movies, but tend to fast forward through the song and dance portions. I bought this DVD because I am an Ian Bohen fan. Although his role wasn't as large as I hoped, he still had a good amount of screen time. And his character was much different than his other roles.<br /><br />Overall, this was a good movie. Like most Bollywood movies, there is at least one element of controversy/conflict of the traditional Indian culture. But true love triumphs over adversity and a happy ending is had by all. | positive |
A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.<br /><br />There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...<br /><br />I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo. | negative |
Having first read the novel, I don't mind,for the purposes of filming, how differently it is scripted, as long as it adheres to, or at least includes, the plot. For reasons known only to Hollywood, important parts of the story are completely ignored, and a different story line added. The reason this novel passed the test of time, is, no doubt, due to the interweaving of both the characters, and plot, as a whole. To interfere with this structure, is to destroy the intricate balance of the story line, and therefore the intension of the story teller. Although a matter of opinion, the casting of this film leaves a lot to be desired. Characters, described as very fat, should, at least, be made to look portly, to allow for the character to have credibility. The days of slavery can't be over, or surely, actors of this calibre would have been in revolt, at such a travesty of the story. The face of Marian Halcolme is described as being manly in appearance,... Tara Fitzgerald's very feminine appearance doesn't ring true. Again Laura Fairly is described as being 'fair', if not 'ethereal', so, with dark hair, she does not quite fit the impression gleaned from the novel. ....Badly done, Hollywood!<br /><br />J. Hunter | negative |
" It had to be You" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch. | negative |
Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a bookstore in the sleepy, coastal town of Loblolly by the Sea. Divorced, Helen has a young daughter who is going to camp for the summer, giving mother a bit more freedom. Working at Helen's store are the manager, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres), a man-crazy village-gossip girl who has eyes for the handsome fireman, George (Tom Selleck), and two young college students, Jennifer (Julianne Nicholson) and Johnny (Tom Everett Scott). One day, Helen stumbles across a romantic, tender love letter and she suspects that Johnny has written it for her. Throwing caution to the wind, Helen and Johnny begin a small-time "thing". But, the letter subsequently lands in others' hands, including Janet's, who thinks George has sent it to her, and Johnny's, who imagines Helen has penned it for him. And, on and on the letter goes. But, in truth, George possibly has eyes for Helen and Jennifer has fallen hard for Johnny. The town's museum curator, too, may have a secret love. Will tangled affairs like these ever straighten themselves out? This is a cute movie with a gorgeous setting and capable stars. Each of the main actors gives a pleasing performance, including the addition of Blythe Danner and Gloria Stuart to those mentioned previously. Then, too, the coastal scenery is most lovely, the costumes quite well-chosen, and the photography very nice indeed. There are a few surprises, including a subtle gay plot development, which may not please all viewers. But, for those who love romantic comedies, this one should be included on any list of good choices for the genre. | positive |
FORGET CREDIBILITY<br /><br />You must not expect credibility with action movies where the superhero has to perform an endless string of unbelievable feats, being trodden upon in the process but recovering at lightning speed, and transforming innocuous gadgets in lethal weapons... especially when Renny Harlin is directing.<br /><br />"CLIFFHANGER " is no exception. But the movie has numerous assets : breathtaking scenery gorgeously photographed, stunning special and visual effects ( the first five minutes are gripping and give the tone of the film ), excellent musical score, welcome attempts at levity to relieve some of the tension, and a solid cast : two heroes ( Stallone, star and cowriter, has the lion's share of the footage, but the excellent Michael Rooker more than stands his ground ), a charming heroin ( Janine Turner ), and one of the most darstardy bunch of villains ever ( priceless John Lithgow and deceivingly feminine Caroline Goodall, but also Rex Linn - in a longer than usual part and who makes the most of it, Leon, Craig Fairbrass ) Good, solid entertainment then , if no credibility.As Roger Ebert wrote ( about another film )"It's the kind of movie you can sit back and enjoy as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking too much."<br /><br /> | positive |
This film is about a Japanese woman who has an obsession with calligraphy on skin.<br /><br />The plot is absolutely bizarre. I fail to see any "sensual" or "erotic" undertones. The plot turns an ancient art form into a fetishistic pornography. In addition, the scenes that are filmed in Hong Kong are certainly portraying bad parts of Hong Kong, such as the airport in the middle of the city, poor living conditions and noise pollution. Throughout the whole film, I keep thinking that "The Pillow Book" is insulting the Japanese culture and the Hong Kong environment.<br /><br />"The Pillow Book" is a perverted, yet boring film. Seriously stay away from it. | negative |
This movie was absolutely ghastly! I cannot fathom how this movie made it to production. Nothing against the cast of the movie, of course, this is all the fault of the writing team. You take the old average plot - let's dance our way out of being poor and destitute - or STEP in this case. But this one lacks any semblance of a true plot - or at least one that anyone would care about. With Canadian speaking actors in what is supposed to be an American setting - this film falls very flat. On a positive note, the directing was pretty good and cinematography was pretty decent as well. Looks like the production budget was very generous as well. My only request is that this team leave the writing alone and go find actual screenwriters to help them bring words alive on film. Net result - How she move is How she sucks. | negative |
I have copied my video of this on to DVD so that I can enjoy it whenever I like and it makes a very successful (and rare) wedding present as well! This is just an absolutely wonderful adaptation of a much loved novel. Everything about it is just perfect and it has aged amazingly well. There is always a chance with something this old that it might appear a bit creaky next to more modern dramas but 'Precious Bane' more than holds its own.<br /><br />The quality of the acting is amazing with Janet McTeer making a superlative Prudence and a young Clive Owen stomping around as the taciturn Gideon Sarn. <br /><br />I challenge anyone to watch the final sequence without at least sniffling a little at the sheer romance of it all. It is the perfect film to watch when it is cold outside and you are snuggled up on the sofa.<br /><br />I really can't recommend this highly enough. | positive |
I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie. <br /><br />The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention. <br /><br />The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.<br /><br />One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body. <br /><br />Overall... DON'T BOTHER | negative |
It's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.<br /><br />There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the "carefully crafted" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.<br /><br />It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure? | negative |
This movie was OK, as far as movies go. It could have been made as a crossover into secular movies. However, it had little to do with the Left Behind books that it was supposedly based on. Major story premises were removed, and new major story premises were added. <br /><br />What disappointed me most was how Nicolae was portrayed. He was shown with supernatural powers that he did not have at this point in the books. Antichrist is not Satan, is not omniscient and not omnipotent. <br /><br />Faith and beliefs were portrayed in weird, surreal ways that seemed to make the movie just silly.<br /><br />Non-believers who watch this will have more ammunition to mock Christian beliefs. | negative |
I was so disappointed by this show. After hearing and reading all the hoopla about it, how it was a "ground breaking show" and all sorts of wild promises if quality, I tried to watch it.<br /><br />What a letdown!! The acting was way forced and exaggerated. The story made very little sense. As for any hint of the vaunted "look into teenagers' lives", I could only see a paltry attempt that had as much reality to it as a reality show.<br /><br />Some are wondering why there are so many negative comments about this show. The reason is that it's really not all that good and beating the drums over quality on this show only serves to attract attention to how poorly made it is. | negative |
This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A. <br /><br />It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch. <br /><br />Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile. | negative |
Two things haunt you throughout L'intrus (The Intruder): who's the intruder and is it a movie or a dream you're watching? The ending is so shocking that for a while you're at a loss for an answer to either of those questions. The intruder pops up as different characters, different men in different circumstances who don't belong in the scene, so they're expelled from it, kindly or brutally, but often without emotional involvement. The main character, Louis, is a contemptible man. He's got rough ways, some mean job and no heart. He needs one and goes after it. He has a heart transplanted and afterwards decides to start a new life. Can this man succeed in his quest for redemption? A guy like that could cut your throat at the drop of a hat. You know it but Claire Denis doesn't encourage you to judge him. Occasionally, there's a young Russian woman -a beautiful girl who seems to inhabit someplace between heaven and earth - who does judge him. She may even punish him. But not Denis. There's the character played by Beatrice Dalle who wants no business with him: don't touch me, she says. But Denis lets this man be himself, films him in his self-absorbed quest. I don't know if what she films is the heart or the mind but it isn't the traditional plot basics. Whatever she films, you get it in the end. You know who's "the" intruder, you know why, more or less, and some scenes come back to your mind with their full meaning. But was it a movie or a dream? | positive |
Easily Lucio Fulci's most respected film, "Don't Torture a Duckling" is highly renowned for it's edgy subject matter, gruesome imagery, and strong storyline. Terror befalls a small Italian village as young boys begin turning up murdered, engulfing the confused and determined authorities plus a dedicated detective in mystery. Was it the creepy hermit? The spastic voodoo witch? One of the hookers? The rich girl? Someone else? Contrary to most fan's frequent representation on the film's violent content - I consider it much more plot driven; featuring only one real moment of memorable bloodshed (involving chains and boards). In no aspect does this detract from the positive attributes this movie delivers. Fulci proves himself fully capable of dishing out one hell of a dark and disturbing giallo with childing killing, black magic, and of course a nice full set o' knockers... Though I'm particularly more fond of Fulci's "Lizard in a Woman's Skin" and "New York Ripper", "Don't Torture a Duckling" dominates the giallo genre as a moody and compelling murder mystery! | positive |
It is way beyond me how this script was ever sold much less produced and distributed. The dialogue was so bad it was sickening. The train and helicopter scenes appeared to have been done on flash cards by high school students. Lou Diamond Phillips must have hidden under his seat when this --- this "movie"? was shown at a private screening afterwhich he most likely left by the back door. The only emotion it aroused in me was pity for the cast, they had to "bite the bullet" to get through this one. I couldn't stand to watch all of it, it was so predictable that it was funny. Who knows maybe it will be picked up by one of the networks as a situation comedy. | negative |
Contrary to some people's summaries, the women depicted in the film are not geisha. They are oiran (prostitutes) living outside the most famous pleasure districts, and their lives and experiences represent the lives of a great number of Tokugawa era women. I can't say the stories were particularly enlightening, but their charm lies in just how typical they are. The themes are universal and everyday: love, friendship, and sacrifice.<br /><br />I did greatly enjoy the art direction and the acting. I felt like I was getting a glimpse of a time and place I can never otherwise glimpse. The actors, especially the 4 women who played the main oiran, were a thrill to watch. I'd only recommend this movie to people who want a taste of Japanese culture, or to those who enjoy quiet and emotional stories. It's a great example of both. | positive |
This is absolutely the best none-animated family film I've seen in quite a while, back to the first Homeward Bound. Paulie is a humerous movie about life through a parrot's POV. It's a really touching movie and ranks high among family films, up to Disney status, IMHO. | positive |
I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.<br /><br />The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.<br /><br />My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why. | positive |
A true masterpiece by Sorrentino and Tony Servillo demonstrates his exceptional acting ability as the cool, enigmatic Titta.<br /><br />Yet another example of a must see movie that the everyday person will not receive access, as the high street cinema chains are full of Hollywood funded nonsense. Fortunately I reside in the metropolis and amongst the privileged few who enjoy the choice the art-house cinema provides. I champion the day when cinema investment will be channelled into bespoke film screenings allowing choice for the masses and away from assembling penny sweet counters! <br /><br />Film of the year for me so far and yes I've seen a few.... | positive |
When Patricia Newell is attacked after witnessing her cousin's murder,Detective Carrella searches the city for her killer.Identifying the murderer after an intensive manhunt,Patricia is sent to live with relatives in the country.For Carrella the case is closed...or is it?"Blood Relatives" is an overlooked masterpiece.Donald Sutherland plays a cop and it's nice to see Donald Pleasance in a small role as a child molester.The conclusion is pretty disturbing.Still "Blood Relatives" is more of a mystery than a horror film,so fans of gore will be disappointed.A must-see for fans of old-fashioned mystery movies.9 out of 10. | positive |
First of all, as a long time student of the Titanic disaster and member of several Titanic clubs, I feel entitled to comment on the film. I don't really care how many awards and accolades the film won, but to me it is still an absolutely awful film. Cameron had the resources to make a 'proper' semi-documentary film of the disaster but unfortunately chose to turn it into a po-faced romantic mush. The fact that so many people around the world fell for it only shows, to my mind, the sad state of taste and common sense that movie critics and audiences have these days. Whoever said that all movies should have a hero and heroine falling in love? In fact most real events are anything but romantic and the Titanic disaster certainly was not one. I feel that it needed a better script and director with a semi-documentary approach and as little artistic license as possible. I almost threw up in the last sequence where the 'dead' lovers meet among the other lost passengers and crew who break out in applause. Is this an intelligent film? Ask yourself. | negative |
I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.<br /><br />The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help. | negative |
an acted/manipulated documentary about one of the most darkest places of guatemala. portrayed as a fun, secure... but sad place, were a bunch of sex workers get to play in a soccer team, assembled in what seems like no more than a week! the documentary's main focus is to prove that society repels this kind of "workers", even though no solution to these poor women is ever achieved, except that the people who documented this,made them some sort of "stars" (just like the title says so) in exchange of being exploited for making this realityshowlike documentary. it does have, however, its own documented reality... but, that sadly has nothing to do with the main storyline. i would not accept to see it again; but i would recommend it for general cultural purposes only. | negative |
I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best. | positive |
My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents. My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents. | negative |
Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....<br /><br />The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a "Roosevelt Democrat", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.<br /><br />Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I. <br /><br />The only thing that kept me from giving this a "1" was the nice scenery, human and plant. | negative |
John Leguizamo's "Freak" is one of the funniest one-man shows I've ever seen! I recommend it to anyone! Well, anyone with a good sense of humor.... | positive |
The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...<br /><br />The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, "The Marchioness." Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).<br /><br />You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a "so bad it's good" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD. | negative |
I had high hopes for this film, even though I had not read the book. Richard Gere and Diane Lane together--should be good already. But the film does not deliver on the promise. I kept waiting for more depth to the characters and there wasn't. I have no problem with the fact that it only took a weekend for them to fall in love. That can happen. But we never really get to know the characters. I would have liked more focus on them. The film reminded me in places of Bridges of Madison County, and that film was far better. I really felt for the characters in that film, and there was a chemistry (much more passion) between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that there wasn't between Gere and Lane. Each of them are very good actors in his or her own right. Simply not the right movie for them together. | negative |
Clint Eastwood has definitely produced better movies than this, but this one does not embarrass him. Dirty Harry catches everyone's attention and unless one wants to watch romance, there is no reason why you won't like him. He is cool because he is dirty, is great because he kills without much thinking, is perfect because he gets the bullet right through your heart and a hero because he doesn't care.<br /><br />From what I have seen in movies in which Eastwood acts, the character of the lead role always captivates the audience. In White Hunter Black heart, he is the crazy director, in "in the Line of Fire" he is the "Old 'un" while here is the "almost" jobless with his job, that is to say he makes work for himself, doesn't care one damn about his superiors who practically send him out for a vacation.<br /><br />Based on a rape victim, this movie is promising for all the "no non-sense" movie watchers. The movie has nothing that goes away from he central plot. However, what makes it slightly inferior to the better movies of Eastwood is that though the character of the lead role is captivating the plot is not, as it is far too obvious from the beginning. It is not a movie that is going to make you sit at a place without moving. Also, there are too many people far dirtier than Dirty harry. | positive |
This seemed to be a lackluster film to me that betrays a low budget with poor cinematography and not all that great of a job of editing. It may be of interest to those who know something about submarines during the World War II era, but I recommend that all others beware. Many of the scenes in this film were flat and some of the actors were a bit weak. The story about the men getting called back to duty during a short leave seems realistic enough, but there's no real pacing or tension in the story. I also had a tough time understanding what the actors were saying, partially due to some strong English accents and perhaps some due to an inferior job of sound recording. I give this a 55/100. Most folks will want to "steer" clear. | positive |
This is the most difficult movie I have ever seen...the emotional content is horrific, yet unforgetable. A woman who is accused of being a political activist is brought in for questioning. The whole movie revolves around her interrogation. Alan Rickman and Madeline Stowe have intense and powerful roles for which they deserve Oscars for their performances. | positive |
Sometimes, when seeking a movie nothing will do except a good thriller. Dead Line certainly fits the bill. <br /><br />A little warning however: if you are going to watch this film you are better off not knowing too much specifics about the plot. <br /><br />The plot thickens as the film goes by. A really remarkably well built tension mounts. <br /><br />It is deep and horrifying. It goes all the way to the darkest places in human mind.<br /><br />The plot also has some very surprising shifts. <br /><br />Just wait till nightfall, turn off the light and watch this film. | positive |
Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.<br /><br />The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?<br /><br />Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time. | negative |
Fame, I think, was the best movie that I have ever seen. In ways it was funny and dramatic, but that is what makes a movie. True, it has a few loose ends, actually a lot, but I still think that it is a terrific movie. Some of the funny things happen in the audition at the beginning of the movie. I think it is hilarious when the girl tries to act out O.J. Simpson in "The Towering Inferno" and Raul/Ralph goes around to every art department saying that his father was great at every one. He says that his dad danced with the Rockets and left Ralph his tap shoes. The Rockets, as far as I know, are made up of women. And the tap shoes were just regular shoes with bottle caps on the bottom. Also the guy who read the lines of Juliet in the Romeo and Juliet play was funny. One thing about the movie that just turns me on is the music. I have never heard anything like it!!! My favorite song is "I Sing the Body Electric" and my second is the theme song itself "Fame". Irene Cara has a great voice and is a great actress. I like the way the movie focused on many ethnic groups. It showed all of the kinds of people there actually are in what is now called "La Guardia School of the Performing Arts". This movie showed the triumphs and trials of many young performers, including Angelo, Doris, Bruno, Coco, Montgomery, Ralph, Leroy, Hilary, and Liza. They all had a hard time, but made it their own way. This movie could have added on about another 30-45 minutes (before the graduation), but it is still my favorite movie no matter what!!!! | positive |
As you can tell from the other comments, this movie is just about the WORST film ever made. Let me see how many different words I can use to describe it: Boring, Unbearable, Laughable, Lousy, Stupid, Horrible.....<br /><br />I could go on with such descriptions but you probably get the point.<br /><br />I would have given this a 0, if possible--bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad plot.<br /><br />This was made in 2001 and it looks more like 1965. Very low budget, boring plot, horrible acting, really bad special effects, etc...<br /><br />I rarely ever see a Sci-Fi film I absolutely think is this bad. I mean this is pure garbage. It has nothing going for it either. As far as a "B-movie" this is the very bottom of the lot.<br /><br />I think I would be more entertained by staring at a blank piece of paper for 90 minutes. Junk like this gives good low-budget "B" movies a bad name. This makes Ed Wood movies look good.<br /><br />The thing about watching direct-to-video movies is, just when you think you've seen the worst, you see something even worse!<br /><br />DJ Perry is a horrible actor and has no individual characteristics that make him stand out.<br /><br />Avoid this waste at all costs! Oh the humanity! | negative |
A few summer space campers actually were accidently sent into space by a robot. And the oxygen in ship was running short. They had to sent someone to a space station to get the gas tanks, etc, etc.<br /><br />First of all, this movie's plot is not possible in real life. But it gives a warm feelings of anything is possible if you set your heart in.<br /><br />It is amazing to see those young actors who still look about the same after so many years. (I saw this movie for the first time in the year of 2000, it was filmed in 1986) There are quite a few people in that movie who are still working in Hollywood.<br /><br />The view was great from outer space. It does not look unreal. It is about 2 hours long, it runs so fast that you won't even notice. You know that it is not real, but you just get sucked into it until the end.<br /><br />Overall, it is a good family movie.<br /><br /> | positive |
Abu, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, helps King Ahmed regain his kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.<br /><br />As Europe was going to war and significant sections of the world was going up in flames, Sir Alexander Korda's London Films unveiled this lavish escapist fare from the legends of The Arabian Nights. Replete with swords & sorcery, it gave audiences in 1940 a short respite from the headlines. It also is a fine piece of film making, featuring good acting and an intelligent script.<br /><br />Conrad Veidt gets top billing and he deserves it, playing the evil magician Jaffar. His saturnine face with its piercing eyes makes one recall the macabre roles he played with such relish during Silent days. Here is a villain worth watching. As the boyish Thief, Sabu is perfectly cast in this, his third film. While not a hero in the typical sense of the word, his character is certainly heroic in deed & action.<br /><br />The rest of the cast do fine work. John Justin is both energetic & sensitive as the unenlightened king who must learn about the realities of live the hard way; Sabu gets a significant part of the action (when he's not transformed into a dog) but Justin is appropriately athletic when needs must. Lovely June Duprez plays the endangered Princess of Basra, coveted by two very different men. Appearing late in the film, massive Rex Ingram shakes things up as a genie with an attitude.<br /><br />Allan Jeayes uses his fine voice to good advantage as the Storyteller. Miles Malleson gets another eccentric role as the childlike Sultan of Basra, forever dithering on about his mechanical toys (Malleson was also responsible for the film's screen play & dialogue). Aged Morton Selten portrays the benevolent King of Legend. Mary Morris, later an exceptional stage actress, plays the dual roles of Jaffar's accomplice and the six-armed Silver Dancer.<br /><br />The film was begun in Britain, but wartime difficulties made Korda move it to Southern California, which probably explains the presence of American Ingram in the cast. The art direction, in vibrant Technicolor, is most attractive, especially the fairy tale architecture in blues, whites & pinks.<br /><br />*************************<br /><br />Born Sabu Dastagir in 1924, Sabu was employed in the Maharaja of Mysore's stables when he was discovered by Korda's company and set before the cameras. His first four films (ELEPHANT BOY-1937, THE DRUM-1938, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD-1940, JUNGLE BOOK-1942) were his best and he found himself working out of Hollywood when they were completed. After distinguished military service in World War II he resumed his film career, but he became endlessly confined for years playing ethnic roles in undistinguished minor films, BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) being the one great exception. His final movie, Walt Disney's A TIGER WALKS (1964) was an improvement, but it was too late. Sabu had died of a heart attack in late 1963, only 39 years of age. | positive |
I'm no big fan of Martial Arts movies, but the video shop was nearly empty and Jet Li was in Lethal Weapon 4 and I got it free when the other films I'd rented, either way I rented it. I absolutely loved it, my flatmate and myself (22 year old Biochemistry and Accountancy students) spent the half hour after the film making strange Kung Fu noises and throwing beermat shurikens at each other. I can't explain it (well maybe a little tequila). I never enjoyed Bruce Lee, skinny bloke kicking big bloke, beating him, kicking bigger bloke etc film ends. Think Jackie Chan with a little less comedy and more action. | positive |
"What Alice Found" was a pleasant discovery. As written and directed by A. Dean Bell, this is combination of a road movie with a cautionary tale, as well as a voyage of discovery.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the film, maybe you should stop reading here.<br /><br />Alice is a case study of a young woman that wants to break away from the unhappy life she leads in a New England town. Her pretext for leaving is going to join her best friend, who is away studying at a Miami university. Alice is the product of a single mother's home, one that is struggling to make ends meet, in sharp contrast with the life of ease her friend seems to inhabit. In flashbacks we get to see Alice's life before going on the road.<br /><br />Alice, like her namesake in "Alice in Wonderland", embarks in a trip to the unknown that life hasn't prepared her for. The highways of America are full of predators in search of the weak and innocent. Alice meets with disaster when her car breaks down the road and a friendly Southern couple come to her assistance when a strange man approaches in the darkness with the excuse he wants to help her. Sandra and Bill convince her to come along in their plush R.V. on her way down South.<br /><br />Nothing has prepared Alice for what this couple turns out to be. After all, in her sheltered life, she hasn't dealt with what Sandra and Bill, her new benefactors do during the overnight stays at the rest stops in the American highways. It comes as a shock to her the realization that the kind Sandra is nothing but a prostitute that plies her trade among the truck driving populace one meets in those places.<br /><br />Alice, brilliantly played by Emily Grace, is a study in how the young woman awakens to the new reality she can't escape. In fact, Sandra makes it seem so easy that Alice tries her luck at the oldest profession on earth in order to raise some badly needed money.<br /><br />Judith Ivey gives a tremendous performance as Sandra. Ms. Ivey is perfect as the seemingly normal woman, one wouldn't suspect she is doing the nasty with clients she and Bill find along the route they travel. Ms. Ivey is amazing when she reveals the truth about her life to an accusing Alice. As the husband, Bill Raymond is good in his portrayal as the husband, that in reality is a procurer.<br /><br />Under the excellent direction of Mr. Dean Bell, the film is not afraid to go to places mainstream films dare not to go. Congratulations to this director who has written a plausible story and has gathered the perfect cast to play it for our benefit. | positive |
As some other comments show, this movie might scare you, when you're a little child. (And that is probably all that it is good for.)<br /><br />However, if you're older, this movie only does one thing: suck majorly -and thereby I don't mean the acting, its soundtrack, cutting or s.th. like that. I'm simply talking about the "plot" (if you can call it that). <br /><br />SPOILERS ahead ------------------------<br /><br />I don't want to give any more spoilers than necessary (if after reading this, you really still want to watch this movie) but if you graduated from any school, this is just a big insult of your intelligence. When watching this, I was stunned most of the time, because what was happening was just THAT stupid.<br /><br />This includes:<br /><br />-the forming of UNITE (an evil UN-association) <br /><br />--> we are just supposed to believe it's evil. is it even evil at all? if so: why is it evil?<br /><br />-the mark of evil in the form of a tattoo <br /><br />--> there is no necessity to impose this on the people, so why the hell (no pun intended) are they doing it? <br /><br />-inviting Christ to your heart merely as lip service <br /><br />-->because there's nothing anybody, who in this movie is considered "a real Christian", ever does, besides saying that stupid prayer. so...just say that prayer before the rapture and you're saved - no matter what?! <br /><br />Thus, rating 1/10 | negative |
Director Mikhail Kalatozov's film The Cranes are Flying (Letyat zhuravli) is a glorious piece of cinema. From the screenplay by Viktor Rozov, based on his own play, Kalatozov shows us a vision of the heroism of war and the suffering by those left at home. Inundated with countless war movies showing us the frontlines and the carnage, the topic itself becomes tedious and avoidable. However, this Russian gem shows how the tale of hardship can be told in a different way; by telling us, straight from a soldier's mouth how war is hated by all, that they hope those who died did so for a cause that will allow for peace and the end of fighting, we see a new vision of WWII. We have young men volunteering to wage war for peace, to keep their families and loved ones safe at home rather than draftees fighting a battle they don't believe in. With so much hatred towards our current situation in the Middle East, and how people are dying for no reason, against their will, it's nice to see a film that shows just how selfless and heroic these soldiers are, as well as those awaiting their return.<br /><br />Communist Russia shows how involved all were in the war. While Boris may have volunteered to go to the frontlines, his father is head doctor of a hospital aiding in the mending of soldiers injured and his sister is helping him there as well as his girl Veronika, doing all she can to keep her mind off the fact that no letter has arrived from her love. An entire city comes out to send the boys off in celebration. Even the factory that Boris and his friend Stepan work for send representatives over with gifts of gratitude. Whether this is all a glorified look into Russia at the outset of WWII or not, I don't know. There are no protests or badmouthing of these boys risking their lives for a country, it is all praise and thanks. Some in America could learn a lesson from this because whether you agree with the war at hand or not, protesting and wreaking havoc in its name only sullies what these men and women are sacrificing each and everyday.<br /><br />The acting is top-notch throughout, but some deserve singling out. I really enjoyed Antonina Bogdanova in a small role as Boris' grandmother. She is the one family member he can trust and her sadness at his leaving is very evident on her face and through her body language. Vasili Merkuryev, as the patriarch Fyodor Ivanovich, brings what is perhaps the best performance. As spoken at the end, about fathers needing to choke back hidden tears, Merkuryev epitomizes those sentiments. He puts on a tough exterior, especially cracking jokes and riding his son hard when he finds out about his volunteering just hours before he must leave. But when Boris exits to go to the assembly station we see the true pain of the man, seated in sorrow at the table. He loves his son dearly and although he may not be able to show it to him, his actions throughout the film express it to the audience. Aleksey Batalov is effective as Boris, a happy-go-lucky young man, and idealist, doing what he believes is right, and Aleksandr Shvorin is good as the villainous Mark, staying home due to his talented piano skills, or maybe just to steal his cousin's love. That love, played by Tatyana Samojlova, really draws the audience in to her grief, dejection, and slim glimmer of hope. The true star of the film, she must go through many emotions on a journey where she does lose her way, needing to steer back on course, hoping that she did so soon enough for Boris' return.<br /><br />Besides the realism to the story, as well as being unafraid to use tragedy to get the theme across, I also loved the visual style of the film. Sergei Urusevsky's cinematography is amazing, especially when considering the movie was shot in fullscreen. It is one thing to create stunning compositions in a widescreen panorama; it is completely different to do so in a square frame. Right from the beginning we get a beautiful static shot of a winding walkway along water, a bridge in the background at the top, as our two lovers skip their way up the screen and into the distance. There are multiple instances of the camera being behind barriers yet still allowing for the action to be seen, creating unique spatial depth and interest at all times. Sharp angles are utilized, as well as careful blocking to allow for overhead shots and exaggerated juxtapositions of characters in frame together.<br /><br />The real feats, however, are those instances of the long shot. Used well towards the end to follow Veronika through the mass of returning soldiers, it is magnificent earlier on as she roams through those saying goodbye to their loved ones while she searches for Boris, her own farewell needing to be said. The planning for this shot must have been extensive because while she weaves in and out of people, the camera focuses on couples kisses, people yelling to one another, and more, all purposely in frame at specific moments while the camera moves through. Everyone needed to hit his mark precisely and it leads to a brilliant piece of cinema. It's just one part of an overall masterpiece of tone and style; The Cranes are Flying shows how successful placement and mise en scène can be in showing the audience what it needs in as simple a way as possible. Composition and professionalism from the actors and crew can work wonders, adding something that huge setpieces and special effects can never do. | positive |
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please. | negative |
This film, although not totally bad, should have been filmed where the actual events took place. Grand Island, Nebraska was devastated by no less than seven tornados on the night of June 3, 1980. Grand Island is situated in the nearly treeless, flat Platte River Valley in Hall county. The makers of this movie filmed in the tree covered hills of Ontario and moved the whole event to a non-existant town called Blainsworth. The people of Grand Island bravely survived this awful night only to be forgotten because of a poorly made movie. | negative |
Somebody called Howard Koch a schlockmeister but he did write the screenplay for "Casablanca", didn't he? Or didn't he. Maybe there's more than one Koch slinking around in Hollywood, and I'm not too fond of "Casablanca" anyway. Wait a minute -- yes, there is another Howard Koch slinking around Hollwyood. That's the one who wrote "Casablanca." No matter. I'll put as much care into this comment as "Howard W. Koch" put into this production, which is to say only a little.<br /><br />You know what this sounds like? Somebody read Cliff's Notes on Shakespeare's "King Lear" and decided, since no original thoughts were aboard the Inbound Inspiration Express, to update it and Hollywoodize it with a happy ending.<br /><br />There are differences. Lear decides to divvy up his vast estates between three sisters and before doing so, asks them how much they love him. Two of the sisters throw themselves at his feet and brown nose him to get at his money. The third is the good girl and refuses to go operatic on Lear. But in the play, Lear remains alive to regret his decision to give the two connivers his stash and deprive the honest girl. He winds up crazy and naked during a gale on the moors, putting flowers in his hair and hallucinating. Kids can do that to you. (Take my kid, for instance. After all the effort I squandered on raising him, does he show any interest in becoming a doctor or a lawyer? No.) In the end, everybody in the play dies.<br /><br />In the movie, evidently, the good sister is morose and suicidal but when she tries to off herself, somebody jumps in and saves her, so the ending is, more or less, happy. That's the difference between Hollywood and a genuine tragedy, unless you define Hollywood as a tragedy sufficient unto itself. | negative |
Arthur is middle aged rich 'kid' who drinks like a fish. Arthur does what he feels like and says whatever comes into his mind. He likes to boast about his riches and knows that he is a spoiled brat. He spends money on people he don't know and finds everything funny. Arthur must marry a high class girl to inherit a big fortune but he falls in love with a poor waitress Liza Minnelli (she looks really weird).<br /><br />This is a damn funny film. I watched this film because a very famous Indian film 'Sharabee' is based on the character of Arthur. Although 'Sharabee' is definitely inspired by 'Arthur' I think they are two different films. 'Arthur' is just fun. Its very corny at times. There are so many fantastic one liners in the film. Its not a laugh riot but it has some fantastic moments. My favorite scene is when Arthur meets his fiancé's father and he keeps talking about the 'moose'. Duddley Moore sure has some comic timing. He is very good with words and body language. I loved the scene where he talks standing to a seated couple in the hotel about a 'small' country and he keeps talking to husband and wife in two different directions. John Gielgud got an Oscar for this film. I don't know that actor. I don't think he did a great job but may be if I watched more of his work I may agree in future. Movie has some flat patches but not very long ones. looking forward to watch the sequel. | positive |
this movie is such a moving, amazing piece of work. i saw it at the theater when it came out, but i was only 13 & didn't really quite "get it"... i saw it again when i was 20 (on video of course & i now own it) & was just blown away. Steven Spielberg created a wonderful movie that keeps you wrapped up in it from beginning to end. i have read the book as well, but there is just something about the movie that really brings it to life. the casting, acting, music, costuming, scenery, everything, it just wonderful. you laugh, you cry, you cheer... it brings out every emotion imaginable. it is one of his finest pieces of work & should not be missed! | positive |
Poor Will would be rolling over in his grave if he could this this horiible German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that very little money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns pass off as a set. The movie was ineptly dubbed into English, with the English voice actors occasionally mumbling their lines. The whole production had an incredibly dark and dreary feel to it. And just where was Fonterbras in this movie anyway? MST3K gave this sorry production the treatment it justly deserved.<br /><br />To be or not to be? I wish this movie never was in the first place. | negative |
I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.<br /><br />The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?<br /><br />The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!<br /><br />Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable. | negative |
This film is so bad, you can't imagine. The acting is terrible, even worse than in third class soap operas. An it is a shame that this movie was the most successful in the past 20 years in Switzerland. The interactions between the soldiers didn't make any sense at all. The story could have been taken out from a bravo photo-story, the dialogues were as wooden as Treebeard and the plot holes were bigger than the black hole in the middle of our galaxy. But nowadays it doesn't need much to satisfy the audience. The actors were handsome for example the former Miss Switzerland and the main character was even hung (woah!!) and there certainly was much abuse of drugs. That's real cool man! Particularly for 12 and 13 year old teens. But the media created an atmosphere in witch you was not allowed to reject the film because they manipulated the peer group dynamics by telling implicitly that you are a nerd if you don't go along with the other `sheep' and say.yes that is exactly what it was like when I was in the army/ that's exactly what I'm going to do when I must go to the army.. to every cheesy action that had to do with drugs and coolness. And don't think I like the army. I was there and I hated it but this film is worse than cleaning up the sticky toilet with a teeth brush (which I was forced to do because I offended an lieutenant) It is not necessary for every film to be sophisticated. Sometimes you only want to be entertained for a few hours and forget about problems and I think its not a bad thing. But this kind of films influence teenagers to much by showing them a cool lifestyle which in fact is only stupid and turns them into brainless ignorant and egocentric idiots. But since I now that my opinion isn't very popular I will be quiet now and recommend you to avoid this terrible flick at any costs and for that to save your wits!<br /><br />2/10<br /><br />(sorry for my bad English) | negative |
The Dentist was made on the time when almost every profession had it's psycho. We had mad police officers, ambulance men, secretery's and that was just for starters. The Dentist came suprisingly late because going to dentist is usually everyman's nightmare.<br /><br />The plot is twisted. Super clean dentist Doctor Feinstone lives perfect life in his great "white house", he has beautiful blond wife and great place to work as a dentist. Dark clouds are coming to his horizon in the form of nasty IRS guy (Terminator's Earl Boen), dirty pool cleaner "cleaning" his wife and suddenly everyone's teeth seems to have gone through dark filter. He goes nutso and starts to take care of people teeth in the nasty way. And you don't want to come to his path.<br /><br />Crew were professional. Producer/director Brian Yuzna had produced stylish horror movies like Re-Animator and From Beyond. He directed the sequel to Re-Animator and his first movie Society was nice spinoff from John Carpenter's They Live. Film's producer Pierre David is known from movies like Scanners. Cast was great. Corbin Bernsen really suprised me. I knew him from LA Law and Major League, but I could newer dream him as a psycho dentist. He was actually great in his role and he was kind of sad person. Linda Hoffman was beutiful and dumb as Feinstones wife. Micahel Stadvec did not have much line's, but after I saw him with ladies of the neighbourhood I knew my future profession. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond) was nice sight as cop on the case. Virginya Keehne was the innocent teen who is about to be next client to Feinstone.<br /><br />Final warning: If you're like me and have problem with dentist's then maybe you should skip this one. But if you want to try than you should prepare yourself with dark humor and lots nasty drillings. | positive |
Wow. As soon as I saw this movie's cover, I immediately wanted to watch it because it looked so bad. Sometimes I watch Bollywood movies just because they're so bad that it will be entertaining (eg. Koi Mil Gaya). This movie had all the elements of an atrocious film: a "gang of local thugs" that is completely harmless, a poorly done motorcycle scene, horrible dialouge ("Congrats son, I am very proud that you are a Bad Boy"), actors playing basketball as if they are good, atrocious songs ("Me bad, me bad, me bad bad boy"), unexplained plot lines like why are the Good Boy and Bad Boy friends??? And why is the hot girl in love with the nerd?? I've never seen such a poorly constructed story with such horrible directly. Some of the scenes actually took 30 seconds long like the one where the Good and Bad Boys inexplicably ran over the "gang member's" poker game. Congrats Ashwini Chaudry, you are a Bad Director. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Guru, if you want to watch a movie so bad that it's actually entertaining, then watch Good Boy, Boy. | negative |
Man, if anyone was expecting a great zombie movie after reading that title, then you are a retard and you deserve to be disappointed. As for myself, I was expecting a low-budgeted cheeseball zombie flick- and that's exactly what I got. I wasn't disappointed at all. I thought it was a cool little movie. The zombies were exactly as they should be, because all of the zombies had JUST been turned, so they are freshly-undead zombies. Obviously they did that because it would've been pretty costly if they had done full-on rotted zombie FX. I understood the whole thing, I have no idea how anyone could seriously nitpick this movie. It's called "HOOD OF THE LIVING DEAD" for the love of God! Would you watch "Redneck Zombies" and ANY Uwe Boll movie and actually EXPECT it to be great? Of course not! So why there are some morons on IMDb whining like school girls about this movie, I'll never understand. Oh and YES, there ARE worse movies out there, so stop saying that this was the worst you've ever seen, 'cause you know you're full of it! You ever watch "ZOMBIEZ"???? Or "Feardotcom"????? Or "House Of The Dead"???? THOSE are some of the worst I've ever seen. If you can't see that it's just a low- budgeted zombie movie obviously made by zombie movie fans, then something's wrong with you. I just had fun with it. Thumbs up from me and I'd also like to see a sequel. | positive |
Fully deserving its prestigious Hollywood award nomination, this is an entertaining little gem with lots of pizazz and some delightful surprises. Outstandingly funny scenes include an hilarious shoot (and re-shoot) of a WW1 trench scene with Australian comedian Clyde Cook as an optimistic non-com and the hapless McDoakes as a Boyer/Colman messenger all under the beady eye of Ralph Sanford's delightfully irascible Anguish; a lost McDoakes guided and re-guided by equally perplexed Jack Carson; assistant director Chandler rejoicing in a McDoakes-sent opportunity: "I'm going to be a director!" <br /><br />Ace comic O'Hanlon has a dual role, playing both McDoakes and himself playing McDoakes! Oddly, Richard L. Bare who does play himself in one or more other entries in the series, has turned down that opportunity here. In real life, Bare's a youngish, six-foot Rock Hudson lookalike, but here he's impersonated by veteran actor (over 500 movies!), Jack Mower. | positive |
I think not! I mean yeah if you compare this film to The Godfather, or maybe a little older film like Casablanca, or maybe even a little newer film like The English Patient. It doesn't have the camera work or the cinematography like these other films, but that doesn't mean that this is a bad movie, or does it? I think the reason why this film is underrated is because a lot of people always compare it to other great Oscar winning films (you should never do that) which makes it hard to understand the beauty and the realism in this movie. In the categories Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role, this film really deserved all of them. The magnificent Dustin Hoffman gives us, once again, one of his best performances. A couple of times in this movie I forgot that it wasn't his son because it was just so real! I have never seen a film about relationships in different families where it was so easy for the actors to play that specific role but still so beautiful. So Dustin Hoffman passes the test with flying colors, in my opinion. There are a few actresses in the world who deserve to be called the best: Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Jane Fonda and Ingrid Bergman (I can't help it, I think she's great). Meryl Streep, even though she's in a supporting role, is amazing and real and you just can't help but being drawn ed to her talent and the way she makes it hers and real. Wow, that's all I can say. Justin Henry was great considering his age, his tears and his relationship with his mom and dad was beautiful, so I say good job to cute little Justin Henry. <br /><br />While I was watching this film for like the third time, alone, I couldn't stop crying. I tried but I couldn't. Thank god I was alone! This is probably the purest film I have ever seen. Other films that were nominated for Best Picture was Apocalypse Now, Norma Rae, Breaking Away and All That Jazz. I'm ashamed, cause I haven't seen any of them, but from what I've heard, Apocalypse Now is great but when I heard about Norma Rae I only thought of Sally Field. I think that considering the other nominees, this film deserved it's five Oscars, and that it'll continue to touch and make other people cry for a long time in the future, just like it has for the past 28 years. Good job all the actors and actresses in this film for giving us great performances and memories from watching this film that we won't ever forget.<br /><br />Thanks for your time. | positive |
Here's what I knew about "Atlantis" before watching it:<br /><br />* - It's officially Disney's first animated sci-fi adventure. I'm not sure how accurate that is (I like to nitpick) but it made me curious first time I heard it described.<br /><br />* - The preview looked, for the most part, damn cool. Evidently, it was also "too cryptic" according to some critics after the fact.<br /><br />* - It apparently did SO badly that Disney said, "Screw it, let's re-release 'Spy Kids'".<br /><br />So, with all that said, how is the movie?<br /><br />Hella-cool.<br /><br />I'm a sucker for animated fantasy that involves stirring music and rampant special effects anyway, but "Atlantis" goes all out. It's a throwback to all the CGI eye-candy shots in "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin", so much so that it's almost an effects animator's Best-Of Show. The characters maybe aren't that memorable (except, perhaps, for the ship's medical officer), and the plot's a little dull, but this isn't a movie you watch for the plot.<br /><br />Here's a controversy that bothers me. The "failure" (as in, it "only" took in, like, five-hundred-million or something; I know animators who'd kill to see fifteen bucks of that) of this movie compared to the popularity of "Shrek" and "Monsters Inc." has been seen as evidence of the death of traditional animation. I don't think that's true. How do you account for the "South Park" movie? What about "Final Fantasy"? Really, the story and the artistry is everything, not the method. I don't know what Disney's comeback movie will be like, but I don't think they're out of the picture yet. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.