text
stringlengths 53
8.97k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.<br /><br />The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.<br /><br />Good acting, though. Watchable. | 0neg
|
I don't what that other review was talking about. This definitely isn't a bimbo movie, in fact, I don't think there was one decent looking girl in it. No, it's just cheesy, poorly-done, Ed Wood-style science fiction schlock. And it's bad. I can't even begin to tell you how bad it is. I saw it late at night on cable, and I was in shock. The fact that this movie was ever released is an insult to us all. The actors were either friends of the producer or mentally retarded, the special effects are a joke, and the pace is insanely slow. To me though, the music tops it all. A monkey could write a better theme with a toy xylophone. Do not rent this thing, but if you ever see it on cable, watch it. You'll be amazed at how bad a movie can be. | 0neg
|
Dark Rising is your typical bad, obviously quickly produced horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie. It has a strange, unexplained plot with holes so big you could fit an elephant through them. Most of the time I didn't know what the hell was going on but it didn't really matter, it was a simple demon hunter returns from hell dimension to save campers story with confusing stuff added on about witches and a book of evil with plot elements and characters who make no sense or disappear totally for no reason. The acting is bad but there honestly is not much they can do with this script I am guessing. There is a couple topless scenes which is probably the only reason this bad movie got made (like so many other bad movies). Give this one a pass unless there is nothing else on T.V. | 0neg
|
I almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying " This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT " but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me <br /><br />Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same <br /><br />Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks " Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says " Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... " Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false <br /><br />Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either . <br /><br />Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT | 0neg
|
I saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.<br /><br />When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of "1 Teenager In 10", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.<br /><br />But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was. | 0neg
|
This movies chronicles the life and times of William Castle. He made a series of low budget horror films in the 1950s-1960s that he sold with gimmicks. In "13 Ghosts" you need viewers to see the ghosts (they were in color, the film was in b&w). "The Tingler" had theatre seats equipped with a buzzer that jolted the audience when a monster escapes into a movie theatre. "Marabre" issued a life insurance policy to all members in case they were frightened to death! The movies themselves were pretty bad but the gimmicks had people rushing to see them. In this doc there are interviews with directors inspired by Castle, actors in his movies and his daughter. It also gets into his home life and the kind of man he was (by all accounts he was a great guy). The documentary is affectionate, very funny and absolutely riveting. It's very short (under 90 minutes) and there's never a dull moment. A must see for Castle fans and horror movie fans. My one complaint--there were very few sequences shown from his pictures. That aside this is just great. | 1pos
|
"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers
).<br /><br />The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.<br /><br />Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.<br /><br />Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.<br /><br />"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.<br /><br />I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10 | 1pos
|
I knew I was going to see a low budget movie, but I expected much more from an Alex Cox film. The acting by the two leading men was terrible, especially the white guy. The girl should have won an Oscar compared to those two. This movie was filled with what I guess would be inside jokes for film industry people and a few other jokes that I actually understood and made me laugh out loud, which is rare. Without these laugh-out-loud moments I would have given this film 2/10. What happened to the Alex Cox who made all the 80s classics?<br /><br />SPOILER:<br /><br />There were a couple of questions I had after the movie was over. Why did the Mexican guy go to the other guy's house at the beginning? What did his daughter say he got 100 people fired from his last job? Why was she breaking her own stuff when she was mad at him? I guess I should have gone to the Q&A after the movie, but I didn't want to get up at 10am. | 0neg
|
Yet again one of the most misunderstood Goddesses of my country has been twisted by "Westerners" who cannot understand the esoteric symbolism of the Mother Goddess in her dark forms. The Mother takes on the frightening form of Kali Mata to destroy our inner demons, and to terrify our egos. And though blood sacrifice is given to Kali and Durga, the events depicted in this film are just absurd. The Mother takes on a wrathful form to be wrathful to our inner demons, limitations, and ego when no other form will suffice. It's also in her wrathful form that she burns away all your Karmas in the "Smashan" fires that you cultivate in your heart for her to dance on if you love her, and she will bring you to reality and truth. Reality and truth has a dark side as well as light, which serves a purpose. The Mother is the embodiment of the physical Universe as well, she is Nature. Nature can be cruel and destructive to maintain balance. You cannot have growth and life without death and destruction. Kali represents the force of destruction for the purpose of new growth and life both mundane and spiritual in the universe. It's very outrageous to me that people who know nothing of India or it's divinity can just take one of our beloved Goddesses and use her like a cheap prostitute to make some low-budget, talentless horror film. How dare they take our beloved Mother and portray her as a horror that makes people chop their eyelids off!? She is only horrific to those who are attached to their ego and who live in delusion , greed, anger, and other inner-demons. It's very clear to me that the person who wrote this movie must have a very serious self-deluding ego, and serious inner-demons to see Kali as so horrible and terrible. When the ego drops away she becomes a form that is enchanting, beautiful, and young, a beauty that is so enchanting to behold that she enchants the entire Universe with it. Kali Maa is an ancient Mother, not to be trifled with for the sake of entertainment, let's just hope that in her endless compassion and mercy that she does not take on wrathful form to those involved with this movie.<br /><br />The audacity that Westerners have in using religions like my own, or the religions of the Caribbean Islands such as Santeria, and Vodou which are actually very positive, and other such religions to twist and exaggerate misunderstood elements that the Western mind cannot comprehend, is totally ridiculous. It's clear that there is no respect for what people live, breathe and believe in when it comes to these kind of flicks.<br /><br />Kali Maa in reality is a caring and compassionate mother, whom we shed tears at her beautiful feet in devotion and love for. And I am happy that my Mother takes on wrathful form sometimes to protect her devotees from themselves and from outside forces.<br /><br />Many Praises to the REAL Kali Maa, who has shown MANY the path of God and realization. | 0neg
|
This was truly a great movie. I loved Dennis Quaid and the entire baseball team. Jay Hernandez is also a very likable actor that is very enjoyable to watch. The chemistry the team had once they got things together was spectacular, it just goes to show what you what can accomplish when minds unite as one with one goal. This team came back from the brink, having multiple losing seasons to winning just about everything. I love movies like this as they really are very inspirational.<br /><br />On top of that, Dennis Quaid's character getting a place in the major leagues. You can't do anything, but root for this guy. It just seems like when someone is supposed to do something, they are going to do that. Things just happen to fall into place and makes everything click.<br /><br />Based on a true story, this film will really make you think about the fact that "nothing is impossible." | 1pos
|
This movie was a complete waste of time.<br /><br />I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of "genius" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile
); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.<br /><br />I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).<br /><br />I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art). | 0neg
|
Not only is this movie a great film for basic cinematography (screenplay, acting, setting, etc.) but also for it's realism. This movie could take place in any farm or rural setting. It makes no difference if the movie takes place in Louisiana or if it would take place in Kansas. The story and the messages it includes would remain the same. This movie shows family values and connections for an older audience, while at the same time it shows youthful behavior for the younger viewers. Everyone who watches this will walk away with something having touched them personally, I know I did. The ending hits way too close to home for me not to burst into tears every time I watch it. The ending stresses the importance of farm safety, and everyone who has ever worked on a farm needs to see this film. Not paying attention and carelessness gets you into dangerous situations.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
This typical Mamet film delivers a quiet, evenly paced insight into what makes a confidence man (Joe Mantegna) good. Explored as a psychological study by a noted psychologist (Lindsay Crouse), it slowly pulls her into his world with the usual nasty consequences. The cast includes a number of the players found is several of Mamet's films (Steven Goldstein, Jack Wallace, Ricky Jay, Andy Potok, Allen Soule, William H. Macy), and they do their usual good job. I loved Lindsay Crouse in this film, and have often wondered why she didn't become a more noted player than she has become. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!<br /><br />The movie proceeds at a slow pace, with flat dialog, yet it maintains a level of tension throughout which logically leads to the bang-up ending. You'd expect a real let down at the ending, but I found it uplifting and satisfying. I love this movie! | 1pos
|
As a fan of looking further into the phenomenon that is school shootings, this film took an interesting and different approach to the idea. Presented as a series of video recordings made by the two troubled men (I cannot refer to persons who kill as boys or teens), the months of preparation leading to zero day (the codename for the day on which they will attack) the film tries to present the situation from the opposite end of the gun. It seems intent on portraying the pain they suffer, yet focuses on the literal preparation. The problem is that little in terms of emotion is directly delivered. The only point at which emotion became overwhelming was the ending, as expected. But leading up to this point, it's never really clear as to why they are planning this out. We are told the obligatory story that they were mocked, but the film also seems to contradict this. Without ruining the film, it's easy to say it was a great attempt and had equally great intentions, but falls short because of sloppy film-making. All directing is amateur, to further the homemade video concept, but the story and continuity is weak. The film seems to want the audience to decide a lot, but also fails to provide the information for such an event. The ending is abrupt, and doesn't feel like it finishes everything that the film began. | 1pos
|
This movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this | 0neg
|
This film is wonderful in every way that modern action adventures are not. Take some time. Relax, enjoy. Think. People who see this movie as slow or plodding or dull really need to take a week off and watch it several times until their short attention span mind comes to grips with the possibility of being involved with a cause or even beautiful story in a beautiful place for no other reason than because it isn't hurrying to make the points you so emphatically need it to make in the short time alloted. At first I was apprehensive of Brosnan playing a native American. Given the story line though, I think it was apt casting. Now, back to my hermiting. -Jahfre | 1pos
|
But the opposite, sorry bud, i completely understand how you can be dragged into a film because you relate to the subject ( and you have). This film is terrible, the main character would give any charlie brown subtitler a run for his money he just constantly mumbles which is always a laugh, most scenes just feel awkward with characters more often than not gazing across to another with a look of...its your line now, then i will react. Best British comedy? Please buddy, have a strong word with your bad bad self...at the end of the day ...the sun goes down...and this film is Awful. I mean well done to the people involved...they have made a film...and maybe motorbike enthusiasts may be into it but people that still live here on earth with an actual sense of humour will struggle with this more than smiling at the Christmas present they're nan bought them...was that overly harsh? i do apologise... | 1pos
|
This short spoof can be found on Elite's Millennium Edition DVD of "Night of the Living Dead". Good thing to as I would have never went even a tad out of my way to see it.Replacing zombies with bread sounds just like silly harmless fun on paper. In execution, it's a different matter. This short didn't even elicit a chuckle from me. I really never thought I'd say this, but "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" was a VERY better parody and not nearly as lame or boring.<br /><br />My Grade: F | 0neg
|
Superbly trashy and wondrously unpretentious 80's exploitation, hooray! The pre-credits opening sequences somewhat give the false impression that we're dealing with a serious and harrowing drama, but you need not fear because barely ten minutes later we're up until our necks in nonsensical chainsaw battles, rough fist-fights, lurid dialogs and gratuitous nudity! Bo and Ingrid are two orphaned siblings with an unusually close and even slightly perverted relationship. Can you imagine playfully ripping off the towel that covers your sister's naked body and then stare at her unshaven genitals for several whole minutes? Well, Bo does that to his sister and, judging by her dubbed laughter, she doesn't mind at all. Sick, dude! Anyway, as kids they fled from Russia with their parents, but nasty soldiers brutally slaughtered mommy and daddy. A friendly smuggler took custody over them, however, and even raised and trained Bo and Ingrid into expert smugglers. When the actual plot lifts off, 20 years later, they're facing their ultimate quest as the mythical and incredibly valuable White Fire diamond is coincidentally found in a mine. Very few things in life ever made as little sense as the plot and narrative structure of "White Fire", but it sure is a lot of fun to watch. Most of the time you have no clue who's beating up who or for what cause (and I bet the actors understood even less) but whatever! The violence is magnificently grotesque and every single plot twist is pleasingly retarded. The script goes totally bonkers beyond repair when suddenly and I won't reveal for what reason Bo needs a replacement for Ingrid and Fred Williamson enters the scene with a big cigar in his mouth and his sleazy black fingers all over the local prostitutes. Bo's principal opponent is an Italian chick with big breasts but a hideous accent, the preposterous but catchy theme song plays at least a dozen times throughout the film, there's the obligatory "we're-falling-in-love" montage and loads of other attractions! My God, what a brilliant experience. The original French title translates itself as "Life to Survive", which is uniquely appropriate because it makes just as much sense as the rest of the movie: None! | 1pos
|
Please Note: I see from the various posts that there was an original silent version and also a sound version of this same film. I saw the sound version and it was esthetically yicky. Considering some indicate that the original version was LONGER and without crappy dubbing, my review must be read with this in mind.<br /><br />Although I know that Rene Clair has a lovely reputation as a film maker and Louise Brooks has a bit of a cult following as well, this is in many ways a technically poorly made film. While Hollywood had already pretty much switched to sound mode around 1929, up through the early to almost the mid-30s, a lot of famous French films were essentially silent films--with some dialog and sound effects very poorly slapped over top the film. The lip movements in many, and in particular this film, don't even come close to matching what is being said and this would explain why an American like Ms. Brooks could do a French film. This is just sloppy and I would have preferred they had just made a silent film--and as a silent film this is would have been an average film--with excellent camera work (at times) and some decent silent-style acting.<br /><br />The problem I also found with the film was the overly simplistic plot. For a silent morality play circa 1920, it would have been fine, but by 1930 standards the plot is a bit hoary (that means "old"--not "slutty"). A lady wins a beauty contest and her macho fiancé can't handle it. She gives it all up, temporarily, but is lured back to the fancy life and this spells her end! A tad melodramatic, huh? And also a bit simplistic and underdeveloped.<br /><br />Finally, the character of the fiancé's friend(?) I found very disturbing and unreal. He looked like Harold Lloyd and spent much of the movie being abused and picked on by the friend and everyone else. As he just took it throughout the movie and no resolution came about, his character seemed superfluous and the treatment he received mean-spirited. Were audiences supposed to laugh as he was abused? This seems to me that's what is implied and I don't like it at all.<br /><br />There are FAR better French films of the era (Le Million, La Femme du Boulanger, Fanny, Regain, and others) as well as better silent films. I just can't understand this film's high rating. | 0neg
|
I think a great many viewers missed entirely the fact that this is obviously a parody of western films.<br /><br />This is not a bad movie - it is a clever tongue in cheek take on westerns. I don't believe this film was taking itself seriously for a moment.<br /><br />What makes this film even more unique is the fact it is centered around 4 strong, beautiful women, two of which are black, one Asian, and a Mexican/Hispanic character.<br /><br />These aren't your usual western women--they're tough--they can draw fast and shoot straight.<br /><br />They're so tough even the bartender is shaking when he pours their whiskey.<br /><br />The plot which moves this story along is typical of westerns--in the vein of "you shot my brother--so I'm gonna get you!" Only in this western, a woman's sister has been shot and she's out for vengeance on the gang who did it.<br /><br />So she goes and rounds up her old cronies from her bank robbing days.<br /><br />One of them, Maria, is not really all that interested in avenging Rachel's sister, but she is motived by the fact there's gold and jewelry hidden in the town where they're headed.<br /><br />There are a couple of scenes that don't quite make sense, not that they interfere that much, they can be ignored, but I wondered why they were there. So the film could use a little tightening, but over all, this is a well made film that has failed to find an audience that recognized what it is.<br /><br />My only disappointment was that the only lesbian in the film is a villain--of the "heroines", one is obviously straight, the others sexual orientations are never disclosed.<br /><br />7 Stars | 1pos
|
Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame "Jaws"-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. "Krocodylus" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the "specialist" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that. | 0neg
|
I found about the movie "Holes" by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. "Holes" is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended! | 1pos
|
Very well done and spooky horror movie from poverty-row film company PRC who usually put out really cheesy films like DEVIL BAT or THE FLYING SERPENT. German expatriate director Wisbar does wonders with a small budget and his studio-bound swamp set. Gaunt and ghoulish Charles Middleton is effective as the Strangler. | 1pos
|
OK, this movie is stupid. I mean that in a good way though.It was stupid on purpose, and was one of the better "stupid" movies I've seen. The jokes and gags are purposefully bad, but delivered in a way that it struck all the right notes with me. The supporting characters were pretty shallow and mediocre. There is a pretty weak plot, but it works just fine.<br /><br />Elvira's character is the focus here.She is lovable and adorable.Cassandra Petersen has a world of acting talent that just glows in this movie.On top of that acting talent she had physical attributes which were frankly, stunning. Few men could disagree with that. The parts that show off her figure were also some of the funnier scenes in the movie.<br /><br />I had a smile ear to ear from the first scene to the last.<br /><br />Highly recommended to fans of comedy, and to fans of beautiful women. I wish they had made a dozen more Elvia movies. | 1pos
|
Wizards of the Lost Kingdom is a movie about a young prince (Simon) who is banished from his kingdom due to his father (the king) being killed by the cliche "evil adviser". This movie's about Simon's adventures. The special effects, plot, acting, and generally everything about this movie is BAD. However, it's so bad that it's funny. You will keep watching this movie simply because it's so bad it's funny, and, like the other reviewer of the movie said, it's so bad it's good. | 1pos
|
This is an amazing film to watch or show young people. Aside from a very brief nude scene, it gives an interesting glimpse into colonial rule in Africa that you'll rarely find in other films. It does bear a superficial similarity to OUT OF Africa, but without all the romantic fluff. The White French people in Cameroon are fascinating because they don't even seem to regard the natives as people. The Whites are all the bosses and they expect Black servitude without question. However, unlike real servants, you only once hear any of the Whites say 'thank you' and no other regard is given these people. Again and again, it's like they are pets or slaves, as the feelings of the people are never even considered. <br /><br />The central illustration of this thoughtlessness is the relationship between the mother, Aimée and her servant, Protée. Although at times they spend a lot of time together and it is only normal that they might begin to have sexual feelings towards each other, the White woman never considers Protée or the existence of his feelings. A good example of this thoughtlessness is when she has Protée lace up her dress and it's obvious that he is very sexually frustrated by this. Apart from this relationship, while almost all the Whites are completely oblivious to the fact that the Africans are people, a few go so far as to verbally abuse and treat them like garbage.<br /><br />Also interesting is the relationship between Protée and the little girl (who is the one who is grown at the beginning and end of the film). While they are very close, at times he's more like a plaything or pet and the girl never plays with native children.<br /><br />There is one bizarre White character who seems, at times, to regard the Blacks better but unfortunately his character is very inconsistent and confusing. One moment, he's doing hard work along side the Blacks or eating with them (something the other Whites would never have done) and the next he's trying to beat up Protée! I could only guess as to what motivated him--perhaps he was just a jerk, or was crazy or perhaps was a Communist agitator trying to stir up the Blacks against the Whites (who knows!). In fact, other than a few good scenes, this character seems pretty much wasted.<br /><br />While I really enjoyed the insight this movie gave, I wish it had instead been more than just a few snippets of this world through the perspective of a child during one small period of her life. The context and what happened to rid the country of colonialism is never addressed and the film left me wanting more. The film appeared to begin in the early 1980s (since she's wearing a Walkman-style headset) and when the film went back in time, it seems that it was set about 1960 (more or less), but there was never any mention of the 1950s anti-colonialism violence or independence for the nation in the early 1960s. I am guessing that some of this confusion might be that the makers of the film screwed up and SHOULD have made the beginning of the film earlier (such as the 1970s) and had the lady think back to her life there in the early 1950s--before the country experienced political change.<br /><br />Apart from the missing context and a confusion over time periods, using the prologue and epilogue that showed her as an adult traveling the country was a good idea. And I also appreciated the ending, as it was a pleasant surprise when you find out more about the nice man who offers her a ride. But overall, it just feels like something is missing--there just isn't any sort of resolution or message other than showing that colonialism is thoughtless and cruel. | 1pos
|
Oh man is this movie bad. It flows horribly. The story is about a race car driver who is in love with himself, and then has to promote a chicken fast food chain and while doing this, doesn't love himself. He tries getting out of the contract and horrible, painfully unfunny gags ensue. Jim Nabors seems as if he's sleepwalking, not acting. You'll miss such Burt sidekicks as Dom Deluise and Jerry Reed while watching this stinker. Loni Anderson's hair is downright scary, proving that tons of hairspray didn't go out in the sixties. Or maybe that was a wig. Speaking of, Burt's wig wasn't bad in this film. His worst "wig day" was in "Smokey and the Bandit 2". Anyhow, this movie is the worst Reynolds car movie, ever, ever, right up there with "Cannonball Run 2". The original "Smokey" and "Cannonball" (and "Hooper" which, thankfully, had no sequel) are great, funny films. This one isn't. Even Ned Beatty, who is a great actor, stinks. You'll long for a Jackie Gleason type villain who is fun to hate. And mind you, this isn't one of those fun movies to bag on. It's lousy, pure and simple. Even the outtakes at the end were tiresome and boring, and worst of all, unfunny. And least I forget, "Stroker Ace" was one of the first heavy nails to seal Burt's coffin before his somewhat-revival years later in "Boogie Nights", another film that, like "Deliverance" years earlier, shows that the man can act quite good when he has a decent platform to do so. | 0neg
|
Farrah Fawcett is superb in this powerful 1986 drama, where she plays Marjorie, a woman who manages to escape the clutches of a would-be rapist. Well done to Farrah for being a Golden Globe 'Best Actress' nominee.<br /><br />When her rapist Joe (terrifically played by James Russo) comes into her home, which she shares with her two roommates (who are conveniently out!), Marjorie has to play along with Joe's frightening demands. It does make for some disturbing and shocking images!<br /><br />When her roommates come home, they are astounded (to say the least) by Marjorie's actions, and a great performance by Alfre Woodard who desperately tries to convince Marjorie to do the right thing and turn him into the police, makes the film even more nail-biting.<br /><br />I do find Diana Scarwid quite irritating, but when Joe finally admits that he came there to kill them all, it makes the film a very emotional piece of drama indeed.<br /><br />Overall, Extremities is a brilliantly thought-out and well-acted movie and I must have watched it hundreds of time by now! Well done to everybody involved. | 1pos
|
This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.<br /><br />At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.<br /><br />***Careful, spoilers ahead***<br /><br />It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!<br /><br />I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.<br /><br />This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.<br /><br />I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.<br /><br />I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time. | 0neg
|
Frank Sinatra plays a no-goodnik ex-soldier and frustrated writer, hard-living and hard-drinking, who returns to his Midwestern hometown and reunites with his estranged brother (Arthur Kennedy), now the town big-shot with a disinterested wife and headstrong daughter. Frank gets involved with gambler Dean Martin, uneducated flooze Shirley MacLaine, and has some run-ins with the law, but what he really wants to do is write and settle down with a good woman. Over-simplified drama verging on soap opera, with a role for MacLaine that is by turns overly 'colorful' and embarrassingly sentimental (her drunken belting on "After You've Gone" is however the film's highlight, and is expertly handled). Director Vincente Minnelli oversees it in straight-forward fashion, but he's in surprisingly glum spirits and most of the big scenes are flat or dense. The picture looks incredibly handsome in widescreen, with a nice eye for detail and composition, but the story and these characters are stuck in the dregs. ** from **** | 0neg
|
This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called "blockbuster" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression! | 1pos
|
Quite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen. When has Hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked Republicans? Why don't they learn. The Dixie chicks haven't. These Lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves; oblivious to the fact that most of America is much further right than they are.<br /><br />The best Hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all.<br /><br />Dan Akroyd's imitation of Cheney was bad.<br /><br />I would have thought Cussack could have landed better movies.<br /><br />It wasn't funny. | 0neg
|
This movie is a touching story about an adventure taken by 15-year-old Darius Weems. Darius has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a still un-curable disease that took the life of his brother at age nineteen and is the number one killer of babies in the United States. Him and a few close friends travel across the country to Los Angeles with the goal of getting his wheelchair customized on MTV's, Pimp My Ride, one of his favorite shows. The journey begins in Georgia, where Darius grew up and has never left. The gang head west for a trip that all its participants will never forget. Darius gets to ride in a boat for the first time, ride in a hot air balloon, swim in the ocean and visit sights he's always wanted to see like the Grand Canyon and New Orleans. The filmmakers here clearly have an emotional connection to the material. They make no money from sales of the $20 dvds. $17 goes toward researching the disease and $3 goes toward making more copies. The film has won over 25 awards at festivals and I agree with the quote given to the film by Variety, "Certain to stir hearts". | 1pos
|
Welcome to Oakland, where the dead come out to play and even the boys in DA hood can't stop them. This low-budget, direct-to-video production seems timed to coincide with the release of Land of the Dead, the latest installment of George A. Romero's famed zombie series. The ghetto setting and hip-hop soundtrack may provide additional appeal for inner- city gore hounds. Ricky (Carl Washington) works at a medical research facility while raising his kid brother, Jermaine (Brandon Daniels). But the teenager, bored by macaroni-and-cheese dinners in their tract house, would rather spend his time hanging with street friends Marco and Kev. Apparently there is not a lot for African-American high-school dropouts to do on this side of the bay except deal drugs and scuffle with the homeys, including rival Latino gang bangers. Ricky plans to sell their late parents' house and move inland to the Castro Valley, a more middle-class and presumably safer environment. Unfortunately, before this can happen, a drive-by shooting leaves Jermaine dead on the porch. Grief-stricken Ricky tries a last desperate ploy. He tells Scotty, his lab assistant, to steal some of the experimental cell regeneration formula they have been testing on rats. When a double dose fails to revive Jermaine, there is no choice except to call 911. But a funny thing happens on the way to the morgue. The boy is reanimated as a sputtering, growling zombie, chews the ambulance drivers and staggers off into the night, bent on revenge and hungry for fresh meat. The feeding frenzy infects more victims, and before the night is over the East Bay is a battleground between the living and the blood-spattered undead. The horror genre has seen more than its share of cheap movie makers, from Ed Wood to Herschel Gordon Lewis to Charles Band. But low budgets do not necessarily mean bad films. Consider Val Lewton's programmers (Cat People, The Leopard Man, Isle of the Dead), Roger Corman's Poe quickies, Romero's Night of the Living Dead and John Carpenter's Halloween. The difference between memorable and awful has more to do with talent and ambition than money. Hood Of The Living Dead is more fun than several hundred million dollars' worth of recent high-priced horrors. Cheapness has its charms. In truly cheap films actors wear their own clothes amid real settings. Here the tract houses have freshly painted walls in neutral matte tones, lending a bleakness as oppressive as Douglas Sirk's bourgeois melodramas of the '50s. Lines seem more improvised than scripted. "So what the hell are we gonna do now?" "Just keep your eyes open for any F N' thing that looks out of the ordinary." Ricky and Scotty call their boss, who calls an ex-military man named Romero. "I have a huge bitch of a problem that we have to take care of fast." "Not a problem," says the merc, closing his phone and grabbing his guns. Everybody has guns, and even when fighting zombies they're on their cell phones, as who isn't nowadays? Information is exchanged with naturalistic understatement. "What happened?" "We got into it with some crazy motherfockers." "Deja F N' vu. It's that park zombie again. ..." Ricky even has to blow his twitching girlfriend away, saying only, "She's gotten out of hand." Unlike most zombie movies, this one provides a motive for mayhem. Jermaine takes revenge on the gang bangers who shot him, who in turn continue the rumble. This is urban film-making that implies its own social commentary, a near-guerrilla production suggesting a future for low-budget horror that reflects real life instead of supernatural clichés. The brothers Quiroz, who have trademarked their name as if in anticipation of a new movement, may inspire others to tell stories arising from personal experience rather than imitating tired Hollywood product. Considering their limited resources, Jose and Eduardo Quiroz have made a cheap but technically acceptable feature about people they know. Photographer Rocky Robinson gets the job done, music by Eduardo Quiroz is no simpler than Carpenter's haunting Halloween theme, and hip-hop songs by The Darkroom Familia and others add atmosphere. The result is promising if not exactly exhilarating. They are learning their craft and, unlike Lewis and Wood, who never got any better, their next may be one to watch. | 1pos
|
First of all, the release date is 2009, not 2007 for this feature length nature documentary film. It should be more properly referred to as: "Earth, 2009". Secondly, allow me to address the complaints of some reviewers who have seen the "Planet Earth" TV series of 2006. <br /><br />I have not seen this TV series, but learned here, that this film is the full length version of this 2006 TV series. I judge any film, on it's own merits, not by it's source. I judge the results, on their own, and the results of "Earth, 2009" are indeed excellent. I dismiss this trivial complaint of some reviewers: that it's simply an expanded version of the 2006 TV series "Planet Earth". So what? It doesn't really matter.<br /><br />As a film buff and one who has viewed dozens of nature documentaries in my lifetime, I was astonished and highly impressed by "Earth, 2009". This is the debut film from the new "DisneyNature" division of Disney and follows in the footsteps of Walt Disney's pioneering and Academy Award winning nature documentary films of the 1950's and 1960's.<br /><br />Cinematography, film editing, music score, sound and narration are all excellent. There have been a few other nature documentaries that also excelled in these categories. What really sets "Earth, 2009" apart is its' scope. It literally covers the entire planet, covering all seven continents.<br /><br />After my first viewing, it was obvious this documentary film required a massive effort and amount of time and talent to create. <br /><br />Three production companies were required to make this amazing documentary film.<br /><br />"Earth, 2009" convincingly tells the stories of four species on their great migrations as it spans one year through the seasons beginning in January and ending in December, from the North Pole to the South Pole.<br /><br />Two special new high-tech cameras were used for this film: one camera has a 360 degree computer controlled motorized rotating lens and the other is a HD camera set to an amazing 1,000 frames per second. This filming technique really added drama and beauty to some of the scenes of "Earth, 2009" especially the cheetah chase and great white sharks leaping out of the water to catch sea lions and an aerial view going over the edge of the world's highest waterfall. There are many stunningly beautiful shots in this documentary.<br /><br />Via cinematography, music score and narration, there is drama, sadness, humor and great beauty in this documentary. With a great music score performed by the world renowned Berliner Philharmoniker, excellent creative and technical cinematography and James Earl Jones narration, I consider "Earth, 2009" as the greatest nature feature length documentary film ever made.<br /><br />Five years of hard work, patience, talent and dedication really paid off very well here. This film should be required viewing in all schools throughout the world. I predict an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, among other awards. Truly, an amazing, astonishing, exhilarating and magnificent documentary film.<br /><br />Very Highly Recommended | 1pos
|
My personal vision of hell is being locked in a room without the ability to close my eyes or block my ears and have this movie play for eternity on every available surface in that room. The whole notion that Streisand plays a boy/man only begins to scratch the surface of how ridiculous a premise this movie is. The single most important thing about watching any movie is the concept of "willing suspension of disbelief" . . . it is impossible to do that in this movie. | 0neg
|
The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'. | 0neg
|
Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10. | 1pos
|
Frustrating to watch because of one man's stubbornness to leave his native country for the dream land in Switzerland and what he does to achieve that creates heartache for all those involved. Along the journey he encounters scumbags who take advantage of other human suffering and desperation. | 1pos
|
You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.<br /><br />Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.<br /><br />The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying "Just kidding."<br /><br />But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.<br /><br />It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.<br /><br />Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself. | 0neg
|
Much has been written about Purple Rain, the apparent "quin-essential" musician bio movie, however I'm here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it's high praise.<br /><br />First of all let's get one thing straight Prince is a great musician and Music is the one area where Purple Rain excels. Even the score is mesmerising, and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it's not and as such the movie has some problems.<br /><br />First of all is the horrendous acting/writing, Prince's character "The Kid" is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. A good loner character should at least have some talkative moments, unfortunately Prince's character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it's hard to believe that he'd get the girl this way. Everything just seems a little off here, which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that's terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live, but we aren't ever allowed to get inside of it.<br /><br />A surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. Prince and Morris's lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here, which I guess makes sense from a business perspective, but it's exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage, especially when the character's back stories get pushed aside for it.<br /><br />So to sum it up: This isn't a very good movie. | 0neg
|
From start to finish, I laughed real hard throughout the whole movie. It's amazing that "The Groove Tube" is possibly the granddaddy, yet raunchiest, of all comedic skit movies.This is the way I enjoy watching TV without being bored at flipping channels only to suffer from insomnia! For 73 minutes, the weird, strange humor never stops! Just think of how all this nonsense laughing can help you enjoy life easier! It's way, WAY better than Comedy Central or any prime time show! Do yourself a favor and trash all those soft, lame romantic comedy movies into the wastebasket! Better yet, tell your box office manager you want "The Groove Tube" back on the big screen! | 1pos
|
This was awful. Andie Macdowell is a terrible actress. So wooden she makes a rocking horse look like it could do a better job. But then remember that turn in Four Weddings, equally as excruciating. Another film that portrays England as full of Chocolate box cottages, and village greens. I mean that school, how many schools apart from maybe Hogwarts look like that? The twee police station looked like the set from Heartbeat ( a nauseating British series set in the 60s).This film just couldn't make its mind up what it wanted to be- a comedy or a serious examination of the undercurrents in women's friendships. If it had stuck to the former then the graveyard sex scenes and the highly stupid storming of the wedding might just have worked( i say just). But those scenes just didn't work with the tragedy in the second half. I also find it implausible that Kate would ever speak to Molly again after her terrible behaviour. A final note- what is a decent actress like Staunton doing in this pile of poo? Not to mention Anna Chancellor. Macdowell should stick to advertising wrinkle cream. | 0neg
|
Louise Brooks gives a wonderful performance in this well-made French melodrama. She plays a typist named Lucienne who, despite being in love with a man named Andre, dreams of rising above her position in life. She sees opportunity in a beauty contest for Miss Europe, but Andre is furious when he discovers that she's entered, then demands that she withdraw. She tries to take back her entry only to discover that she's already been chosen as Miss France and will now go on to the main pageant.<br /><br />This is a story of love, loss and decision played out to its passionate end. The movie is very energetically filmed by director Augusto Genina and cinema tographers Rudolf Mate and Louis Nee. The filming style is more like modern movies than the Hollywood flicks of the '30s, and shows the different style employed by Europeans. There are many fast cuts and traveling shots, mostly done with great skill and verve. The high energy of the movie's first third dwindles a bit in the middle but picks up again in the last 15 minutes.<br /><br />The performances were very good by all the principals, but that of Louise Brooks is especially memorable. Louise leans heavily on her silent screen skills even though this is a talkie, but because her silent style had a surprisingly contemporary, understated feel, she makes the transition to talkies very well. The long early scene at the fair was especially poignant as Louise used her remarkably expressive eyes to convey her growing sense of misery and alienation, of being trapped in a life she no longer wants. I doubt it's ever been done better.<br /><br />The film builds to a superb finale, artfully shot, powerful and stylish. This is really some of the best stuff of the early days of film. And the tragic storyline only underscores the greater tragedy that this is the final starring role for Louise Brooks. She wasn't just a great beauty who looked fantastic in a swimsuit, she really was a major acting talent who basically threw it all away. We are all the poorer for that.<br /><br />This movie is less well known than her German films with G.W. Pabst, but I think it's a better one. I think this crew is just better at storytelling than Pabst, and while Prix de Beaute may lack the deep moral complexity of the Pabst films, it's much easier to follow and is overall a more streamlined, focused piece of work. And it doesn't hurt that Louise's singing parts are done by Edith Piaf, either.<br /><br />Bottom line, this is a classic Louise Brooks film well worth looking for. | 1pos
|
people claim its edited funny but they had to cut it down substantially in post production. i have harry as a professor right now at ucsd, and honestly its one of the best classes I've had, its rather funny to here about what happened in making the film cause harry is so animated. i originally watched "joy of life" for another class where harry did a voice over in the film, and started watching this film after i started the class. Harry originally did some performance work, and is really genuine about creating moments that move you, especially when you have to re edit things until you hit on that moment, but its something you see in this film. | 1pos
|
My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order. | 0neg
|
Considering 'A Star is Born' had been made twice already by the time the 1976 film came into production, the latest remake has a freshness about it that can be attributed to the fantastic chemistry between the entire acting ensemble. A viewer could be forgiven for believing that Kris Kristofferson & Barbara Streisand were a couple off screen as well as on, with their incredible displays of pure affection towards one another.<br /><br />The film has been described in the past as a 'Barbara Streisand concert on film, set to a soap opera storyline' however for anyone that enjoys watching a film that takes you beyond the living room into a world where the characters seem truly alive - A Star is Born is well worth the hiring price.<br /><br />With its incredible soundtrack, flawless acting and touching reality in regards to human emotions and the true frailty of life; A Star is Born is a film that draws you into the world of Esther Hoffman & the love of her life John Norman Howard.<br /><br />A film for anyone that sees the beauty in real love - the kind that keeps you devoted to a person even as they break your heart... | 1pos
|
Probably the worst Dolph film ever. There's nothing you'd want or expect here. Don't waste your time. Dolph plays a miserable cop with no interests in life. His brother gets killed and Dolph tries to figure things out. The character is just plain stupid and stumbles around aimlessly. Pointless. | 0neg
|
I was really impressed with this film. The writing was fantastic, and the characters were all rich, and simple. It's very easy to get emotionally attached to all of them. The creators of this movie really hit the nail right on the head when it comes to creating real life characters, and getting the viewer sucked right into their world. Further, the music is terrific. They employed some independents to do the score, and some of the soundtrack, and they do a fantastic job adding to the movie. If you have a chance to catch this movie in a small theater or at a film festival (like I did), I highly recommend that you go see it. Also, on a personal note, Paget Brewster is beautiful in this movie. That's reason enough to go check it out. | 1pos
|
The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's "Death Wish II" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. "D.W. II" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). "10 to Midnight" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like "The Evil that Men Do" and the remaining "Death Wish" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.<br /><br />"Kinjite" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).<br /><br />What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like "The Mechanic", "Death Wish", "From Noon til 3", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "Red Sun", "The Great Escape", "The Magnificent Seven", "Rider on the Rain", etc., etc.... | 0neg
|
I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...<br /><br />This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.<br /><br />I must admit that it's a very well put together movie and that's why I'm puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? How come he didn't make lots of films after this rather good one...? Someone with so much potential should be forced to make another movie, ha ha ;-) <br /><br />Anyway, I really would like to see that he pulls his act together and makes another good movie like this one, please.....? | 1pos
|
I saw this movie last year in Media class and I have to say I really hated it. I was in year 10 (and aged 15) so that may have has something to do with it. But for English this year, year 11, we had to read Animal Farm, also by George Orwell. Aside from the fact that the book is based on the Revolution, my opinion is that it is a terrible book, and I also hated it.<br /><br />But 1984, I think it was the most disturbing movie I have ever seen, and I think that George Orwell is one of the most deranged people ever to live on this planet. I'm sorry to everyone who loved his work, but I unfortunately did not. The themes in the movie were well portrayed, but the way the whole movie was set and the events that took place within it were not to my standards. This is only my opinion, and I'm sure many many other people thoroughly enjoyed this film. | 0neg
|
She's not Michael Jordan<br /><br />Think of all the marvelous NBA players whose career light has been dimmed for no other good reason than the timing of their birth. Their names might trip as easily off the public's lips as Russell, Cousy, Byrd, Magic, McHale, Oscar, Wilt, the list goes on; but the volume gets turned down a little, for Stockton and Malone, Charles, Patrick and all the other great players who always lost the headlines to Michael.<br /><br />I've seen it written that Gretchen Mol's career flamed out in the wake of the cover article in the 1998 Vanity Fair issue which predicted inevitable superstardom for Ms. Mol. It was later said that she had been over hyped. I disagree.<br /><br />I still remember that for some time after I saw "The Devil's Advocate" in '97 or '98, I would get confused as to which actress played Mary Ann Lomax. Was it Mol or Theron? Oh yeah! Charlize Theron was the one in "2 Days in the Valley" and "Mighty Joe Young" and Gretchen Mol was in "Donnie Brasco", "Celebrity", and "Rounders".<br /><br />By the time I had seen "The Thirteenth Floor" (Mol) and "Sweet November" (Theron), I pretty much had them straightened out but I still put them in the same mental file drawer. Both were highly talented, had sweet faces, similar body types, short blonde hair and so on.<br /><br />Theron, though, was offered more work. I loved her as Sara Deever and as Adele Invergordon her beauty was downright intimidating.<br /><br />In 2003 "Monster" was released and from that point until the handing of the Oscar itself, all of filmdom knew who the "Best Actress" award was going to. And deservedly so! Theron was Aileen Wuornos. The only way to get a more accurate understanding of what made the real Aileen Wuornos tick would be to somehow replay the digital video trapped in Selby's head. And for a major talent to make herself that physically unattractive! Unheard of!<br /><br />Then in 2005 "The Notorious Bettie Page" was released. Mol's performance was extraordinary. Maybe she was standing in the shadow of Ms. Theron. It was like the ballroom for the victory celebration for the losing Presidential candidate, nobody came and nobody cared. It was viewed as a continuation of an old tale, once promising actress with a declining career does a nudie part in a "B" movie. Ho hum! No, no, no! Wrong! No matter what you may think of the film (and I enjoy films about the fifties) if you pass on this one you'll be missing one of the better performances of that year. Ms. Moll was every bit as much Bettie as Ms. Theron was Aileen. Unfortunately Aileen, to the film-going public, is the more sympathetic character. For whatever reason, an amoral, sociopathic killer is less embarrassing to us than a naïve, unsophisticated, uninhibited, religious girl whose most capital crime was to live her life totally trusting and completely exposed. Bettie Page was one of the icons of the fifties. Her photos and films never sexual, never pornographic, but she presented as a near caricature of all things kinky. There was no sense of realism, only parody. Ms. Moll captured the very essence of the character. She gained 20 pounds to add some zaftig to her normally slim figure and when she posed for various photographers in the film, her body was Bettie's. Her full frontal lack of any inhibitions accurately fits everything which has been published about Bettie. Cinematic nudity normally depicts eroticism or sexuality. In this film it's all about innocence. Seeing Gretchen/Bettie nude didn't make me want to jump her but instilled a desire to protect her from all the horrors that people can inflict on each other. If you pass on this film you'll be missing out on one of the best performances of recent years. By the way, shame on the MPAA for giving this an R rating. | 1pos
|
I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film. | 0neg
|
When I was young I had seen very few movies. My parents in all their wisdom rented this one. I was very wary of what the movie was about, in fact I wasn't even allowed to watch it. My brother and sister got to of course and this made me very angry. So what did I do? Late at night I trashed the VCR! Kicked the screen of the TV in and called the police and reported vandals. I was arrested of course, I was unable to get my foot out of the TV set before the police arrived. I was only given a stern talking to and sent home. My parents grounded me of course and made me work to repay the debt for the TV and VCR. This tore me apart, slave labour really sucks believe me, but I had to do it. Chores all around the house. What happened in the end? We got a big screen TV, DVD player and a surround sound system for my work. How did I get the money? Easy I made movies of my own and sold them to Disney! Do you remember Finding Neno? Well I wrote that movie and filmed my goldfish in their fish tanks! They rewrote the plot of course and did it in CGI because they couldn't afford to make it a real life action picture like I had done! In the end I never saw the film The Head that didn't die and the rating I gave it is my life rating! It's doing pretty good! | 1pos
|
Lately I have been watching a lot of Tom Hanks films and old Chaplin films and even some of Rowan Atkinson's early Bean performances, and it seems that all of them have their own unique charm that permeates throughout their work, something that allows them to identify with audience members of all ages, in a way that just makes you feel good. A Bug's Life has that same charm, it has a connection with real life that allows us to easily suspend disbelief and accept a lot of talking insects, because even though they talk, they still ACT just like real bugs. It's like the team that made the movie found a way to bring us into the mind of a child and allow us to think like them, to imagine bugs the way a young mind does.<br /><br />Honey, I Shrunk The Kids was one of my favorite films when I was younger, and to me, A Bug's Life is like a more realistic version of that movie, if only because the animation is so breathtaking and this style of story-telling just opens up so many more narrative possibilities. I try not to compare it to something like Toy Story (which I still maintain is the best computer animated film ever made), because the story of A Bug's Life is not quite as good as Toy Story's, but then again, almost nothing is. The important thing is that it is still wonderful fun. <br /><br />The story concerns a colony of hard working bugs who have an impressively developed society, mostly geared around building a harvest of food, most of which will go to the tyrannical grasshoppers, vastly superior in strength and general meanness, and hopefully still leave enough left over for the bugs to make it through the winter. We are treated to some visits from the grasshoppers, who make it clear that if the bugs provide an unsatisfactory quantity of food, the consequences will be dire. And incidentally, the similarities between this crippling level of food extraction is strikingly similar to Mao Tse-tung's vicious forcing of food from his own people during the "Great Leap Forward
"<br /><br />The fun and excitement begins when Flik, the main character, sets off on a quest to find a gang of appropriate warrior bugs to come back and help defend the colony against the grasshoppers. You see, he spilled all of the amassed food and placed everyone in great danger, so he feels it's his responsibility, but he inadvertently ends up hiring a struggling group of insect circus performers. Great for the audience, not so great for the safety of the clan. <br /><br />The movie was released back in the late 90s, when so many films seemed to have been coming out in twos, like Armageddon and Deep Impact, Independence Day and The Arrival, A Bug's Life and Antz, etc. Comparisons between A Bug's Life and Antz are inevitable, although it seems clear to me that A Bug's Life is by far the superior film, and not only because it doesn't star Woody Allen stuttering and whining through the lead role. This is great family fun! | 1pos
|
When you actually find a video game to be scary or disturbing, you know that the developers have done some very serious and hard work to make the whole thing work. Undying used the Unreal engine but had very little resemblance to that game when it came to actual gameplay. Speaking of gameplay, the pace is slowed down and the sheer difficulty in progressing through the very hard to kill enemies makes for a very unqiue gameplay experience. The production values are so high that you may even forget that it is a video game. The game itself is also packed with loads of secrets that you have to uncover using special vision. The level design in fantastic and the weapons as well as the enemies will really shock you. | 1pos
|
I think that Elisabeth Rohm, though she may try hard, is not very good at all. I guess it was because of budget that she may have been the only one they could get for that price. I mainly watched it for the performance of Myron Natwick, whose work I know very well.<br /><br />He was the most believable and without doubt the most compelling to watch. When he wasn't on the screen, the thing went dead. This was filmed in Vancouver. He gave me the creeps, but be assured that in real life he is a kind, funny compassionate man. He even said playing that role gave him the creeps.<br /><br />I'll watch anything with him in it, but Elisabeth Rohm - never again. She was as exciting as lint on Law and Order. Maybe a very nice person, but no actress. | 0neg
|
So the wife and I just finished it despite several threats from both of us to turn it off. For the most part boredom was the worst part of this movie, there was just very little excitement. The acting was atrocious, to the point where we actually chuckled several times during some of the worse scenes (the church lady for example). The dead sister was using paranormal means to contact her living twin, although rather then send useful information she focused on trying to scare the hell out of her instead which looked a lot like The Ring. Rather then get the police involved -- which I'm sure those earplugs she found would have DNA all over them -- she instead devises a horrible plan to 'get' the man who covered up the accidental death of her sister. I call it a horrible plan because in the end she allows him to kill her too, which the movie then fades to black. Bad dialog, bad acting, bad ending. | 0neg
|
Those familiar with the two previous Cube films pretty much know what they can expect: a small group of people trapped inside a bunch of booby trapped rooms, paranoia, bad acting... This one is a bit different though. Roughly half of the film takes place outside the cube, where we get to watch the people watching the people inside the cube (or at least five of them).<br /><br />I guess Cube Zero aspires to explain what the deal with the cube is, but you really don't get to know much more than what was covered in the two first films. Sure, there's sort of an explanation in there, but it feels pretty lame compared to what was suggested in the first film.<br /><br />Cube Zero looks rather cheap (as did its predecessors), and the fact that it shows more than just a couple of empty rooms only emphasizes this feeling. I also fell pretty confident in saying that there's no risk that any of the actors will win any awards in the foreseeable future. They have brought back the traps from Cube 1, though, (by that I mean that they're almost the same ones, which is a bit of a shame).<br /><br />I know that many people kind of appreciate this film and its ties with the first one, but I just feel that it's a completely unnecessary contribution to a franchise that wasn't that great to begin with. [1/10] | 0neg
|
I saw this movie about a week ago and still keep thinking about it. I was very moved by this movie. I found the characters very believable and likable almost to a fault. As in real life though sometimes people disappoint, as was the case with Leo, who even though I liked his character I could not have been more disappointed when he was willing to have unprotected sex even though fully aware of his HIV status. I was also disappointed with Leo for rejecting the medicine available to him, and the awful way he treated Marcel when he decided to ship him back home on the train. I think this movie showed in a very real way why HIV numbers are up in young gay men. This is in no way meant to bash gays (I am gay) and movie very well could have been made about a young straight person who makes bad choices and seems unaware of the consequences to himself and others. The only part of the movie I couldn't understand was why the (gay friendly) family was unwilling to include Marcel in Leo's illness to the point of not allowing him to go to the funeral.<br /><br />I think the biggest message from this movie is that whether gay or straight is DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX! | 1pos
|
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie. | 0neg
|
I wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night. | 0neg
|
This movie is an exact copy of a TV series on Indian television channel doordarshan Which was aired at least 15 years ago. The series was known as "gubbarre" meaning balloons. Each episode was a new short story. The story is excellent and the original is much sweeter and "convincing" Abhay Doel does a good job but he doesn't fit the role of a "normal" and "third class" guys(as he calls himself in the movie). In fact Shayan Munshi with his hair cut short and without the designer clothes would have fitted the Abhays role but Shayan just doesn't have the talent to pull it off.<br /><br />I would suggest watching the series if it is available. It is the same story except for the running around with the friends mother and the initial introduction. The acting of the TV actors was much better than these "stars".<br /><br />The only reason this movies is a flop is because the director tried to stretch half an hour(or 45 minutes) story to 2+ hours. So it has to get draggy. Even the nasal singing sensations songs could not make up.<br /><br />This movies is good for a lazy Sunday afternoon and is really refreshing if you haven't watched the original TV serial. The script and the ending of the serial was much better<br /><br />#####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### THe ending of the original serial was much stronger as the hero himself dumps the girl even thought she is willing to marry him. HE is aware and tell her that he doesn't want to be "repayed" and never helped with that intention. The director or the script writes somehow could not capture the original ending in this film. The original ending would have bought tears to the girls eyes and would have had the guys nodding in agreement. The deliver just wasn't right.<br /><br />But personally I feel this is a pathetic copy. No credit should be given to the director/scriptwriter. The story is amazing and is by one of the famous novel writers int he class of PRemchand munshi. I am not sure if this is premchand munshi's story but many of the other short stories int he series feature a few of premchand munshi's and other great Hindi writers stories. | 1pos
|
The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano....... | 1pos
|
Before I begin, you need to know that I am a huge fan of many of Sonny Chiba's films. His biographical series of the life of his master, Mas Oyama, were amazing and among the best martial arts films ever made, as were most of his Street Fighter films. The action was practically non-stop and with the possible exception of Bruce Lee (depending on who you ask), he was the greatest martial arts practitioner on film during the 1970s. Because they are so good, I've seen at least 15 of his films and recently bought some more (which I am in the process of watching).<br /><br />Unfortunately, despite my love of these films, I am NOT a mind-numbed zombie who worships the man to such a degree that I rate EVERY film a 10. There are a few reviews like this here on IMDb and I truly think that anyone giving this film a 10 should be ignored because this is such a bad film from a technical standpoint and isn't even close to the being Chiba's best work. A score of 10 isn't a real rating--it's some zombie fan trying to make a statement about Chiba, not this film! As I said, technically this film is awful. Some of this was the result of my seeing the American dubbed version, with its irrelevant prologue and bad dubbing. But most of the problem would still exist with the original Japanese print. The camera-work is simply atrocious--like it was done by chimps (smart chimps, but still chimps nonetheless). Often, much of the fast martial arts action is missed because the camera is so slow or the tops of the actors heads are clipped off due to the shoddiness of production. And, again and again, the camera pans in and out like it is a new toy being used by an idiot plus the editing is beyond wretched--with cuts being done haphazardly and confusingly.<br /><br />I don't know whether the musical score is original or not--but it was also very, very bad. Sort of like acid rock of 1970 blended poorly with Ennio Morricone's "Spaghetti Western" music--it was annoying, distracting and just plain silly.<br /><br />As for the martial arts action, I think that having chimps do the choreography would have improved things a bit. Instead of the great fight scenes you'd look forward to in a Chiba film, the fights are too brief and often missed by the camera!! So what you are left with is the story...and this MIGHT just be the worst part of the film! It's supposed to be an anti-drug film starring Sonny Chiba as....Sonny Chiba! And when the film begins, he vows to destroy the drug trade in Japan. But, the Mafia (complete with not a single member who looks Italian, but who are ALL Japanese) vows to stop Chiba. And, when a lady comes to Chiba with promises to give him information about how to destroy the drug trade, he agrees to help her and risk his life with no conditions--even though she's NEVER forthright about telling him what she knows! In fact, later it turns out she is just trying to use Chiba to protect her while she herself sells a huge briefcase full of cocaine--and he CONTINUES trying to protect her!! This makes no sense at all and throughout much of the film it looks as if they just shot the film without a script--such as when they went into the bars and brothels and had Chiba walking about as if he was drunk.<br /><br />So if it was THAT bad, why still does it merit a 3? Well, first, there are many more horrid marital arts films (such as many of those from Hong Kong in the 1970s)--including one with guys dressed up in gorilla suits doing kung fu and their handlers with 3 foot long tongues they used for fighting (now THAT'S bad). Second, while the action is very bad compared to other Sonny Chiba films, compared to its contemporaries, it's not that bad. Still, you could easily do a lot better than this horrid little film.<br /><br />By the way, if you are wondering if this is the worst Sonny Chiba film, it certainly is not! In one of his first films, INVASION OF THE NEPTUNE MEN, Chiba plays a leotard-wearing super-hero who battles pointy-headed invaders from the planet Neptune. It's so bad that it rivals PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN for awfulness.<br /><br />A final note to parents--Like most of Sonny Chiba's films, this one is very violent and has its share of boobies. DON'T let little kids watch this no matter how much they beg! Make them wait until they are older before you let them watch wretched rated-R martial arts films! | 0neg
|
I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!! | 1pos
|
The Blob is a classic 1950s B-movie sci-fi flick. You probably know the story: two teens (Steve McQueen & Aneta Corsaut) see a meteorite hit the ground, and when they go to look for it, they run into an old man with some weird...blob attached to his arm. They take him to the doctor's office, and then go to find out what happened. From there, the blob spreads, eating everyone in its path. The special effects are cheesy fun, as is the story. There are a lot of great touches, like the cop who plays chess over the radio with a cop in another district. It's no masterpiece, but it has a special place in its genre. Steve McQueen is very good. 8/10. | 1pos
|
I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.<br /><br />I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical. | 1pos
|
This isn't Masterpiece Theater. You shouldn't go into it expecting that. This is pure girl FUN with the most fantastic cast of female leads. Like someone else here said, this is the film Baby Mama was meant to be. And the only downside I see to this film is that Tina Fey was not in it- besides that it stars the smartest and brightest girls on the planet. The film is pure silliness on the surface, but if you really watch you will know it has a lot of messages and deep meaning to any of us who wish they could go back and do it all over again in life knowing then what we know now. PURE FUN and I recommend it to anyone looking for 84 minutes of great escape. | 1pos
|
There is a certain genius behind this movie. I was laughing throughout. The scene in the phone sex office, discussing how love heals the doppelganger was a nice attempt at this genius/humor. Execution is poor, but you can see the writer's message and they do have some talent. The doppelganger split at the end was like... "ok, wasn't quite expecting that but let's see what the movie has to say". Certainly ridiculous, but a sweet idea and actually very coherent to the story in a strange way.<br /><br />Is the point of a movie to be logical or is it to be entertaining or communicate on an emotional level? i'm easily bored by many movies, but this one kept my interest throughout.<br /><br />I think the story may have some auto-biographical roots, but that's just a guess. Horribly bad, but good. I'm looking for other movies this person may have done (with more experience). | 1pos
|
At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, "What was the plot again?" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from "The Matrix," although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about "Star Wars" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The "Morpheus" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! | 0neg
|
There is not much more I can say about this movie than all of the commentaries on page one, except - as Jesse says - "it's the berries". All of page one's commentators wrote eloquently - as almost so as the dialog is in this movie. This just may be one of those illusive things we hear so much about, but usually are made so by the actors who deliver the lines: a beautiful script. Maybe Robert Redford did hold strict sway onto the actors/actresses during the filming of this movie, so that the beauty of the story would not get lost.<br /><br />I, too, attended church when I was very young and into my late teens. The church's pastor spoke very eloquently and quietly as the Rev. Maclean did in his church. That, in itself, is a totally different picture that is portrayed of Southern Baptist churches - no holy-rollering in my church. It was a big church, with many different programs to keep its congregation busy - the most inspiring perhaps was the music-department with its huge choir and almost classical anthems. Too, the Sunday evening-congregation was almost entirely younger people. Are you even aware it was once safe to go to church on Sunday night? How I wish it still was ! Watching "A River Runs through It" is very much like going to hear a beautiful sermon in a church whose members are fully involved in life. As has already been so beautifully written, the sermon for this movie is the open-space beauties of Montana - yet, aren't there also missile-silos there, too? Fly-fishing or any other activity which draws family-members closer together for a happy life - and deep understanding of one another - becomes a blessing. Although you see some of the shadier aspects of life then, too, the simplicity of the story paints a lasting impression on your heart, if you let it. Speakeasies and prostitutes are counter-balanced by the simple gatherings of old-fashioned, community picnics as this movie contains - in heavy contrasts to modern families taking their kids to Disney Land for screeching joyrides and calling it "a day together". There is noting wrong with that, but as "River" demonstrates, some of its taciturn beauty could do nothing but make life richer. This is the third film I've seen in which Tom Skeritt (?) plays a father, all different styles and brilliantly acted.<br /><br />Brad Pitt, mostly an undiscovered talent except for "Thelma and Louise" and "Meet Joe Black", and all of the cast-members deserved many awards. Little stories superbly told will get 10-of-10 from me over any movie with violence, foul language, ugliness and "action". I am thinking particularly of "Crash" and most of "Arnold's" movies. What a savior for peace this movie is. | 1pos
|
Alice(Claire Danes) and Darlene(Kate Beckinsale) have been best friends since forever and after they graduate they decide to take a trip to Thailand. Due to a incident, they meet a young attractive mysterious stranger who invites them to go with him Hong Kong for the weekend. But at the airport, Alice and Darlene are mistaken for drug smuggling heroine and they are sent to prison. Now it's time for ultimate survival and true friendship. This was a pretty good movie, i've seen it a couple of times and after a while you notice that they are a few holes in the plot but the movie still keeps you entertained. Claire Danes did a great job as usual, she is a great actress. I would give Brokedown Palace 8/10 | 1pos
|
MEN OF HONOR features Cuba Gooding Jr., in what is probably his best performance to date. He plays Carl Brashear, a man of towering courage and heroism. He's a poor dirt farmer from the South, who wants to become a Navy diver- but has problems because of his race. The head of the diving school, played by Robert DeNiro, is a racist redneck that nonetheless grows to respect Brashear. The film is about how Brashear has to concur the nearly insurmountable odds, not once but twice. The performances are what make this film special. Gooding is great, and DeNiro, the best actor in movie history, gives a towering performance- his best dramatic work in years. Charlize Theron gives another solid performance as DeNiro's much younger wife. The film lays on the patriotism a little too strong (though no where near the level it was in THE PATRIOT), and a few of the characters are just one dimensionally bad (Hal Holbrook's Mr. Pappy is just so evil), but the film is a rarity among films today. It's uplifting and uncynical. A wonderful film. | 1pos
|
The best martial arts movie ever made. This one movie is better than anything Bruce Lee ever did. A classic with a thoroughly entertaining and brutal climax. Jackie Chan is the king of martial arts movies and the true king of kung fu.It's a great pity that whilst Bruce Lee had been so overrated, it took Jackie Chan an eternity to become popular in Europe and America. Jackie rules!!!! | 1pos
|
For some reason, in the late 70's and early 80's the local CBS affiliated station in New York kept playing this movie in it's late-night slot on Friday or Saturday nights for several years, usually at 2 a.m. or some such time. It's a fitting movie for that time slot since it's really hard to follow and quite odd (see the other reviews for specific story info). Anyway, after catching it numerous times in those days just before cable TV (And even after it hit but before they offered much all night programming), I kept catching this little oddity. After not seeing it for many years I decided to see if I could find it on DVD. Well, it is only available (from every search i've conducted anyway)in a pretty lousy grainy print on the budget label "Brentwood Video" as part of a 4-pack of movies (4 movies on 2 double sided discs)called "Alien Worlds" if anyone is interested. It's usually available for around $10-but even much less if you shop around. The other 3 movies on this set are readily available in numerous other collections of public domain movies, so no need to comment on them here. But I haven't seen "Eyes" available anywhere else. Though hardly a "restored" version in any way, this print runs exactly 92 minutes, so for once IMDb's stated running time of 90 minutes is not correct. Even with the 92 minute running time it's not unusual for a movie dubbed into English from another language to also have some of the running time trimmed. It seems to be a common budget-conscience practice to sometimes save money by not bothering to dub some scenes at all if they are not considered to be important to the story. Would a longer version make in any less confusing? Who really knows-unless you've seen it in it's native language... By the way, my attempts to watch this during the day don't work and I end up just turning it off. There's something about watching this in the middle of the night that just fits this movie..or maybe it's just from my earlier experiences, who know?? | 0neg
|
I was watching this when my wife called to inquire from the other room as to my choice of fare. My comment? "I am watching my Life!"<br /><br />Though younger, but only by 5 years or so, than the "Rocket Boys" I remember the absolute urgency with which Sputnick was greeted by our administrators of education and how the whole Science Fair thing gained momentum and took me and others into the competitive whirlwind. My own tornado landed me in my own State's Science Fair, in Physics by '62, though our group was less successful in gaining the support of, for example, firefighters we approached for guidance and counsel until after a tragic event, our city went so far as to allow us to tour the Nike missile site on Chicago's lakeshore.<br /><br />This movie brought it all back for me and I will bet that it brought it all back for a bunch of us "UberNerds" of the late '50s and early 60's.<br /><br />We are in a similar science brain drainage period now and really need this movie as a country. See It! | 1pos
|
Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.<br /><br />* out of **** | 0neg
|
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.<br /><br />'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.<br /><br />Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.<br /><br />'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin. | 0neg
|
The story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10) | 1pos
|
I have to admit that Holly was not on my watch list for the Edinburgh Film Festival. However, after the Artistic Director of the Festival specifically recommended this film to an audience of over 200 people prior to the screening of another film, I decided to go to see it. Wow! <br /><br />This film is dealing with the very difficult issue of child prostitution and does so without any compromise. I have found myself crying a number of times during the movie and laughing at others. Speaking about an emotional roller coaster.<br /><br />The lead actor (Thuy Nguyen) is a Vietnamese newcomer (who was only 14 at the time of filming) and had to tackle this incredibly complex and difficult role. She reminded me of Keisha Castle-Hughes from Whale Rider but the role here is much more demanding as she has to play a child prostitute. Chances are that she will win numerous awards.<br /><br />The main story is about a girl who was sold to prostitution by her family and held as a sex-slave in a brothel in Cambodia. She meets an American (played by Ron Livingston in a strong dramatic role that we are not used to see from him), who after spending some time with her decides to help her. By that time however, she is sold again and he is going on a search for her around Cambodia. The story turns and twists and the audience can never predict what will happen next.<br /><br />The acting was strong across the board with a very interesting international cast. Udo Kier (very convincing as a sex tourist), Virgine Ledoyen (touching as a social worker) and Chris Penn (one of his last movies). The Asian cast was also superb.<br /><br />Although the film deals with this difficult subject matter it focuses successfully on telling a compelling, powerful story. It was shot in Cambodia (some scenes in real operating brothels) which adds to the feeling that you are almost watching a documentary. It seems that the DP used a lot of hand held camera and close-ups and overall it made you feel like you are right there as part of the story.<br /><br />After the screening, I was listening to other members of the audience as they left and it seemed that they were all stunned. This is not an easy film to watch and I salute the filmmakers for not making a "Hollywood Film."<br /><br />It is by far the best film I have seen in the Edinburgh Film Festival. Opinion shared by my husband and a couple of other friends. | 1pos
|
This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
i cannot believe i wasted 80 minutes of my life watching this terrible film i kept hoping it was going to get better by the end but boy was I wrong. The plot was abysmal , the acting was extremely poor and the special effects were awful. Not even the 2 beautiful girls could revive my interest in this boring and bloody mess. However i cannot lie ,some of the lines in this film were quite memorable such as when the Asian boy says '' i lost my virginity to the babysitter so f**** stereotypes ''<br /><br />please do not waste your time with this crash unless u are prepared or want to have a good laugh .. maybe that way u can watch it to rip this movie with some mates | 0neg
|
Not much to say on this one. A plot you can pretty much peg, in the first 10 minutes. Nothing overly wrong with this film, very little action for an action film. There was a chance to explore the characters emotions occasionally. Whether an action film is the right genre to do that with, I'm still undecided. Sniper was one of the easiest films to watch without giving full attention to, as it had little twists and a straightforward plot. I was probably guilty of that, so with a second watch or with undivided attention it may be better.<br /><br />4/10 (but the best of my 4 out of 10's) | 0neg
|
here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.<br /><br />(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards. <br /><br />It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.<br /><br />On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless. <br /><br />At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing. | 0neg
|
I am amazed at how this movie(and most others has a average 5 stars and lower when there are crappy movies averaging 7 to 10 stars on IMDb. The fanboy mentality strikes again. When this movie came out just about everyone slammed it. Even my ex-girlfriend said this movie questionable. Years later I sat down to watch this movie and I found myself enjoying. Even laughing quite a bit. This and The Replacement Killers are the movies that had people labeling the director Antoine Fuqua as the black Michael Bay. I don't see how since most of Fuqua's movies are smarter than anything Michael Bay has came up with. At any rate...<br /><br />Story: Alvin Sanders(Jamie Foxx) is former convict that is used by a no-nonsense Treasury agent Edgar(David Morse) as a pawn to catch a killer named Bristol(Doug Hutchinson). Alvin's every moves are tracked by a bug implanted in his jaw after an accident. While these agents are after Bristol, Bristol is after the gold bricks that were taken in a heist gone awry.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx is funny as well as great as Alvin Sanders. Alvin is a fast-talker that is a lot smarter than he lets on. Doug Hutchinson is okay as Bristol. He can be over-the-top sometimes in his John Malkovitchesque demeanor. He was better here than he was as Looney Bin Jim in Punisher: War Zone. David Morse is good as the hard edged treasury agent. Even Mike Epps is funny as Alvin's brother Stevie. Both him and Jamie had some funny moments on screen.<br /><br />The only flaw of the movie is the some of the attempts at a thriller fall flat. The scenario at the horse race track is way over-the-top but I couldn't look away. The director went all out there so he gets points for that. Plus the bomb scene with the treasury agent tied to a chair while the detonator rests on the door was pretty nifty.<br /><br />All in all Bait is not a bad movie by a long shot. Its never boring, its always funny and I wasn't checking my watch every minute. That should count for something. Bait is one of the most underrated movies of 2000 period.<br /><br />PS: to the reviewer that claimed this movie is too violent.... How long have you been living under a rock? I'm pretty sure you've seen the Die Hard series and EVERY movie by Quentin Tarantino. But those movies aren't violent right? Weirdo. | 1pos
|
Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role. | 0neg
|
This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying. | 0neg
|
Largely dense road movie with some comic relief provided by the excellent John Cleese (although he is really sending up his performance in Fawlty Towers). Seems to flip from over the top slapstick to slushy sentimentality at the drop of a hat, and the worst part of the film is that Martin and Hawn have to "find themselves", who they are, etc. See it at your peril. | 0neg
|
The trick to creating a good, solid mystery story is as much a matter of timing as its about plot contrivances, colorful characters or surprising twists. Anyone who has ever labored in frustration with an un-finishable Sunday New York Times crossword knows that any puzzle that takes too long to solve ceases to be any fun. The best murder mysteries, be they on film or in print, are slight affairs that get to the point, spell out their clues, line up their suspects and, hopefully, zap us with a few surprises; being complicated without being unduly confusing. And they play fair; on second, third and fourth viewings of the clues and red herrings we should be just as pleased to marvel at how well it all comes together as we were at being surprised in the first place. Indeed, good thrillers should get better on repeated viewings as we anticipate the double and triple crosses.<br /><br />Sidney Lumet's comedy-thriller DEATHTRAP, as derived from Ira Levin's hit Broadway play, is a great example. It moves along at a tidy clip, skillfully juggling its clues, being (almost) totally honest with us (even when it is lying to us) and yet never revealing where it is going (even when it is telling us where it might go). It is less a murder mystery movie in the traditional vane than it is a movie about murder mysteries, derived from a play about playwriting. Rather than going backward -- a murder and then an investigation to explain why everything happened -- DEATHTRAP leads us through the crime(s) step by step, leaving ample room for the unexpected; as the ads advise it is less a "whodunit" than a "who'lldoit." <br /><br />DEATHTRAP is often compared (unfavorably, oddly enough) to the play and movie versions of SLEUTH, though in reality it has much more in common with SCREAM, the self-mocking essay on teeny-bopper horror flicks. Like that clever film, DEATHTRAP labels itself (a thriller about thrillers), sets it parameters ("a one-set, five character moneymaker") and then proceeds to deconstruct its genre by revealing itself as "the most outlandish and preposterous set of circumstances entertaining enough to persuade an audience to suspend its disbelief." <br /><br />DEATHTRAP bravely gives us a mystery with only five major characters, two of which are of minimum importance. Henry Jones as a cagey lawyer is on hand mostly for exposition (and to supply us with his penchant for folksy charm) and Irene Worth is all quirks and comic relief as a psychic-cum-sleuth who acts as the nominal detective. That leaves three main characters to be the killer(s) and/or the victim(s): It is a testament to Michael Caine's abilities that as Sidney Bruhl, a down-on-his-luck author of mystery plays, he creates a character who we intrinsically like and trust, even as we recognize immediately that almost everything he says is a lie. As his adoring, if somewhat ditzy wife, Myra, Dyan Canon flirts with being over the top by giving a roller-coaster ride of a performance with a character that by turns seems to be frail or overbearing, crafty or hysterical, timid or bold and uncompromisingly in love with a less than reciprocating Sidney. The third angle of this unexpected triangle is a fledgling playwright named Clifford Anderson played by Christopher Reeve in such a way that we never quite get a handle on just who his character is: enthusiastic preppie wannabe writer, semi-innocent victim or cunningly charming sociopath. As the various character dance around each other, the cleverly dour script adapted by ace scribe Jay Presson Allen manages to be consistently amusing, even as it builds suspense. And even after the final twist (an improvement over the play's finale), it may not be quite clear just who has manipulated who to do what.<br /><br />Lumet is by no means a master of comedy, so he lets his able cast have free reign to flesh out the characters and they all give sharp, theatrical, yet subtle work, with Reeve being particularly noteworthy. But what Lumet does so well is to work skillfully in tight quarters. As he did brilliantly in 12 ANGRY MEN, he takes a one-set play, and with a minimum of opening up, manages to make what could have been cramped, stagy and stagnant seem endlessly photogenic and spacious. The setting, a country home converted from an old windmill, is relatively small, but as designed by Tony Walton it manages to be both cozy and charming, as well as spooky and treacherous. It is so truly difficult to tell where the studio set and the real country house cross boundaries that to a degree the set becomes a sixth character. And as the scene of the crime, it is a most inviting deathtrap indeed. | 1pos
|
I rented the video of "The Piano Teacher" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, "This movie is boring." About half way through I was saying to myself, "Where have I seen this before?" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.<br /><br />In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, "That Cold Day in the Park." Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing "new" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's "M. Butterfly" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be "shocking," "shattering," etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of "The Piano Teacher."<br /><br />Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4/10. | 0neg
|
It's always tough having a sibling doing better in their life than you, always a struggle to get out from under that shadow and not let bitterness keep you away from your family. So, imagine that your older brother is Santa and then imagine how tough that must be. That's the premise here.<br /><br />Vince Vaughn plays the titular Fred, an embittered loser who spends a lot of his energy making sure that people don't go around expecting good things to happen to them or giving his brother, Santa (played by Paul Giamatti), too much praise for simply being the limelight-hogging, fame-hungry, slightly creepy guy that Fred would want to portray him as. Then, wouldn't you know it, Fred needs a financial favour and so has to make up for it by helping his brother on the run up to Christmas. And hilarity and life lessons ensue.<br /><br />Well, that's what should happen. The reality is that we get a Christmas movie featuring a few good moments of Vaughn's patented fast-talking, a ridiculously out-of-nowhere music video moment, Kevin Spacey playing an auditor out to close down Santa's operation (and he's one of the weakest baddies I have seen in some time), not enough of the gorgeous Elizabeth Banks in a lush Christmas outfit, too much of John Michael Higgins in his elf outfit (to be fair, he's a highlight though) and a movie that's too swimming in bitterness to feel like good seasonal fare yet too schmaltzy in it's latter half to feel like a fun poke at all the bad things about the commercialism of the time.<br /><br />Rachel Weisz is along for the ride too, as is Kathy Bates, but it's really nothing more than a movie for Vaughn and if you like his style you will find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, there's very little else to recommend this seasonal stinker. Outside of Vaughn's rantings the script barely throws up anything decent with the exception of one particularly good scene involving a hilarious support group dealing with a very specific problem.<br /><br />David Dobkin's direction is as mediocre and staid as the 20p Christmas card that you send the auntie you haven't seen in 10 years and he seems to think that simply putting the ingredients together without a good mix or decent care taken will guarantee a delicious Christmas pudding. Nope, we get a burnt, bland lump with too much sugar on top. Forget this and stick the hilarious Elf on again if you want a great, modern Christmas comedy.<br /><br />See this if you like: The Santa Clause 2, Santa Baby, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause. | 0neg
|
I've heard people who say this movie is dull dull dull. I don't think they were watching the right movie. This isn't the prototypical action movie, thank God.<br /><br />This is a psychological drama about the rookie and his mentor that just happens to be about killing people. In this way it works extremely well, with terrific performances from Berenger and Zane (who doesn't sleepwalk through the movie like he has in other roles - he actually looks like he's acting).<br /><br />I was disappointed with the action towards the end - a lot of it didn't make much sense and was unsatisfying given the buildup from the rest of the movie. But watch Zane's face as he panics, alone, while Berenger does the dirty work. | 1pos
|
I found it highly interesting that the film actually managed to bridge the gap between my own american culture and that of the originators, i.e. chinese. It becomes a story about values, and causes the watcher to reevaluate their own choices in life, and loyalties toward institutions. Amazingly enough, it managed to do this in a gentle, mildly humorous manner, which only in retrospect seens threatening to one's status quo. I enjoyed the movie, and would watch it again if I could. | 1pos
|
Possible spoilers.<br /><br />Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a "He Said, She Said" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.<br /><br />The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film. | 0neg
|
Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it. | 0neg
|
I love the movies and own the comics, the comics are different then the movie but still I'd give it: 10 out of 10. It was awesome. If the movies got anymore awesome. I would have her babies. And I am female. Read the comics you won't regret it. Yes in this movie since Brian P. the artist for her died we don't get nearly as good artistic work. I mean seriously don't get me wrong these people did great, but different versions for different people. Different Strokes for different folks as the saying goes. Any guy who doesn't go bonkers over her is insane, or does not like women, or you know just plan insane. If I could count on my fingers how in love and how many times I have read the comics I would run out of fingers for sure, but hey there is always toes. | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.