text
stringlengths 53
8.97k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
1940. - A visit to the Lodz ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland, recorded by a German cameramen with the naive co-operation of the Jewish community, is combined with archival footage, clips from international newsreels, and excerpts from related cultural films to portray the World's Jews as swindlers and parasites. This 'documentary' interprets Jewish life from the viewpoint of traditional anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. A candid, cinematically-unique expression of racial hatred. I personally find this film frightening and highly offensive. One can only hope that such pictures as this will never reach the screen again. | 0neg
|
The biggest surprise in this movie was the performance of Daryl Hannah. Rather than playing the stereotypical ditzy blonde roles that she usually does she plays a street-smart, intelligent, world-weary character. She doesn't have a huge role but she does a great job portraying Lois Harlan as a woman tired of, although used to, covering up for her boss' indiscretions. | 1pos
|
I didn't mind the film that much, but it was incredibly dull and boring. A few laughs here and there but nothing to go crazy for.<br /><br /> You should give it a go if you like silly, stupid humour because this is the film for you. | 0neg
|
Hong Kong directors crossing over to Hollywood to make movies is nothing new, with the temporary exodus of the likes of Tsui Hark, John Woo, Ringo Lam in the 90s. From their collective output, only a few movies (or may I say just one?) made an impact at the box office. The Andrew Lau and Alan Mak partnership has been a tour de force in recent HK cinematic history, especially with their now famous Infernal Affairs trilogy which was remade into Martin Scorsese's The Departed, so it's no surprise when Hollywood comes knocking on the door.<br /><br />But without fellow collaborator Mak, who usually has script/story duties, how did Lau fare with writers Hans Bauer and Craig Mitchell? It's like the X-Files without the X, in the way the story is crafted, the characters and the parallels drawn with the Chris Carter series. Richard Gere and Claire Danes pair up ala David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, only that they don't belong to any federal investigative agency who bear arms, but are employees of Protective Services, who's chief role is to ensure that sexual predators who belong to their jurisdiction, are kept safe from society when they are released from having served time. Hence they are the shepherds tending to their flock, only that their flock suffer from sick sexual perversion with the propensity for violence.<br /><br />The parallels in characterization are so blatantly obvious, that it's just a cosmetic touch up on the outside. Like Fox Mulder, Gere's Erroll Babbage is a strange, lonely man, consumed by his obsession in his quest to doggedly harass his flock to tote the line. Pained by a failed attempt to rescue a missing child, just like how Mulder pines for his missing sister, Babbage is shunned by colleagues and given the marching orders disguised as a retirement plan. He has deep disgust for the people he's monitoring, sick of their crimes and what they stand for, that he has no qualms in using unorthodox methods, short of flying off the handle while dishing out illegal, preemptive punishment. At the same time, he too has strong urges that he has to fight against, in order not to cross the line into becoming like those he loathes. As part of routine, he also scans newspapers and tabloids for clues and leads toward his objective, that of seeking closure, salvation for himself, and possessing a strong belief that the truth is still out there, and he wants to believe.<br /><br />Danes' Allison Lowry on the other hand, is the ingénue brought in to replace Babbage. But in the meantime while learning the ropes on the job for the next 18 days, she is required to spy on him, and to report his shenanigans, pretty much like what Dana Scully was tasked to do with Fox Mulder. As the disbeliever of pre-emptiveness and holding onto the notion that those discharged back to society have been cured of their temptations, she slowly starts to see what Babbage sees, and understands that it takes a whole lot more than being just a desk and administrative job if she truly wants to help people.<br /><br />And it is this discovery of the world of fetishes and deviant sexual practices, that we open all our eyes to, much like how 8mm starring Nicolas Cage brought snuff films into the spotlight. It's a decent investigative drama with the usual red herrings, and my, are they really good ones as it made you wonder quite often if your guesses are correct, and you soon find yourself firing from the hip as you get proved incorrect at alarming frequency, though I don't credit this to a tight narrative, but more from the sprawling number of characters (watch out for Avril Lavigne's cameo) and sub plots. The scene in the darkened ware/shophouse was akin to Se7en's David Mills and William Somerset when they raided John Doe's apartment and find plenty of bizarreness inside, though here, given the subject nature, it wasn't lingered upon much.<br /><br />Apparently, The Flock somehow decided that Enrique Chediak's cinematography was good enough, despite its very strange style of having no style, utilizing almost every trick in the book to try and recreate feelings of watching another Se7en, only that this was deeply steeped in tinges of brown, rather than the doom and gloom of black. It does take a little while to get used to this, and I put this effect as one which actually distracts from what is happening in the story. Not a really good move though, with somewhat frequent repetition of scenes involving flashbacks.<br /><br />But The Flock still makes decent entertainment, though X-philes out there would probably find it hard not to picture their favourite actors in the lead roles, given so much similarities in character. Gere and Danes do put forth some chemistry as the old fogey (heh) and his protégé, and while it's not exactly great, Andrew Lau did manage to pull off something enjoyable. | 1pos
|
New York playwright Michael Caine (as Sidney Bruhl) is 46-years-old and fading fast; as the film opens, Mr. Caine's latest play flops on Broadway. TV reviewers poke fun at Caine, and he gets drunk. Passing out on the Long Island Railroad lands Caine in Montauk, instead of his residence in East Hampton. Finally arriving home, Caine is comforted by tightly-attired wife Dyan Cannon (as Myra), an unfortunately high-strung heart patient. There, Caine and Ms. Cannon discuss a new play called "Deathtrap", written by hunky young Christopher Reeve (as Clifford "Cliff" Anderson), one of Caine's former students. The couple believe Mr. Reeve's "Deathtrap" is the hit needed to revive Caine's career.<br /><br />"The Trap Is Set
For A Wickedly Funny Who'll-Do-It." <br /><br />Directed by Sidney Lumet, Ira Levin's long-running Broadway hit doesn't stray too far from its stage origin. The cast is enjoyable and the story's twists are still engrossing. One thing that did not work (for me) was the curtain call ending; surely, it played better on stage. "Deathtrap" is a fun film to watch again; the performances are dead on - but, in hindsight, the greeting Reeve gives Caine at the East Hampton train station should have been simplified to a smiling "Hello." The location isn't really East Hampton, but the windmill and pond look similar. And, the much ballyhooed love scene is shockingly tepid. But, the play was so good, "even a gifted director couldn't ruin it." And, Mr. Lumet doesn't disappoint.<br /><br />******** Deathtrap (3/19/82) Sidney Lumet ~ Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth | 1pos
|
So that´s what I called a bad, bad film... Poor acting, poor directing, terrible writing!!!! I just can´t stop laughing at some scenes, because the story is meaningless!!! Don´t waste your time watching this film... Well, I must recognize it has one or two good ideas but it´s sooooo badly writen... | 0neg
|
This is the best piece of film ever created Its a master piece that brought a tear to my eye. Ill never forget my experience watching it. I don't understand why people don't think as I do The dinosaur turns in a performance reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scarface, and Crowe in Gladiator combined. This should be released on DVD in Superbit format so I can fully enjoy it like it was meant to be enjoyed when they produced and filmed it. Whoppi Goldberg truly turns in the performance of a lifetime as a tough, gritty cop who is against her will teamed with a hot shot dinosaur as her partner then the hi-jinx ensues to say the least. By the way I'm saying the complete opposite of what is true this movie is utter garbage. | 1pos
|
Gundam Wing to me happens to be a good anime. A bit slow moving (especially around the middle of the series), but over all enjoyable. Now before anyone jumps on my case and calls me a "winger", I will admit that I have watched all of the original Gundam, Gundam 0080 and 0083, The 08th MS Team, and Gundam SEED.<br /><br />I will admit that there were a few problems with the story telling and a few characters may seem to be "rip-offs" (i.e. Zechs Marquise to the original Gundam's Char), but this is an alternate universe show based on the original series, as is SEED.<br /><br />If you wish to view this series make sure that you watch the original Gundam first, and then know that you are watching an AU series. | 1pos
|
In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.<br /><br />The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.<br /><br />It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.<br /><br />Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.<br /><br />Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.<br /><br />Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set! <br /><br />It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. | 1pos
|
This movie is ridiculous! That's exactly what I like about this piece of "Guilty Pleasure". It is easy to condemn this movie for not including Pat Priest and Butch Patrick, the original Marilyn and Eddie. But look at the year and do the math. Pat Priest and Butch Patrick had long outgrown their parts! Time does that to young stars. Yvonne De Carlo, who re-prised her role as Lili, was pushing the Big 6-0 (even though she still looked good and was still the perfect "Lili").<br /><br />It's a shame that Yvonne De Carlo wasn't given a larger part. Still, it was good to see Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis in the roles that made them so famous! During the 2 seasons that THE MUNSTERS was on prime time, it was the Gwynne/Lewis chemistry that made the series such a success. The rest of the cast were supporting cast members, not to say that they weren't needed. They were! The TV series wouldn't had survived as long as it did without them. Given the choice between Butch Patrick or Happy Derman (the original "Eddie"), the choice was too easy. Yvonne De Carlo was also the better choice over Joan Marshall.<br /><br />Though this movie doesn't measure up to the original TV series, it still measures up nicely and is one of the better "reunuin" TV specials that plagued the boob-tube during the late 1970s/early 1980s.<br /><br />' | 1pos
|
I'm sure this was one of those "WOAH!" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom. | 0neg
|
Other than Susan Hayward's wooden delivery throughout this film it was as good as any biblical film made. Henry King handles this film with the respect of an epic in all of the small scenes, and Peck is, as always, impeccable. The stirring Alfred Newman sound score, with the stirring twenty-third psalm is unforgettable even after these many years. The scene with Goliath is a bit on the hokey side, but not all that badly done for the era in which this film was made. This goes well alongside the lesser bible epics of the day, "The Song of Ruth" and "Esther and the King." It is worth watching, and Raymond Massy is excellent as the prophet Nathan. The film is rounded out by the always fine James Robertson Justice as Abishai and Jayne Meadows as Michol, David's estranged first wife. | 1pos
|
A nicely done thriller with plenty of sex in it. I saw it on late night TV. There are two hardcore stars in it, Lauen Montgomery and Venus. Thankfully, Gabriella Hall has just a small part. | 1pos
|
If you have not seen this excellent movie about life in the 90s (in L.A.) then you've missed a special treat. This is one of the most amazingly and most powerful movies ever made about life for Americans in the 90s and it even carries over into today's world in which we live in. It covers everything from raising a child, prejudice (more than one way),love, adultery, empty nest syndrome, selfishness, etc..and the list goes on. This story builds up to an ultimate climax and then when nothing else matters it always goes back to love with friends and family and love of life. It helps us dig deep within ourselves and to make us search for what we want out of life. Makes us ask questions of ourselves. Have we done enough for others, are we like this, etc.??? Sit back and enjoy a wonderfully done and emotional movie that I'm sure others will enjoy for a lifetime.<br /><br />Take note of Mary Mcdonnell, Kevin Kline and Danny Glover's wonderful performance through this whole film. These actors are amazing and really show the true glow and meaning of what message is being sent to all of us. These are 3 of my favorite actors for life after seeing this film over 10 years ago now. I still enjoy it again and again. Also enjoy the wonderful soundtrack with it and don't forget to count how many times you see the helicopter fly by and try to figure out it's symbolism for the movie??hmmm... I almost forgot this is probably Steve Martin's very first serious acting role in any film he has ever done. He, too does an excellent job in this movie. This may come as a surprise to most of you. Sit back, relax and enjoy truly good film making..... | 1pos
|
This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.<br /><br />While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.<br /><br />There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the "enlightened" characters. But that's a minor quibble.<br /><br />Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out. | 1pos
|
My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap | 0neg
|
Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.<br /><br />The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.<br /><br />As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.<br /><br />But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.<br /><br />Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.<br /><br />But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along. | 1pos
|
Quite possibly the nicest woman in show business, and the sexiest, Debbie gives another fine performance here. Although her work in American Nightmare was far superior, she is still worth watching in this film.<br /><br />The cast is filled with your typical Melrose Place types, chiseled features and seductive curves, that I had never seen before. Other than Debbie, Laura Nativo was the only actress I had seen before, in the similar Delta Delta Die.<br /><br />The plot centers around a group of California arrogants who initiate poor naive Debbie Rochon into their clique. They tell her that they have a murder club, and that she must kill someone to be accepted. Debbie wants nothing more but to be accepted by these cool people, so she quickly kills a person, and now the group must decide what to do with her, after she fell for their joke.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Plentiful! Debbie Rochon occasionally has blood splattered all over her and all of the murder scenes are done in your face. Gore hounds will surely enjoy!)<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Plentiful as well! Debbie Rochon has several nude scenes as do many of the no-name actresses and actors. The pool party seems as just an excuse to get everyone naked; man and woman alike. Julie Strain also has a topless cameo but her character is gone after the first five minutes).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Could have received a higher vote because the plot was very interesting and unique but the plot serves as filler between nude scenes. I understand that B-Rate films use nudity often, but this is borderline excessive).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (The acting is sub standard to say the least. Rochon is always a treat, easily the best B-Rate actress in the business today, but her character in American Nightmare was superior. Danny Wolske does a fine job as Debbie's object of lust but the other actors were nothing to write about). | 0neg
|
This whimsical film had the misfortune of being released at the same time of the highly popular "Amelie", both having the wonderful Audrey Tautou playing the central role. Laurent Firode, the talented director made one of the most enjoyable films that have come out of France in recent memory.<br /><br />The film deals with chance, as its English title indicates. The French title makes reference at how butterflies wings can create chaos over the Atlantic as they fly, as well as hurricanes in the Pacific, something not to be believed just by looking at these colorful insects. From the start, the director interlaces all the characters one sees in the film and how each has a connection to the other, something that is hard to imagine, but in the film's context seems to work well.<br /><br />A chance meeting at the metro sets the tone for the film. Irene, who is going to work, is asked by the woman sitting opposite her to tell her what her Zodiac sign is and proceeds to read from her paper. Irene, it seems will cross paths and will find her soul mate that same day. After Irene leaves the train, the quiet young man seated next to the woman tells her he has the same birth date as Irene. It seems they are destined to one another from the start, but alas, they will not reconnect until the last frame of the film.<br /><br />Audrey Tautou is wonderful as Irene. Faudel, who plays Younes, doesn't have a lot to do until the end, but he shows he has a presence and plays well his part. The talented young cast makes a valuable contribution to the success of the film, which is as light as butterfly wings.<br /><br />We look forward to future films by Laurent Firode because he appears to be a director with the heart in the right place and an ear to the way humans are connected. | 1pos
|
Different film directors from different countries have contributed to the film medium a lot by their thoughts. As a result, we have experienced different genres when the medium is concerned. Jafar Panahi, unlike J.L. Godard or F. Truffault, believes in simple story telling; Schematic Narratives is one of the main traits of his directorial job. He has trust upon the automatic as well as critical intelligence of the viewer; he does not feel any necessity to go for Alienation or such things to reach to the viewers. He is equally effective despite being conventional. Offside (2006), is another schematic creation from him, where Gender Subordination of Middle-East Asia gets gradually clear to everybody as the simple but catchy tale of the movie progresses. Now-a-days, when all of us are shouting on the issue of Rights of Women, this movie very calmly creeps into our mind and ultimately becomes a hump for our critical intelligence by conveying the message that the Egality of Human Rights is nothing but an illusive good, an utopia. Paternity will never let the women to be empowered. An important soccer match where the nation is participating, a teenage girl who understands the game well, loves her nation does not have the rights to enter into the stadium to cheer for her country. She is merely permitted to listen to the live commentary. Her alias could not work for her. As a result, she had to undergo several humiliating situations. From the very beginning her worried father ran here and there for her daughter. At the end of the day, celebration came as the nation won the match which the girl could not see as she was detained in the outer side of the stadium during the match time. But the celebration cannot suppress the question of Rights of Women which remain in every corner of the world in different format. Jafar Panahi has most successfully pointed to this issue of Gender Abuse from with in the frame of conventional film making and patriarchy as well. A Global Tragedy has been dealt with ease and some times with humour which, in turn, teases our being constantly. | 1pos
|
Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Jerry spies Tom listening to a creepy story on the radio and seizes the opportunity to scare his nemesis.<br /><br />I didn't find this particular episode that funny: the humour seemed rather constrained and the whole set up was kinda lame (Jerry is essentially the 'bad guy' in this one, tormenting poor Tom for no particular reason).<br /><br />There is the occasional flash of inspiration (such as Tom's literal 'heart in mouth' experience, and the moment when his nines lives are sucked out of his body), but, on the whole, this effort lacks the frenetic pacing, excellent animation and sheer wit of most of T&J's other cartoons. | 0neg
|
One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...<br /><br />1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.<br /><br />2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.<br /><br />3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.<br /><br />4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.<br /><br />5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).<br /><br />6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.<br /><br />7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.<br /><br />8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.<br /><br />9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.<br /><br />10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.<br /><br />11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chávez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.<br /><br />12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.<br /><br />13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.<br /><br />14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.<br /><br />8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".<br /><br />Worth one viewing. | 1pos
|
Snow White is in my opinion a bad movie on an artistic point of view. The plot is pretty much foreseeable, the characters are stereotypes, the editing too exaggerated. Anyway, the movie seems not to have a lot of artistic ambitions. <br /><br />Instead, I think this is a straight commercial thing. Including a character from the french part of Switzerland (the actor IS the leader of the band he is touring with in the movie - the band's called SENS UNIK) seems to aim to a larger audience. A straight German-swiss movie would not have sold in the french part - and vice versa. What really got on my nerves were the product placements all over the movie. Sometines scenes remembered of advertisement clips! <br /><br />I also think the topic of "young people taking drugs without any other targets in their lives" is a wide spread reality in Zurich. Therefore, it should be elaborated with more care. I hope Samir got enough money with Snow White, in order that his next movie is gonna show his true artistic skills. | 0neg
|
Just watched this after hearing about how bad it was and wanted to see for myself. Seriously, even if you read all the negative comments on here you will be nowhere near able to comprehend how awful this film actually is, although it has to be one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen! Never bothered to post a comment on here before, but this piece of crap really warrants it. <br /><br />Firstly the entire plot is ridiculous and nonsensical. Brother of the lead character (either Ben or Arthur, I forget which is which, and frankly it's never very clear) wants to stop some kind of gay marriage by killing everyone in sight - because homosexuality is abhorrent to Christians, but apparently mass murder isn't. Then there's some other crap thrown in about one of the gay couple's ex-wife trying to force him to remarry her at gunpoint. This leads to nothing, but provides us with one of the funniest lines of dialogue in the whole "film" - "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! That's who makes sense!". Brilliant.<br /><br />Then there's the acting, which is just atrocious. It must be seen to be believed. My personal favourite is the apparently stoned civil rights lawyer woman, who is clearly reading her lines off of something, yet still managing to mess them up. Enough said. The gay couple couldn't be less convincing. There's the vaguely attractive and completely gormless guy, and his boyfriend who looks like that little cartoon dough man of the bisto adverts. Only fatter. And less talented. <br /><br />The "film" has also been filmed by someone who is incapable of holding a camera even remotely still, and the number of mistakes throughout is amazing. The whole thing kicks off with the fat main guy in bed with a pair of boots on. Yep.<br /><br />But anyways, we all know how terrible this thing is, so I'd like to highlight some of the most priceless comedy moments that the "film" provides. <br /><br />- When the fat guy sets the church on fire and then prances like a six year old girl across the car park to make his escape. Hilarious.<br /><br />- Mildread! No idea what relation she is to the main characters - sometimes they know her, sometimes they don't, but she pops up in a couple of scenes nonetheless. Hilarious.<br /><br />- The stoned lawyer. Already mentioned her, but she's so funny she's worth another mention.<br /><br />- The evil brothers dinner of crackers that he lays on for his guests.<br /><br />- The evil brother's anti-gay potion.<br /><br />- The evil brother's cats.<br /><br />- The ending, which I won't give away because it MUST be seen to be believed. I warn you though, make sure you're not eating at the time!!!! The tub of lard main character/director/producer gets naked. It's foul. <br /><br />Basically, Ben and Arthur is indescribably bad, but unintentionally the most comical thing you'll see for a long time. Literally, nothing is good about this excuse for a film, the goon of a director even manages to make the opening credits into a joke by writing his own name about 15 times. | 0neg
|
It's interesting how 90% of the high-vote reviews are all comprised of "*random username*" from "United States" (no state pride??) who all say more or less the exact same thing with the exact same grammatical style and all with the exact same complete lack of taste in movies. I would delve further into this suspicious trend, but alas, this is a review of the movie, and not the reviews themselves.<br /><br />Let me start by saying that I am both a Christian and a true avid movie fan. This means I have seen a great many movies, from good to bad, and can wholeheartedly claim that Facing The Giants is, in fact, NOT a good movie. It has good intentions, but fails to meet many (if any) basic standards that I associate with a quality filmgoing experience.<br /><br />The Acting: Mostly Terrible, Palatable At Best. Hearing that most were apparently volunteers does not at all surprise me.<br /><br />The Dialogue: Clumsy, cheesy, the script comes off as a long version of some cheesy skit you'd see performed in Sunday School or youth group function. The Rave Review Robots revel in the absence of "meaningless words", but the cold hard truth is that such words are a part of the real world, and the complete absence of it is palpable. Let's just say the mean ol' head coach of a team in a State Championship game would have a lot more to say than "OH NO!" when things are not going his way.<br /><br />The Plot: Mind-bogglingly predictable. It has been commented that this movie is "not a Hollywood cliché", and yet it's like it was pulled directly from Making An Underdog Sports Movie For Dummies (including the mandatory quasi-romantic subplot for the ladies) and just had a Christian-themed coat of paint slapped on it. I'm not lying or bragging when I say I had almost every major detail in both the plot and subplot pegged immediately upon their inception. Only someone who has never seen a decent sports movie in their whole life would be emotionally stirred by the story presented here.<br /><br />The Directing/Editing: It, too, was patterned almost exactly after the generic Underdog Sports Movie template. Still, acting aside, there weren't many noticeable goofs, so at least Facing The Giants was technically competent.<br /><br />The Message: Ask Jesus and He will grant all your wishes. Part of me hoped that this movie would end in the team's eventual defeat to really emphasize the whole "If we lose, we praise You" part, because in the Real World, you WILL fail at one point or another and it's good to be prepared for that. But in the world of Facing The Giants, if you fail, clearly someone either screwed up or is cheating. Another interesting question being, what if the Eagles came across another team that had gotten religion? Would they be caught in an endless loop of miraculous plays and last-minute saves, or would the universe simply have exploded? <br /><br />The Bottom Line: For the hardcore conservative Christian Parents crowd lamenting the evils of Hollywood, Facing The Giants will be another mediocre-at-best Christian film to hold up on a pedestal as the preferred model for modern film-making. For everyone else, the effects will range from boredom to a burning desire to be watching something else. And a warning: Any attempt to show this to non-Christians will lead not to conversion, but to derision. I give this two stars, one for the one scene that did not have me rolling my eyes, and another for basic technical proficiency on a low budget. | 0neg
|
That is no criticism of the film, but rather a comment on how blind we are to our own past. <br /><br />I recently watched Winter Soldier, and The Ground Truth was like watching a remake or sequel-- except it was about Iraq rather than Vietnam. Similar to Winter Soldier because of it's one-sided message, both films illustrate how gleefully we rush to engage in conflicts based on false pretenses, and allow our young and brave (and often naive) to bear the brunt of this greedy war profiteering. Both films effectively show that the mentality forced into the minds of the young and willing make them efficient killing machines, but the training falls woefully short of teaching the diplomatic and policing skills necessary to effectively win the hearts and minds of the people they're supposedly fighting for. This is ultimately what lost the war in Vietnam, and will likely lose the war in Iraq as well. <br /><br />My only negative comment is that the film is so one-sided it could be easily passed off as left- wing propaganda. Not by me, mind you, but by those aiming to discredit the film and message. A more balanced point of view would speak to a larger audience. | 1pos
|
Put yourself into Carla's shoes. She is an overworked, unappreciated administrative drudge who is invisible. You know her: she's trained three of her last three bosses, knows where all of the bodies are buried and might even look back at you in the mirror when you brush your teeth. Always having time for another thankless task and does it better than most despite a serious disability, she has the desk on the way to the restroom that becomes the repository of half-finished cups of coffee begging to be spilled. What? You don't want to hear it? Well, she can't and neither can you until your hearing aid is in place. Prepare to experience life from the perspective of the hearing impaired.<br /><br />Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) needs a change in her life. Work is leading nowhere; friends are relying on her to meet their domestic needs and the only way out starts with a collapse that goes virtually unnoticed. She won't take a vacation - a contract is going critical - so the only alternative is to hire an assistant. Carla submits requirements that convey her real needs: a 'well-groomed' man. This brings an applicant for approval that reminds us that we should be careful with our wishes. <br /><br />Paul (Vincent Cassell) does everything wrong from the start of his job interview and his getting hired clearly demonstrates Carla's interest in his non-job-related qualities. She sees potential in this former thief and as the story unfolds, their relationship grows in a very unusual pattern of co-dependence. <br /><br />Paul has a difficult transition returning to the world outside of prison walls and finds himself in another sort of prison: one of the office variety and another of indentured servitude to pay off an old debt. His skills as a thief help Carla win a political battle in the office. But Paul sees a grander opportunity with Carla's skill in lip reading and draws her even further into a world of intrigue.<br /><br />This is a brutal film noir unrated and probably suitable for older teens. Carla grows more powerful, professionally as well as personally, as the story progresses and her disability gives her clear advantages over the rest of us. She grows as a woman discovering her sensual side while she uses her resources to overcome the obstacles of competing in a man's world.<br /><br />The two main characters are meant for each other, in a strange way. Without Paul, Carla will remain in her role of a doormat. She has our sympathy, hopes and best wishes even if she doesn't make the best decisions along the way. <br /><br />You will hear the world through Carla's ears, from awkward adjustments of your hearing aid, muffled sounds, all but inaudible without it to relatively distinct voices when you can see who's talking. With one major sense disabled, we see Carla's heightened intuitive power to compensate. And we can all use that sense to hear not only what people say, but also what they really mean. | 1pos
|
Considering how much money was budgeted for this film, you would expect more from the story as a whole. This could be quite possibly the most worthless movie I have ever watched. There was no real advancement of anything. Character development, minimal. Plot advancement, maybe. Enjoyment, none. I'm not sure what points were even trying to be made. If you want to see a movie where terrorists are kinda good guys, American CIA bombs everything that doesn't agree with our opinions, all capitalists are corrupt, and you like to see anything resembling a storyboard advancement accompanied by a death, have at. For those of us who realize that it doesn't take killing off a good guy to make a point, we'll stick to other movies. In summary, this was a horrible attempt at an 'Ocean's 11' style hide-the-plot-so-person-has-to- think movie because not only do you not know what's going on, nobody who made the movie did either. Home Alone 3 was a better cinematic piece. | 0neg
|
This is one of my favorites along with the Mariette Hartley and Robert Lansing "Sandy" and the Agnes Moorhead-and-the-tiny-spacemen episodes.<br /><br />It is an important take, from mid-1961, on the long Cold War that the U.S. was then embroiled in. The beaten-down city-scene, the near-starving characters' sparse dialog, their threadbare uniforms, and the minimal action "says" it all: the absurdity of an on-going conflict that threatens to destroy human life, modern civilization, and all that is sweet and redeeming about it.<br /><br />It is a "fable" because it was made in a time in which, had events turned out differently, such as the second Berlin Crisis (Spring 1961) and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct. 1962), it would have actually been a reasonable representation of one of the U.S.'s major cities, ruined and replete with a few miserable survivors. I also see it as a "fable" because it is not only a cautionary tale, but because it is the most redemptive of all our popular myths: it is a love story, set in an impossible situation, and involving two highly mismatched lovers. | 1pos
|
Stunning. Absolutely stunning. This is a movie about two kids who's father suddenly has a vision. He claims an angel visits him, and tells him that they need to kill "demons". He gets instructions later, and they start rounding up the demons, which are, to the naked eye, ordinary people. They kill these so-called demons with an ax to the head, and chop them up, burying them in the rose-garden. Their father claims he can see their sins when he touches them. The movie continues, with a twist at the end.<br /><br />The thing that I love about this movie, is that it perfectly captures the frailty of human perception. Is their father completely mad? Or, is he telling the truth? The audience is left to decide. Go make the judgment for yourself, and see the movie. Now. | 1pos
|
I'm rather surprised that no reviewer so far has commented on the rather elementary chess blunder in Luzhin's game as white against an unnamed opponent immediately before the final. Despite the use of Jonathan Speelman as consultant chess expert, Luzhin is shown winning the game with an illegal move. In between the rapid cuts away and back to the board it is not hard to spot that after Luzhin's combination culminating in a queen sacrifice, his rook on d1 is still pinned by black's rook at c1 against his king in the corner at h1. Thus he is unable to play the purported mating move Rd1-d8 which would be illegal - but he's shown doing so to rapturous applause from the audience. | 1pos
|
Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.<br /><br />Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC "collapsed out of light's way", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it. | 1pos
|
This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script. | 0neg
|
please, future writers, producers, directors - learn from this movie!<br /><br />never before have i seen such a bold and original tale created for the big movie screen. bold, because the script constantly made a step so many fantasy movies safely avoided - a step to something new, creative and daring. just when you think 'oh, i've seen this before' or 'i am sure this is what will happen now' - StarDust would make an unexpected twist and involve you more and more into the story.<br /><br />the actors are great - even the smallest part is performed with such talent it fills me with awe for the creators of this movie. Robert De Niro is gorgeous and performs with such energy that he simply steals the show in each scene he's in. Michelle Pfeiffer is the perfect witch, and Claire Danes a wonderful choice for the innocent and loving 'star', Yvaine. Other big names make outstanding roles. I had the filling everyone is trying to give his best for this movie. But once again, the story by Neil Gaiman, all the little things he 'invented' for this universe - simply outstanding.<br /><br />I watched this movie at a pre-screening today, a day before the official release, and do hope it will have huge success. There is so much humor, but also tense moments as well as lovely tender scenes. The look in the eyes of Yvaine, the 'frivolities' of Captain Shakespeare, the passion of Lamia the witch - impressive, unforgettable<br /><br />For me this is the number one entertaining movie of 2007, watch it and enjoy it<br /><br />11/10 - Outstanding<br /><br />peace and love | 1pos
|
I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.<br /><br />I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess. | 0neg
|
There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.<br /><br />I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the "Blind Dead" series.<br /><br />This movie was certainly much worse than the first, "La Noche del Terror Ciego". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.<br /><br />The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.<br /><br />The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.<br /><br />Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.<br /><br />The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.<br /><br />I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes. | 0neg
|
I am a huge Stooges fan but the one and only redeeming quality this movie has is that Curley is in it. Done long before he started drinking heavily he is his classic self in this (and Larry's not bad either). Moe's character is a straight part (mostly) and this movie would be better named "The Curley and Larry Movie". Not that any of the Stooges movies were very good (in my opinion), but as one commenter here said, how sad it is that this movie had real potential. The casting was good, it was well directed, filmed, and edited, but the story line tried to be about something serious with just some Stooges antics and musical numbers (which I guess were good back then) thrown in. The best thing you can do for yourself during this movie should you actually believe that it has to be better than mowing the lawn and taking out the trash (which is subject to debate) is to wait for Curley/Larry scenes and sleep or find something in the kitchen to eat during the rest of it. | 0neg
|
A wonderful film, filled with great understated performance and sharp, intelligent dialogue. What really distinguishes the film, however, is that undercurrent of sadness throughout. The story is underscored by affairs, loneliness, suicide, disappointment, the fear of losing ones job in a world where that had disastrous consequences. Most of all it was set in a world that no longer existed, having been ripped apart by the beginning of World War II. In fact, the film is barely a comedy at all if you compare the percentage of serious scenes to the comic scenes. Yet funny it is--listen to Margaret Sullivan's harsh dismissal of Jimmy Stewart and watch his pained expression as he replies that her comments were a remarkable blend "of poetry and meanness". It's funny, pointed, and sad all at once. A remarkable achievement and one of the ten greatest screen comedies ever made. | 1pos
|
This is quite an unusual and unique little western, that is made mostly original due to its story that revolves around an unique and superior Winchester 1873 rifle and all of those who get to poses it at one point or another in the movie.<br /><br />It's mostly a very entertaining movie to watch but not without still being a real western as well. The movie got done in a typical '40's/'50's style of western genre film-making, so the lovers of the genre should not be turned off by its somewhat unusual main premise.<br /><br />Because the rifle is actually being the main plot device of the movie, it allows the story to follow multiple characters throughout the movie, who are all connected of course and the story makes full circle in the end. Without that this movie would had been a pretty messy one to watch, since the story often jumps from the one hazardous occasion into the other, with constantly different characters involved. Quite amazing how they even managed to put Wyatt Earp in this all. But it's no criticism really. I liked that the movie and its story were being original and how the movie seemed to move from the one event to the other. It gave the movie a bit of a sense of adventure and entertainment.<br /><br />It's also a really great looking movie. I liked the settings the movie used and it seems quite amazing that this was actually the director Anthony Mann's first western. Luckily he would go on to direct more westerns later on, which also often would star James Stewart in the main lead.<br /><br />It was a pretty daring casting choice to pick James Stewart as the main lead. He is one of the softest and most polite looking and acting actors, so casting him as a tough gunslinger seems like a bit of an odd pick. But Stewart is surprisingly convincing as a tough guy and it shows how versatile and really capable as an actor he actually was. <br /><br />It also has some other surprising actors in the movie, that are not often get connected with this genre. Shelley Winters plays the female lead and also later well known actors Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis appear in some small roles.<br /><br />A real western with also plenty of action and entertainment to it.<br /><br />8/10 | 1pos
|
Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf. | 1pos
|
...let me count the ways.<br /><br />1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.<br /><br />2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.<br /><br />3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.<br /><br />4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.<br /><br />5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.<br /><br />6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.<br /><br />7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).<br /><br />8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing. <br /><br />9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).<br /><br />10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.<br /><br />It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.<br /><br />BOMB out of **** | 0neg
|
This is a truly terrible film.<br /><br />I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.<br /><br />Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?<br /><br />Please, please, please do not watch this film! | 0neg
|
I really enjoyed this documentary about Kenny and Spencer's attempt to pitch "The Dawn". Was a great look at how outsiders try to get to the inside to make it big. <br /><br />The story was put together well and organized in an interesting manner that made the film flow well. Certainly worth a watch. My only complaint is that their appeared to be no closure. Perhaps that is part of the point. We expect it but in reality that is not what happened (or usually happens).<br /><br />The film is also a great way to see the personality of Kenny and Spencer outside of their Canadian television show. You can see a bit of what is yet to come. <br /><br />I look forward to a chance to see The Papal Chase. | 1pos
|
This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!<br /><br />While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).<br /><br />Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3. | 0neg
|
I absolutely adore the 'Toxic Avenger' series, but this weak offering by the Troma people didn't make any sense, and it had me yawning all the time.<br /><br />A leaking nuclear plant (and the growing weed next to it) makes the youngsters of Tromaville High go nuts, which causes them to join a gang, have sex, explode, and whatever. Also there's some sort of monster breeding in the high school... my God, this movie's a mess.<br /><br />The actors pretty much stopped their efforts after this one and they should. The (intended) overacting started to get on my nerves in about 5 minutes...<br /><br />Disappointing. 2/10. | 0neg
|
An absolutely brilliant show. The second season began where the first ended, with much mystery. Suspense in most, if not all episodes and mystery everywhere. One that made me think and think again. It's truly amazing how the writer can come out with all the connections and link all the characters together and combine all these elements to make the lives of the characters in the show so meaningful. Never fail to excites and I am looking forward to the new season. Hopefully more secrets will be reveal and at the same time, more mystery to be solved. Good selection of cast too for this show, fit the characters perfectly. Really can't wait to finally discover the secret. Hopefully all the hype won't spoil the ending. | 1pos
|
It definitely fits the time period as the Axis & Allies were playing espionage games throughout most of North Africa & the rest of the world. It's not the best of films, but certainly not the worst of the budget films as described previously from the compilation War Classics. <br /><br />Duncan"Cisco Kid" Renaldo was actually very good in one of his first feature films. I really enjoyed the performance of Harry Parke (credited as Parkyarkarkus). Why he never got any bigger roles is beyond me. He played the perfect buddy/partner role and saved the movie...imho.<br /><br />As said, this film was part of a budget package from Superbox-Mart entitled War Classics. Eight movies for eight bucks, which included other never-heard-from-films that has some decent stars trying to pay the bills.<br /><br />This script is...well, not so hot. The editing & cinematography is...worse. If you can by-pass all of that and want to see the future Cisco Kid & a great sidekick that sadly never fulfilled his true potential, definitely pick it up! Otherwise, there's other WW2 films to watch.<br /><br />-Thunderossa. | 0neg
|
I really like this show. I can readily see how it achieved cult status. It's original, and thought provoking. For some reason though, I have never felt the kind of resonance from it that I could have. It doesn't pack the kind of open door, winter chill that was to be had from such an awesome premise. Each time I watch an episode, I find myself prodding, and pushing for it to answer some nameless, formless question.<br /><br />Before continuing, let me preface this by saying that what follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. Different strokes for different folks.<br /><br />I would have liked to have seen more scenes in "American Gothic" that were shot at night. There's too much daylight in this show, and I think it had a tendency to counteract the suspense. We're not afraid of the daylight, after all. We're concerned about what's in the shadows. The devil isn't always in the details. What we're not seeing is often the most frightening.<br /><br />Second--and this is the one that's probably going to lead to tar, and feathers: Gary Cole is a tremendously talented actor...a character actor. I've followed his career from The Brady Bunch films on, which is why it pains me to say that he was probably miscast as Lucas Buck. He's almost too petroichan, too likable to be embodiment of evil, even by Biblical standards. Lucas Buck is a narcotic. He's Heroin. He's freebasing in a kitchen laboratory next to a gallon of Drain-O. You keep going back, even though you know the end will be madness, and death. He should be like the ultimate loan shark. He's a maker of book, but also of unspeakable condemnation. Sure. You've got the money, and before long you're also going to have broken fingers; a severed hand, a decapitated head, and eventually, a damned soul. Turning to Buck is an act of desperation, and whenever he's around, there should be some immediate, ambient finality--with interest compounded daily--in the air.<br /><br />It's all largess, all strings attached, and by the time you realize that, you'll also know that it's too late.<br /><br />Which leads me to three: they showed Buck a little too often. He's in most of the scenes, in fact, which may have caused him to lose his edge. The sheriff would be like the next door mythology. He's the apocryphal acquaintance. Many would know 'of' him, but only an unfortunate few would really know him. He'd be the stuff of flashbacks, and cryptic conversations, and the perfect person to deliver this plot exposition would have been the deputy character that Nick Searcy portrayed.<br /><br />Four, the show could be very self-reverential--to a fault, some might say--and this is typified by the whistling of "Meet Me At The Fishing Hole" in the series pilot. I think we've already established that what Cassidy, and Raimi were shooting for was the anti-Andy Taylor. We probably didn't need the concept delivered to us via Fed Ex. I gathered that within the first five minutes so, for me, the piano on the head was unnecessary.<br /><br />These remarks are all about what, FOR ME, would have made a good show great. I also understand that the producers had their own, unique style, and that there were many hands in the soup. In their everlasting quest for LCD programming, the network played a definite role in the demise of this series.<br /><br />The least these jerk-off suits could have done was to air the episodes in order.<br /><br />Get real.<br /><br />Either way, it's a grievous loss to both genre fans, and casual viewers alike. | 1pos
|
...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.<br /><br />Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.<br /><br />Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult. | 0neg
|
This is a bad B movie masquerading as a mockumentary. The porn documentary filmmaker in the movie has almost as much screen time and dialog as any other character. That completely destroyed any "documentary feel" that they may have wanted to create.<br /><br />The fact that the film is not actually a mockumentary is the least of it's problems. The film is not funny. The film is not sexy. The film doesn't have anything insightful to say about the porn business. It's not even particularly salacious. While there's simulated sex, the amount of nudity is mild for an R rated film.<br /><br />Someday, someone will make a good mockumentary about the porn industry. This is not it. | 0neg
|
Soapdish may go down as one of the single most under-rated movies ever made.<br /><br />A stellar, unselfish cast who understood exactly where the movie was going and the roles they played in it. While everyone hammed it up, there was no one-upmanship. Kline showed wit and great physical comedy, Goldberg and Downey knew how to carry on a funny conversation while someone else was talking, I could just go on.<br /><br />Do not pass this movie by! | 1pos
|
I must be that one guy in America that didn't like this movie. I guess this just wasn't my style or something, I just don't see what's so fascinating about it, this was *barely entertaining, let alone one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. <br /><br />It's about a guy that came from nothing, and goes on to become a drug lord. Pretty simple way to describe an entire movie, and that's exactly my feeling about the entire movie. Contrary to what a lot of people think, just because a movie is about mafias/drug trade/criminal groups doesn't automatically make it a great movie, don't forget good storytelling. | 0neg
|
Personally I couldn't get into 'This is Not a Love Song', its a brilliant film and there's a great story line to it, I just found myself checking the time on my phone every two minuets to see how much was left of the film.<br /><br />I love the relationship between Spike and Heaton, there that close they depend on each other to get along in life. At the same time I wish the relationship was more than what it is. Heaton is in love with spike, but Spike Ibsen't in love with Heaton, or he doesn't know how to love him. The acts of betrayal, on both parts, have a big effect on the two men. They are both devastated by the fact that the other ran away and abandoned them, at a time when they truly needed each other for survival. | 1pos
|
I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.<br /><br />Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.<br /><br />My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.<br /><br />And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron. | 1pos
|
To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.<br /><br />IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.<br /><br />I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.<br /><br />How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love "The Godfather" but "9/11" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.<br /><br />jf | 1pos
|
I watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie. | 0neg
|
This is one of the worst films ever. I like cheesy movies but this is simply awful. Where are the images in the film that are on the box? I think more money was spent on the DVD box illustrations than on the entire film. <br /><br />Why would a company release a DVD that the cover is so misleading? I feel like such an idiot for renting this movie based strictly on the box. As much as I explore IMDb I should have done a little research and made a list prior to visiting my local video rental store. I have no one to blame except myself. I want my money and time back. <br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. <br /><br />Even if curiosity is motivating you, stick cocktail umbrellas in your eyes instead. It will be much more enjoyable. You have been warned! | 0neg
|
Creature Unknown is the right word for this movie. Or maybe it should be called Unknown Movie. This movie is a piece of crap right from the beginning. It has a really stupid "plot," really pathetic "acting," and so-so "special effects." <br /><br />Some thirty-something year old "post-teens" are trapped in the woods with a mad, reptilian, rubber-suit creature lurking around endlessly. What you get with this movie is a bunch of talk and precious little action. You have girls walking through the woods talking, and then you have guys (with heavy mascara on) walking through the woods talking. The whole thing is so boring!<br /><br />The creature itself is rarely seen throughout most of the movie. When it is shown the picture is distorted to mask the fact that it is a man in a rubber suit, and the movement shows that it is a suit, hence the reason for the blurring and distortion of the image. <br /><br />This is NOT a good movie in ANY since of the word and the ones here who have praised it are most likely the people that were picked up off the street to "act" in this truly stupefying movie! Skip this one for certain! | 0neg
|
Solino really moved me with its deeply drawn characters. While being a simple tale of rivalry between two brothers, it was not simply about hate or jealousy. What I liked most about the movie was how I could identify with the feelings Gigi was going through especially when he had to take his mother back to her home town in Italy and miss out on attending the festival film awards ceremony his film was entered into. To see this character who struggled so hard between his artistic dream and his innate sense of duty to his mother was so frustrating. Even at the end when he makes one more attempt to reach out to his father was so brave. And as in real life, most fathers can never get past their walls to reach out to their children. I could even identify with Giancarlo, the brother, who while being the more self assured and elder brother, had so many insecurities. A really beautiful film that made me laugh and cry. | 1pos
|
OK, I would not normally watch a Farrelly brothers movie. I can't recall ever watching one. I also don't recall watching a Jimmy Fallon movie. Alright, I did watch taxi, but I said penance and was forgiven for that mistake. But, this movie had Drew Barrymore and I just think she is the cutest thing. I don't know what it is about her, but I just smile the whole time I am watch her. She just captivates me that way. I mean I even watched Adam Sandler just to see her in 50 First Dates. How sad is that? This wasn't the greatest baseball movie - it wasn't supposed to be. It was a love story about a sad puppy that hung on to the only thing that never let him down until he found something worth giving that up for. It had a predictable ending, but there was so much on the way there that made it worthwhile. | 1pos
|
All the kids aged from 14-16 want to see this movie (although you are only allowed at 18). They have heard it is a very scary movie and they feel so cool when they watched it. I feel very sad kids can't see what a good movie is, and what a bad movie is. This was one of the worst movies i saw in months. Every scene you see in this movie is a copy from another movie. And the end? It's an open ending... why? Because it is impossible to come up with a decent en for such a stupid story. This movie is just made to make you scared, and if you are a bit smart and know some about music, you exactly know when you'll be scared. <br /><br />When the movie was finished and i turned to my friend and told (a bit to loud) him that this was a total waste of money, some stupid kid looked strange at me. These day i could make an Oscar with a home-video of my goldfish, if only i use the right marketing. | 0neg
|
There is such rubbish on the cable movie channels that I hit a gem with this one. From beginning to end it had me gripped and deserves top marks.<br /><br />Father of two sons hears messages from "God" to kill people who he is told are 'demons'.<br /><br />When the opening credits showed the director as one of the cast that can often be a warning of a bad film; exceptionally it is the reverse here as the drama is non-stop from beginning to end.<br /><br />And there is not one moment in the movie when one is not fully enthralled as there are no unnecessary or needless sub-plots, and the script is first class. <br /><br />All the actors give wholly convincing performances especially the lead child actor who is exceptional. <br /><br />This film is at least as good as the likes of 'Silence of the Lambs'. | 1pos
|
Istanbul is another one of those expatriate films that Errol Flynn was making in the last decade of his life trying to support his family and stay out of trouble with the IRS. It's a remake of the Fred MacMurray- Ava Gardner film Singapore from a decade ago.<br /><br />Unlike that studio product, Istanbul has the advantage of that great location cinematography right at the sight of the Golden Horn. But Errol Flynn, who was aging exponentially before the camera in every film, was way too old to be playing these action/adventure types any longer. His scenes with Cornell Borchers really do lack conviction.<br /><br />As for Cornell, she plays Errol's former sweetheart who through the trauma of being saved from a fire now has amnesia. She both doesn't remember Errol and is now married to Torin Thatcher. <br /><br />But Errol's got some nasty people led by Martin Benson and Werner Klemperer who are after some diamonds which have come into his possession. Got to deal with them too.<br /><br />Best reason to see Istanbul is to hear Nat King Cole sing and play the piano. Most people today don't realize that Cole was an accomplished jazz pianist, they only think of him as a singer. Actually he was a pianist first, the singing was an afterthought.<br /><br />Istanbul is a routine action/adventure film for those who are fans of that type of movie. | 0neg
|
The title says it all. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.<br /><br />A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.<br /><br />The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think. | 0neg
|
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.) | 0neg
|
Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.<br /><br />The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral! <br /><br />As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called "Velvet Revolution". | 1pos
|
I really liked ZB1. Really, I did. I have no problem with extremely low-budget movies, and I have enjoyed movies with worse production values than ZB3 (if you can imagine such a thing. check out 'wiseguys vs. zombies,' if you're interested). Indeed, I prefer lower budget zombie films, because I am suspicious that Hollywood directors do not understand what zombies are 'about.'<br /><br />But ZB3 was just so bad. It was retarded. I don't want to bother being dignified in my criticism. I want my 90 minutes back, etc. Except that it really only took ~80 minutes, because partway through I put it into 1.4X fast forward.<br /><br />Okay, here's some criticism.<br /><br />1. The pacing was TERRIBLE. Everyone talked in monologues. Even when someone just had a single line, the camera work and the editing and the insertion of a bunch of F-bombs into every sentence made the line FEEL like a monologue. At first I was excited about the 90 minute running time compared to ZB1's 70 minutes, but there were actually fewer 'events' in ZB3. It's all talking.<br /><br />2. The gore effects got stupider. Just glop rubbed around on people's tummies.<br /><br />3. Despite the epic exposition, there really wasn't a plot. And the exposition is indeed epic! I won't spoil it, if you're going to watch it. (Don't watch it.) But then, it's just a bunch of lame characters walking around and bickering for ~80 minutes. or fewer, if you so choose. | 0neg
|
I thought this film would be a lot better then it was. It sounded like a spoof off of the spy gener, and the start of it reminded me of Pleasantvil, but this film came up short.<br /><br />The plot is just to ridiculous. The KGB and Soviet Union in Russia have started up a spy school to teach their spies' how to act like Americans, but the town they set up in it for training is a bit dated, so they grab two yanks from the US to spice things up. I don't know, but this seems just to out there. It gets really odd when next to no one in this all Russian town speaks in a Russian accent. Someone screwed up in the casting job.<br /><br />Also, for a comedy this is painfully dry. There is one, two funny spots tops, and they are nothing to sing and dance about. The film in the end will likely put you to sleep.<br /><br />And, as a twisted punch in the face, this film is so pro the US it makes me sick. The movie keeps on saying again and again, the US is God and Russia is the devil. This is the kind of smear campaign that was done against the Japanese in World War 2. It's films like these that makes everyone think that the US is full of itself.<br /><br />This gets a 4 out of 10, and I'm being kind. It should really get a one, but the dance scene was funny, but then again it dragged far to long to be really funny. | 0neg
|
`Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.<br /><br />I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary and inferior but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr. knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....<br /><br />It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
We had to go to an appointment, so we turned on the DVR to record the ending. After it was over, I looked at my husband and said, "Do you have a clue?". He shook his head no. I said, "So you made me watch the end of this movie and I have no clue what just happened". He didn't "make" me, but you know.<br /><br />The movie body itself was quite good. There was a lot of suspense. It kept you wondering. Then came the ending. The ending was... well it just ENDED. You weren't let in on what happened or why. Right up until the credits I kept thinking something would happen to explain it, but it never did. So I came here expecting someone figured it out and I just wasn't paying attention. Nope. Here four years later, I'm just as clueless as tom sawyer was.<br /><br />I still have no clue what went on. I'm just glad I didn't waste any $$ to buy it because I sure would have been mad.<br /><br />OHHHHH! I get it! The end of the movie is what disappeared! ROFL | 0neg
|
William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) buy an old house where a brutal murder happened years ago in very bad condition with the intention of restoring it. They move with their daughter Sophie (Emma RidleY), and become friends of their neighbors Jean (Patricia Maynard) and George Evans (Brian Croucher). However, eerie events happen in the house, inclusive the death of Sophie's cat. In Sophie's birthday party, a pipe leaks blood and they leave the place, disclosing a secret later.<br /><br />"The House That Bled to Death" is a scary and one of the best episodes of the series "Hammer House of Horror". The fantastic twist, disclosing a secret, and the tragic conclusion are really excellent. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Casa Que Sangrou Até Morrer" ("The House That Bled to Death") | 1pos
|
Long on action and stunt work, but so short on character delineation and development that it failed to hold our interest. Not always easy to figure out which side a character is on and who's doing what to whom. | 0neg
|
All Kira Reed fans MUST see this. The film's premise has struggling romance novelist Kira unable to come up with any new ideas. She's also getting over a divorce. However, she meets this guy at a restaurant and he helps her out of her shell (and clothing). They go into a corner room and they do it. Thankfully, Kira gets a condom out (Now don't ever tell me these Playboy films are worthless piles of soft-core fluff. Remember kids, safe sex). Later, she marvels to her publishist how great it was, but she didn't get his name. Despite this, the guy finds her and they continue their kinky games. But eventually she tires of his sneakiness and wants to know more. When she does, all hell breaks loose, and I'll leave it at that. This is easily the best of these soft-core Playboys films I've seen. Check this out, and marvel at the greatness of Kira. | 1pos
|
In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself. | 0neg
|
Bela Lugosi is great as usual but the movie is nothing compared to Dracula. He is probably the only one that played a perfect part in this movie but not even a legend like Lugosi could save the badness of the idea of this movie and unlike most old unspenseful horror films this movie doesn't set the mood very well. Even at its worst any of Bela's movies is only mediocre though. | 0neg
|
Again Stacy Peralta is true first to the people who lived the story. By letting those involved in the genesis of big wave surfing tell us their stories, how it felt and what they thought, you get the feeling of having been there. The film carries you from the fifties to the near present by focusing on three primary architects contributing to the evolution and development of the sport. Candid "home movie" like videos of themselves and their contemporaries take you further into their world. The layers of music, culture, technical information,a pure view of the participant's athleticism, and fabulous big wave images you get a full scope perspective of this aspect of surfing.<br /><br />Thoroughly worth watching. | 1pos
|
I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible. | 0neg
|
I think that the idea of the plot is perfect for exploring first of all the emotional experiences of the people involved and second, as someone else wrote in a comment, the implications of this kind of relationships (incest and lesbianism) in the romanian society.<br /><br />so... to begin with the second aspect... to make it short, it wasn't visible at all...<br /><br />as for the first.. as i said, it had much more potential... i think that those kind of relationships carry much more tension... much more tension... and the potential tension didn't get through...<br /><br />i think the soundtrack could've been more than those few songs on the background and the theme (wich was nice but not enough and not always in the right moments)... yeah... i could feel the absence of a better soundtrack..<br /><br />the actors... i think that they were somewhere from 7 to 8/10... not enough sensuality in the key moments...<br /><br />a total of 7/10.... mostly for the story | 1pos
|
An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!! | 1pos
|
Steven buddy, you remember when you said this: <br /><br />"Try to find the path of least resistance and use it without harming others. Live with integrity and morality, not only with people but with all beings." <br /><br />you have not been doing that, you have mortally wounded your fans and their morality with these "films" I wouldn't even bother if I didn't know you are so much better than this, I've seen the videos of you teaching, you are so much better than this why why brother why...<br /><br />steamroller productions has been steamrolled I promise bro i am not afraid of you I will tell you the truth to your face so we can fix it.<br /><br />well I like some others fell asleep 90% in, but to be fair i was tired and had a large meal just an hour before hand Sensai, what are you doing. 12 million? really? do you have any idea what we could have done with $12,000,000 It could have been in the theaters and a blockbuster hit, if you wanted we could have donated money from the huge profit to a homeless shelter or something. These post production people are ripping you off man the choreography was non existent, we can do better man, the eye blinking thing was from the men in black movie, i half expected will smith to appear or tommy lee Jones to tell your they were gills not eyelids.<br /><br />Seagal you are an Aikido master, why are you doing this to yourself, to us? when you came on the scene, you had such a fresh direct style, and it was obvious you are a teacher cause the way your moves were so clear and crisp, watching your first three movies i felt like you were teaching me something, now i feel like you are just being ripped off or something i feel like I need to save you buddy, this time you are the one who was killed and I'm gonna go and get revenge for you by helping you make the best movie ever. bro i know who you really are, i know the truth about the Nico movie. let's talk.<br /><br />contact me man i got some fresh ideas I am a nit picker, I swear you will not be disappointed with my attention to detail and we'll do it for the fans man, your fans deserve better, we're hanging on, but the strand is about to snap. I swear I will not let your movie out the door with a single mistake in it I'm still trying to figure out if that was the worst dubbing ever, or you have laryngitis, but i promise you i can do a better impression of your voice than the lame **** who didn't even try. I sure hope you kicked him in the nuts as his payment. i can come up with a story and a plot that can be matched to your avenging the death of your student/daughter/wife/dog/house plant niche and I promise you we will bring you back, I promise, also I want to go in the direction, that makes people think, if you let me in i promise we will make a movie that people will walk away and have to have a discussion about it, a serious thought provoking, perception altering experience.<br /><br />Steven Seagal This is my official in writing permission for IMDb to release my contact info to you for the purpose of resurrecting one of the best martial arts heroes I have ever seen also, for the record hes not Italian, hes Irish and Jew so you call it bad acting i call it terrific acting, because you have believed for 20 years that Seagal is Italian :) kinda changes your perception doesn't it. | 0neg
|
While I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.<br /><br />By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect. | 0neg
|
I understand that Paramount wanted to film this with the Rodgers and Hart score, but couldn't work out the copyright problems, so Burke and Van Heusen who wrote the between them the most songs for Bing Crosby contributed a very nice score.<br /><br />I read Leonard Maltin saying that this movie, "fit Crosby like a glove" and I couldn't have put it better. No, it's not Mark Twain's satire, it's a Bing Crosby film and in 1949 Crosby was the most bankable star in Hollywood. For once Paramount used technicolor and Rhonda Fleming was never lovelier on the screen. This was a woman that technicolor was invented for.<br /><br />William Bendix's Brooklyn origins kinda stand out, but it's to a good comic effect. The trio of Crosby, Bendix, and Sir Cedric Hardwicke have a rollicking good time with Busy Doing Nothing. Bing has one of his patented upbeat philosophical numbers with If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon.<br /><br />The third song he sings Once and For Always by himself and with Rhonda Fleming. That song was nominated for best song, but lost to Baby It's Cold Outside. <br /><br />Nice also that Bing managed to record the score for Decca with Rhonda Fleming and Bendix and Hardwicke.<br /><br />One thing I like about this film is that it shows Crosby's comic talents without Bob Hope. I like the Road pictures, but Bing was a comic talent onto himself and this film better demonstrates than any other.<br /><br />This is Crosby at the top of his game. | 1pos
|
Theodore Rex is possibly the greatest cinematic experience of all time, and is certainly a milestone in human culture, civilization and artistic expression!! In this compelling intellectual masterpiece, Jonathan R. Betuel aligns himself with the great film makers of the 20th century, such as Francis Ford Copola, Martin Scorcese, Orson Welles and Roman Polanski. The special effects are nothing less than breathtaking, and make any work by Spielberg look trite and elementary. At the time of it's release, Theodore Rex was such a revolutionary gem that it raised the bar of film-making to levels never anticipated by film makers. The concept of making not just a motion picture featuring a dinosaur, but adapting an action packed, thrilling detective novel, co-staring a "talking" dinosaur with a post-modern name such as "Theodore", and an existential female police officer changed humanity as we know it. The world could never be the same after experiencing such magnificent beauty. Watching Theodore Rex is much akin to looking into the face of God and hearing Him say "you are my most beloved creation." This is one of the few films that is simply TO DIE FOR!!! | 1pos
|
Guys and Dolls is a unique play based on the characters. Sky Masterson<br /><br />(Marlon Brando) is a high-class gambler who takes up a bet with Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) for one-thousand dollars. Nathan needs the money so he can<br /><br />run his usual crap game and make a fortune. The bet was that Sky wouldn't be able to take just any girl to Havana, Cuba and the "doll" he chose was Sarah<br /><br />Brown (Jean Simmons) who was in charge of a missionary. Sky finally bribes<br /><br />Sarah enough to go to Havana with him. They end up falling in love with each other, but later she accuses him of something he had no part in. Nathan ran a crap game in the missionary the night they were gone. Nathan's 14 year fiancé Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) disapproves of Nathan's gambling and tries to stop him from doing it. However, when the movie ends it all ends happy with a double<br /><br />wedding.<br /><br />The songs in this movie are just wonderful no matter who sings it. Marlon<br /><br />Brando has no singing voice at all and true they could have dubbed him but it didn't really matter. He did a wonderful acting job (obviously seeing as it's Brando) and played his character very well. I have seen a few movies with Jean Simmons and thought that this movie was her weakest one, she also couldn't<br /><br />sing at all. However, the singing is made up by Frank Sinatra, Vivien Blaine, and Stubby Kaye. Vivien Blaine and Stubby Kaye was also in the original<br /><br />Broadway production of Guys and Dolls. Vivien Blaine had a terrific voice and was the perfect Adelaide. If you like musical, and even if you don't, i advise you to watch this. | 1pos
|
There may something poetically right in seeing dentists suffer. Suffer they do, in this dreary, truly dreadful film, but they cause the audience to undergo pain of the non-dental variety too. If you ever wanted to see a movie full of screaming kids, barfing kids, sick kids, lots of long, long meaningful glances, a deadpan wife and a concerned husband: it's all here for you. Boring, overlong, it stands out as one of those examples that scream out: why? Is there a saving grace? Yes, there is. There is a short scene from Nabucco, with some pretty good singing. Save your money, or if it's on TV or cable, save your time. You can always read a book or make an omelette. | 0neg
|
Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?<br /><br />When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!! | 0neg
|
At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-) | 0neg
|
This is a complex documentary that shows many things about early Gay life. To put it in perspective it was when Gay was the word used for the homo-sexual revolution, and not just Gay as a descriptor. Or is it still used that way today? I believe most of the film comes from circa 1968 to 1989. It was released in 1993, so it's been around.<br /><br />I was touched by the documentaries capturing of one man's love for another over a 20 some odd year period. A love expressed in ways that only true love can be. There are many scenes of incredible empathy and pain, along with scenes of joy and pleasure. There are scenes of life as a homo-sexual and life as a gay. The film itself was a work of love, and I believe it to be a diamond.<br /><br />At the very least one will get out of this film an understanding of the devastating impact of AIDS. As I write this, I am thinking how much earlier this film seems to me to have been set. The advances in medical, political, and social sciences and culture that have taken place since this film was set (some 15 years ago) are amazing. However, obviously, in the case of the disease of AIDS itself, we are not done yet. Heck I guess we aren't done on all fronts.<br /><br />Anyway, it's just a pretty darn good documentary. I'd encourage anyone that feels that they don't quite understand gay life, gay issues, or the devastation of AIDS to watch this film. | 1pos
|
Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's "Up Against Them All" ("Contra Todos") at the San Francisco Film Festival? "It's about a hit man," my friend said. "Well. . . and it's Brazilian," I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.<br /><br />Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.<br /><br />So how on earth did "Contra Todos" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.<br /><br />First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.<br /><br />Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called "Contra Todos" "a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the "stud of the slum-like neighborhood." Soninha is "Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality." The movie is "shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera" and the director "works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay." The effect is " unbearably raw and honest," and the movie hurtles "toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display." Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.<br /><br />"Contra Todos" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming "favelas" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as "Black Orpheus", "Pixote," and "City of God" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.<br /><br />The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.<br /><br />A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the "film" (his quotes) was "the worst of the video works" shown. "The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film," Sheehan wrote, "and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.<br /><br />Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it "starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill." Devastating, but true.<br /><br />Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances "easily the film's best feature." Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that " this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ." Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to "Dogme" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.<br /><br />Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just "banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the "banality of evil" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material. <br /><br />(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.) | 0neg
|
First off, anyone who thinks this sequel to William Friedkin's "The French Connection", is superior is most definitely completely insane or moronic or both. The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it. William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e. "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seconds", and with his "French Connection 2" it feels like someone trying to be gritty and not having the true understanding to pull it off. That fact that Frankenhimer was chosen to direct the sequel by Gene Hackman himself really tells a lot about Hackman's understanding about the original film too. It's well known Hackman hated Friedkin on the set and vowed to never work with him again, it's also known he envisioned the character to be more one dimensional, loosing weight and trying to play him like a straight character. it shows you Hackman, despite being a great actor, had no idea who to make the movie and the story great. The plot point of Doyle becoming an addict is interesting, but doesn't warrant the rest of the film. An unfortunate low point in Frankenhimer's filmography. | 0neg
|
Whilst I have loved haunted house movies such as Amityville and Poltergeist, this made for TV adaption of Susan Hills book packs a huge punch on the horrors of Hollywood.<br /><br />With a brilliant cast (many of which star in Heartbeat and other TV dramas), great acting, and fantastic setting (which portrays 1920's life convincingly), it has all the right ingredients to entice the viewer into what is a powerful ghost story.<br /><br />Herbert Wise did not need blood, violence, or gore to send chills down the spines of an audience. Using your own imagination, the Woman In Black is a figure of fear and dread, and whose presence is never absent once she first appears.<br /><br />The main character Arthur Kidd, a solicitor, learns about his unseen spectre on his mission to settle the estate. The widow dies and Arthur spends few nights inside her dreary home in which he notices many oddities, which may haunt him for some days. Some of the scenes are very unsettling and claustrophobic, particularly the locked room which opens itself, which turns the generator off and closes Arthur in darkness. The film becomes more harrowing the more you put yourself in Arthurs shoes, and his efforts to shake this ghost off. The writer puts many chilling additions into the story, an example being the tin soldier's re-appearance. One is eager to learn the meaning of it all. The fact we never really learn that much about the widow, leaves more to the imagination and makes it all the more unsettling.<br /><br />The widow for the most part, looks vicious and intimidating. The scene after winding the generator sent the chills down me, a woman who appears out of nowhere on isolated marshy land with a howling wind having been on such properties myself I can appreciate how isolating this is. And the scene in the inn was perhaps the most horrible things I've seen, one I don't wish to watch in a hurry or show to elderly relatives. I have often woken up at night thinking she was behind me in my sleep.<br /><br />The Woman In Black is a great TV movie and a lost gem. I agree to some extent the Internet hype for this film has been totally overblown and can see why people were disappointed after spending the best of £50 on it, but I think the net has defeated hidden gems because it makes films like these over-exposed. I think it's still brilliant and fantastically acted and I consider it the greatest ghost story of the last century. | 1pos
|
De Palma's technique had hit its high maturity by the time of this film, which is a wonderful showcase of his classic techniques, though unfortunately, as with many of the films written by De Palma himself, the story serves the meta more than the interests of putting forth an emotionally compelling tale. <br /><br />The story opens with a CRAZY scene in which Angie Dickinson masturbates in a shower while she looks at her husband. She is then grabbed and raped while he husband stands obliviously near-and the whole thing is revealed to be Angie's fantasy as he husband is pumping mindlessly away at her in bed. She has a short scene with her son, a dead ringer for Harry Potter, which concludes with a joke that "she'll tell grandma that he is playing with his peter." She then goes to her therapy session, where she complains about her dead marriage, before attempting to seduce her therapist, Michael Caine. He refuses, and she is hurt and feeling unattractive and unfulfilled.<br /><br />Then begins a bravura 22-minute nearly wordless sequence that is perhaps the highlight of the film. Among the many things De Palma gleaned from Hitchcock is the understanding of film as a purely visual medium of telling stories
and in typical De Palma fashion, he turns this into a way to show off his formidable skill. The problem, for me, is that in this instance one begins to feel that scenes are being needlessly protracted simply to further show off the director's skill. <br /><br />The sequence begins with Angie at an art museum. She watches strangers, all involved in sexual or family activities, then begins to get turned on to a man sitting next to her. De Palma very skillfully tells an extremely complicated narrative without a single word about Angie's attraction, embarrassment, retreating, and finally finding and submitting to the stranger in the back of a taxi cab, all set to a wonderfully lush score by Pino Donaggio, who also scored Carrie.<br /><br />In the second part of the sequence Angie has slept with the guy, and gets up to return to her husband. Again De Palma crams a ton of narrative in without a word of dialogue uttered, as Angie realizes that she doesn't have her panties, that her husband is already home and no doubt wondering where she is, that she has probably contracted a venereal disease, and that she has lost her engagement ring somewhere in the shuffle. It's all very admirable, but one begins to feel a little strung along as we are forced to do things like take a long elevator ride down from the seventh floor, then up again, almost in real time.<br /><br />...Spoilers from here on out! When Angie reaches the seventh floor again, she is killed by a big woman with blond hair. The woman hacks away at her until she reaches the ground floor, when the door opens and Nancy Allen sees her there. There is a wonderful slow-motion sequence as Nancy reaches into the elevator, Angie reaches up toward her, and the killer's blade is held poised to slash Nancy's hands. Then follow some electrifying shots as Nancy looks up and sees the killer in the elevators convex mirror. It's all good, and by the time we have some dialogue again, you think; "Woah, that was just 22 straight minutes of purely visual narrative!" Or maybe you don't, but I do.<br /><br />A younger Dennis Franz has a great part as a sleazy and tough New York detective who would rather that everyone else do his work for him. He Interviews Michael Caine, making the outrageous implication (though it passes as commonplace) that Angie WANTED to be killed. Angie's son is there as well, and he hooks up with Nancy, and they set about to spy on Caine's therapist and find out who the killer is.<br /><br />Once again there is a strong tie to a Hitchcock film, in this case Psycho (just as Obsession is a re-working of Vertigo). You have a woman who we are supposed to understand is secretly a slut, who gets killed in the first 30 minutes in an enclosed space, in this case an elevator rather than a shower. Then the relatives of the deceased conduct an investigation, which reveals that the killer is a man who dresses as a woman to kill. De Palma even throws in a doctor at the end who explains the psychology of the whole thing. <br /><br />It is very interesting, but at the same time a viewer can begin to feel a bit jerked around, and that is my primary reservation about this film. It is definitely essential viewing and showcases some of De Palma's greatest setpieces, but that feeling that the story is running a solid third behind the need for De Palma to show off and his somewhat unseemly sexual fantasies makes it hard to look back on this one with whole-hearted affection.<br /><br />--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com | 1pos
|
Don't get me wrong. "GoldenEye" was revolutionary and is definitely the best FPS game to be based on the 007 franchise. But the series had fallen into a FPS rut. Enter "Everything or Nothing", which puts Bond in third-person. When I wrote my earlier review for "From Russia With Love", I had finished FRWL and just started EON and judged EON a bit harshly. Even though FRWL definitely has the edge in nostalgia and capturing the essence of the movie franchise, EON definitely is superior in terms of in-depth controls and gameplay variety. Missions range from standard running-and-gunning to driving an SUV, driving an Aston Martin, driving a limousine that is wired to explode, commandeering two different types of tanks a la "GoldenEye", riding a motorcycle, flying a helicopter, repelling down a shaft guarded by laser tripwires, and free falling after a plummeting damsel. Sure, vehicle controls are a little clumsy, but the issue here is the variety.<br /><br />As movie adaptations, "GoldenEye" and FRWL were all that I could have hoped for. But EON's original storyline adds to the feeling of controlling a James Bond adventure. This is helped by the impressive cast list of Willem DeFoe, Shannon Elizabeth, Heidi Klum, and Misaki Ito. Judi Dench and John Cleese reprise their movie roles of M and Q, respectively, and Pierce Brosnan, while no Sean Connery, adds credibility to the game's proceedings. All characters resemble the stars, with the disappointing exception of Heidi Klum, who's in-game model doesn't do the real-life model justice. Mya's theme song is on par with at least some of the big screen Bond title tunes.<br /><br />The game also plays tribute to some of the older Bond movies. Willem DeFoe's character is a former colleague of Christopher Walken's baddie from "A View to a Kill". Richard Kiel appears as Jaws, the hulking henchman from "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker" in three fight scenes, the first and best of which proceeds in the same fashion a fight in the movies would have.<br /><br />Single-player gameplay mainly consists of standard on-foot missions as Bond. Like Bond, you will be able to choose whether to use stealth or go out with guns blazing. The game provides plenty of opportunities to utilize stealth, with plenty of wall and object cover. Unfortunately, unlike FRWL, only one button in EON controls both crouching and wall clinging, so Bond may end up crouching low when he's supposed to be peeking around a corner, and vice-versa. The game also allows players to go into "Bond reflex" mode. While you browse your inventory, everything around you will go into super slo-mo, allowing you to analyze objects around you that can be interacted with. While this takes some getting used to, eventually this mode will allow you to perform many spectacular "Bond moments", such as shooting down a chandelier to take out four goons underneath, and greatly add to the Bond movie feeling.<br /><br />There are 3 available difficulty levels: Operative, Agent, and Double Oh. On Operative, you can breeze through in a few hours. On Agent, a few weeks. On Double Oh, a few months. The difficulty level can be changed for each individual mission. Garnering high scores on missions will unlock gold and platinum awards and effect features such as vehicle upgrades and the skimpy outfits the Bond girls wear. Some missions can be extremely frustrating due to a scarcity of checkpoints, but when all is said and done, no mission is any longer than a single action scene in a Bond movie.<br /><br />Multi-player, unfortunately, is not as thrilling. "GoldenEye" still has the best multi-player mode of any Bond game. EON's main multi-player is a co-op campaign mode that puts players in charge of lesser MI6 agents on a less important mission than Bond's. A more standard third-person death match can be unlocked from this mode. But the single-player mode is the most complete Bond experience to date. The ending, as with most Bond games, is anticlimactic. While the final mission is one of the most aggravating of the game, the final confrontation with the villain is disappointing. Also, levels that require Bond to be speedy become largely a matter of trial and error. Still, for any serious Bond fan, not playing this game is tantamount to missing one of the Bond films. | 1pos
|
Writer/director Henry Brommel has done a wonderful job with his film, "Panic," from the year 2000, and that includes his choice of cast: William H. Macy, Tracy Ullman, John Ritter, Neve Campbell, Donald Sutherland, Barbara Bain, David Dorfman. Brommel has cast Ullman and Ritter in decidedly un-funny roles, and the offbeat casting is a welcome change from what we normally see.<br /><br />"Panic" is the story of a hit man, Alex (Macy) who actually works for his father (Sutherland). He covers his true profession by doing mail order work; by all appearances, he and his wife (Ullman) and their son Sammy (Dorfman) are a typical suburban family. Unhappy with his life, Alex seeks the help of a psychiatrist (Ritter), telling only his mother (Bain). In the waiting room, he meets a young woman (Campbell) to whom he is immediately attracted, which complicates his situation further. His mother breaks her promise and tells his father about the psychiatrist. When Alex receives his next assignment, he discovers that he is to kill his psychiatrist.<br /><br />This is a profound story of a gentle, good man made into a killer by a monster of a father, with his mother's knowledge, who kills to please his father but also can't stand up to him and quit. His rage is so deep-seated that he has lost emotional attachment to just about everything and everyone except his son - and it's finally his son who wakes him up out of a nearly lifelong repression. When it's time for "Panic" to moves, it does - quickly.<br /><br />"Panic" doesn't seem panicked at all. In fact, it moves very slowly. But it moves slowly not because it's poorly made - the slowness is deliberate, mirroring Alex's own psyche slowly coming out of the fog. By making a decision about Sara, the Campbell character, and by seeing his mark, his own psychiatrist, as a living, breathing human being, Alex starts to make the connections between what he does and who he is -and how they don't jive. And the difference between the two could lead to the loss of another psyche, Sammy's.<br /><br />William Macy gives another brilliant performance, as a loving father, a distant husband, and a cold killer, the child of two monsters who never cared a damn for his feelings or desires, a man who realizes finally that he has to step up to the plate or have the cycle repeated.<br /><br />This is not the kind of drama that plays well in a movie theater. It's too adult, too small, too subtle, too character-driven, and too good. | 1pos
|
I saw this film tonight in NYC at the Landmark Sunshine. I didn't know what to expect, I'd not read much about it as I knew I would see it no matter what. All in All, it is very well done. It doesn't focus on the generalization of "Anti-War" statements, which to me, left the politics out of it. The soldiers mainly spoke of their awareness of toxicity in their training in boot camp, and how hard it was once they returned to civilian life. It was really good to see Paul Rieckhoff and Camilo Mejia tell about the difficulty in surviving not only the war, but refusing the command to go back when it was against personal morals. Make no mistake - this is not an anti-war film. Anyone who says it is hasn't seen it or is not living with the scars of war on their souls. | 1pos
|
I'm going to keep this review short and sweet....<br /><br />I saw the trailer for this and thought I'd give it a whirl 5 minutes in and my initial thoughts were "what the hell is this?" But after 10 minutes I was hooked and after 20 I was picking my jaw up from off the floor. This film is a great example of how different a movie can be, and furthermore it's french. This film is high art eye candy wrapped up in a tidy futuristic film noir package, the motion capture is very clever and the black and white animation style which has no grey although at first didn't do it for me totally captivated me and by the end of the film and I found myself wishing every film was made like this. I think my opinion was helped by the great dubbing it would have been very easy to ruin it had they not landed so many respected actors as many voice actors give no feeling to the characters (Just watch any Hong Kong legends film in English to see a perfect example)I gave it 9 although I gave it an extra 2 because of how fresh and new the whole thing feels.... | 1pos
|
Picture Bride paints a realistic and moving portrait of what it must have been like for Japanese men brought to Hawaii at the turn of the 19th Century to work in the sugar cane fields. Most came planning to return to their homeland, but few were ever able to do so. Equally movingly portrayed is the fate of Japanese women, some as young as fifteen or sixteen, who were sent as promised brides to men they knew only through photographs that often were 10 or 15-years out of date, or were of some other younger man. They too worked long hard hours in the fields, while fighting homesickness and to preserve their dignity.<br /><br />Director Hatta's portrayal of one picture bride's courage and perseverance struggling to survive in a strange land and alien society under great physical duress, is, ultimately, inspirational and uplifting--a story of moral and cultural survival. There is a grandness and magnificence of sweep of character and landscape in Picture Bride that captures the alluring beauty as well as violent harshness of colonial Hawaii. This is a film that is emotionally, intellectually and artistically rewarding. | 1pos
|
This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.<br /><br />All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: "Why you seem so careless?" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.<br /><br />It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters | 0neg
|
I could not, for the life of me, follow, figure out or understand the story. As the plot advances it too stays incomprehensible. I'm going to guess and say that there was a preproduction story/plot problem that never got sorted out. The producers could never separate the many details that the novel, or any novel, has the time and space to create from the other idea, which was to make a movie about a serial killer and the killer's pursuit by the police. They ended up with too many things happening in a proscribed feature film time limit. Too bad really because they had a solid cast, a director who knows how to move things around and excellent cinematography. In fact, a well made movie that one could enjoy and relax with for a couple of hours. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.