text
stringlengths 53
8.97k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
"Drawing Restraint 9" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with "killing whales is bad" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word "propaganda" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where "good" and "bad" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.<br /><br />In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, "Drawing Restraint 9" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.<br /><br />And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.<br /><br />2/10. | 0neg
|
Come on, what is the deal with this show, Power Rangers anyways? I always felt that the show, which was originally brought over from Japan in a better form, took what was great in Japan, and turned into one of the most ridiculous and pointless excuses in toy merchandising history! There is absolutely no point with this show whatsoever.<br /><br />The bad haircuts, bad costumes, earrings, etc, all show what was ridiculous back in the 1990s From the two idiots, Bulk and Skull, to the "duhs", of the main cast, Jason, Trini, Tommy, Kimberly, Billy and Zack, I just want to say one thing: GIVE ME A BREAK!<br /><br />Saban brought this from Japan, and then Disney bought the rights to this show around five years ago.<br /><br />Now the public has to endure reruns of this show on the Disney channel and such.<br /><br />All I can say once again is give me a break! | 0neg
|
This was Eddie Robinson's 101st film and his last, and he died of cancer nine days after shooting was complete. All of which makes his key scene in the movie all the more poignant.<br /><br />Although some of the hair and clothing styles are a bit dated (also note the video game shown in the film), but the subject of the film is pretty much timeless. Heston said he had wanted to make the film for some time because he really believed in the dangers of overpopulation.<br /><br />Several things make this film a classic. The story is solid.<br /><br />The acting is top-notch, especially the interplay between Heston and Robinson, with nice performances also by Cotten and Peters.<br /><br />The music is absolutely perfect. The medley of Beethoven, Grieg, and Tchaikovsky combined with the pastoral visual elements make for some truly moving scenes. This was the icing on the cake for the film.<br /><br />And the theme (or the "point") of the film is a significant one. Yes, it's a film about overpopulation, but on a more important note it's a cautionary tale about what can go wrong with Man's stewardship of Earth. It's in the subtext that you find the real message of the film. Pay attention to what Sol says about the "old days" of the past (which is our present), and note how Thorn is incapable of comprehending what Sol is saying.<br /><br />This film is one of my top sci-fi films of all time. | 1pos
|
As I watched this movie I began to feel very nostalgic. As a child growing up in a rural area I felt as if I was a kid again! The swimming pond (it's called a "tank" in Central Texas), the running through the countryside like a wild free spirit! The story was very believable and I totally lost it and cried toward the end. Through the pain we go through in life...life goes on and there can be forgiveness. | 1pos
|
You want to see the movie "THE Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions. This is not that movie. This movie is not funny. It is a waste of time.<br /><br />All of the good comments here seem to be written by (poorly disguised) false third parties. The people who made this movie seem to be attempting to synthesize fake interest.<br /><br />This movie is not a well done mockumentary. Comparisons to "Spinal Tap" or Christopher Guest are insulting.<br /><br />The movie is so mean-spirited that I cannot imagine anyone familiar with the subject matter finding it funny. Being able to laugh at yourself is an important quality, but if you are the ones being lampooned in this manner, you'd have to hate yourself to enjoy it.<br /><br />The movie is not offensive because of its grand satire of taboo topics but because of its constant pathetic banality. | 0neg
|
Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy. | 0neg
|
Lloyd Bridges as Mike Nelson and his boat were all the stars of this series. What made it so good to me when I watched it was the real feel of going underwater. The show exhibits a youthful energy energy for exploration under water which is infectious.<br /><br />The show was educational as well showing the viewer things about scuba diving from someone who appeared to be a consummate pro, Mike Nelson. There were excellent shows, and the program always appeared to be well produced. Granted, the drama in the scripts sometimes hit the same notes in more than 1 episode but each show holds it's own with any other show produced during this era, the infancy of American television. | 1pos
|
This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.<br /><br />For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.<br /><br />I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.<br /><br />Avoid. | 0neg
|
What else can you say about this movie,except that it's plain awful.Tina Louise and Adam West are the reasons why to see this,but,that's it,but their talents are wasted in this junk.I think that they used a double in some of Adam's scenes,like when he's running because you can't see his face.If Adam was embarrassed in being in Zombie Nightmare,just think what he must've felt about appearing in this??? If it was before or after,I'm not sure,but,still,Zombie Nightmare is a classic(check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version first and last)compared to this.The gang is very annoying and over-acting by some of the actors.A rip-off of The Wild One starring Marlon Brando,of course.Tina looks stunning though.I hope her and Adam got a good paycheck!! Pass! | 0neg
|
I liked this show! I think it was nothing with wrong with it! Only that Spidey don't punch anyone but only for that the show doesn't suck! Some people only think this show is bad because of that. The story was great and it was fun when other heroes appeared like X-men, The Punisher, Daredevil and Iron Man! To bad Sandman never appear but i kinda like it! Best Spidey show ever!! My favorite episodes are: 1. Turning Point 2. Spider Wars 3. The Hobgoblin 4. The Alien Costume 5. Mutant Agenda<br /><br />But there are some episodes that was really really bad like: Rocket Racer and The Spot which was embarrassing to watch. And i don't like Morbius and Hydro Man. First of Morbius suck plasma instead of blood and i don't like vampires. And it irritates me that he was almost the main villain in Season 2. Of course i have to mentioned Hydro Man! He was terrible! I rather see Sandman! His last appearance was so terrible. And i don't like Spidey as the Man-spider!<br /><br />But i guess everything than this was bad! | 0neg
|
This movie is one of my favorites because it makes me think of all the choices I have made and how my life would change if my choices had been different. It plays right into the " Multiple Universe " theory.<br /><br />The only thing that doesn't ring true is how Larry Burrows ( James Belushi)has such a hard time understanding what is going on, that everything has changed.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I will always have a soft spot for this Disney flick, another of their part live action/part animation entries that sought to recreate the success of "Mary Poppins" and never quite made it. When I was in grade school, every once in a while we would have a movie day, where the whole school would crowd into the cafeteria, and a movie would be projected the old-fashioned way, multiple reels and all. At the time, it seemed like a momentous occasion whenever this day arrived, and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is one of the movies I can remember seeing this way.<br /><br />And from what I remember, it's quite charming. Angela Lansbury never put her name to anything that wasn't at least competent, and she's winning here as a witch with a magic bed (boy, that could be misconstrued, couldn't it?) who can take her and a couple of young kids on magic adventures to far-off places. Come on, what kid wouldn't want a bed like that? <br /><br />Grade: A | 1pos
|
I saw this by accident one lazy summer afternoon. It was playing on the family programming channel of HBO. At first I was drawn in, by what I thought was a Disney animation. But then, after a few minutes, I found myself searching for the remote, so I could find the 'INFO BUTTON', to find out what in the world was on my TV. I have nothing against Harvey F., I enjoy him in many of his films, but one thing he is not, is a voice-over artist. Sure he has one of the more unique voices in Hollywood, but it works only as a part of a bigger visual package. Attaching his voice to a cute duck made watching somewhat difficult. As for the rest of the cast, uninspired. I suppose working on this film didn't appeal to the really good voice over talent out there.<br /><br />So, weak voice talent, strong animation...who was this film targeting? Gay adolescent ducks? I don't get it. Is there really such a dearth of role-models for young up and coming homosexuals, that we must resort to animated ducks? Cute story, and like the title, this movie I found hard to love, just like an ugly duckling. | 0neg
|
I reached the end of this and I was almost shouting "No, no, no, NO! It cannot end here! There are too many unanswered questions! The engagement of the dishwashers? Mona's disappearance? Helmer's comeuppance? The "zombie"? Was Little Brother saved by his father? And what about the head???????" ARGH!! Then I read that at least two of the cast members had passed on and I have to say, I know it probably wouldn't be true to Lars von Trier's vision, but I would gladly look past replacement actors just to see the ending he had planned! Granted, it would be hard to find someone to play Helmer as the character deserves. Helmer, the doctor you love to hate! I think I have yet to see a more self-absorbed, oblivious, self-righteous character on screen! But, I could overlook a change in actors....I just have to know how it ends! | 1pos
|
"Moonstruck" is a movie that I liked the first time I watched it. I really liked it the second time. I loved it the third time. Now it is one of my all time favorites.<br /><br />The humor is subtle but really good. The film offers a lot of warmth humor. the story takes place in a old school Italian neighborhood in NYC. Cher's search for love is enjoyable to watch. This film is, by far, the best job Nicholas Cage has done on film. The old man character is fantastic. He lights up the screen without saying a word. The scene with his dogs howling at the moon was fantastic. But, perhaps the best character is the one played by Olympia Dukakis.<br /><br />The film's climax is a scene where the main characters have it out over a breakfast of oatmeal in the family kitchen. Exceptional direction and wrap up. | 1pos
|
I enjoyed a lot watching this movie. It has a great direction, by the already know Bigas Luna, born in Spain. And it is precisely in Spain that the movie takes place, in Cataluña, to be more precise.<br /><br />Luna explores once more the theme of an obcession, in this case the obcession of a young boy for the women's milk. There are some psychological concepts in this story such as the rejection complex that the elder son feels with the birth of his brother. In the movie this is what leads to the obcession of the young boy who suddenly sees all his mother's milk go to the recently born son. So he starts trying to find a breast who is able to feed him. He finds it in a woman recently arrived and from here on the movie is all around this.<br /><br />This movie lives a lot on imagery, more than the story itself, the espectator captures certain moments (unforgettable moments) and certain symbols (the movie deserves a thourough analyses on almost everything that happens because it usually means something...). The surroundings, the landscapes, typical from the region as well as the surreal behaviors of the characters, also symbolic, and the excelent ambiguous soundtrack by Nicola Piovani transport us to another dimension, not parallel to the real world, but which intersects it from times to times... Worth living in that world, worth watching this movie, even though we may eventually and for moments get tired and a bit sick with the excessive obcession, which is perhaps taken beyond the limits...<br /><br />I also enjoyed the performance of the protagonist... 8/10 | 1pos
|
Two years later... Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are becoming near rock stars in the present future but still needing more work in their instruments. In the future, Bill & Ted are in the public popular history but then a evil man (Joss Ackland) is set to kill Bill & Ted by sending cyborg look-likes to destroy them. Cyborgs are sent to the past present and they actually murder the real Bill & Ted. Now, Both guys are spirits and they have to travel through Heaven and Hell to save themselves and their future.<br /><br />Directed by Peter Hewitt (Tom and Huck, The Borrowers) made a clever sequel with terrific visual effects. Much more funny and entertaining than the original. William Sadler (The Shawshank Redemption) steals the show as The Grim Reaper.<br /><br />DVD has an good anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the theatrical trailer and an amusing behind the scenes featurette. This sequel was a Box Office hit like the original but it is also (Believe it or not), one of the best sequels ever made (depending on your point of view). George Carlin reprises his role from the original briefly. Pam Grier also appears in a bit role. It's a enjoyable fantasy comedy. (****/*****). | 1pos
|
The Human Tornado is a campy 70's Blaxploitation movie starring nightclub comedian Rudy Ray Moore in perhaps his most endearing role to date. The movie tells the tale of Dolemite, a bad ass pimpin' hustler who gets on the wrong side of a white, racist sheriff by sleeping with his wife. Dolemite barely escapes, and journeys to sunny California to visit an old friend, a nightclub owner (and Madam to Dolemite's 'ladies') named Queen Bee. However, it seems that a rival nightclub owner with Mob connections is trying to muscle in on her racket, so Dolemite takes matters into his own hands. Rudy Ray Moore showcases many diverse talents in this landmark film, including strong dramatic skills, a mastery of Kung Fu, an impressive singing voice (he provides two of the songs on the soundtrack), a touching, compassionate side with the ladies, and an overall compelling charisma and keen sense of comic timing. This film has it all, people: A deep plot, blistering action, laugh-a-minute comedy, beautiful women in distress, a slam-bang ending...what more could you ask from a movie? Run, don't walk, to your local video store and rent The Human Tornado today. And be sure to share it with your family. | 1pos
|
I love this movie! 10 out of 10 hands down! It is that damn good! I am not much of a fan of movies but I gotta tell you this one opened my eyes. Astounding color and fast energy. I was fortunate to catch this at a screening during the Zoinks! Film Festival in Boston, and the story really enveloped me from the start. It had a lot of adult themes and character and when it ended I wanted more. I hope they make a sequel. That would be fun. My only problem with it is the performance of Melissa Connor as Anya. UGH! She SUCKS! I've seen a block of wood pull out a better performance. I don't what the director was thinking when he cast her. But if you ignore her you can't help but give this movie a big ten!!! | 1pos
|
Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.<br /><br />As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.<br /><br />There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.<br /><br />Well to the actual plot of the film.<br /><br />Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie! | 1pos
|
Of all Arnold's mid-'80s movies who would have thought that most relevant today would be The Running Man. A chilling and surprisingly realistic tale of reality TV gone mad. It may have been far-fetched back then but not so now. Not when you think about it. Currently, Reality TV shows are either scraping the bottom of the barrel or desperate to raise the bar. If the next one isn't more controversial as the last, it's a dud. How long will it be before we really do see shows like The Running Man? How long before we have 'court-appointed theatrical attorneys' or the entertainment division of the Justice Department? There is so much satire and intelligence in this movie that may have been missed back in 1987 that is desperate to be seen again considering the current state of TV shows.<br /><br />The biggest message of all is 'You are being lied to'. It's no secret that the Government and the media work in cahoots. And the masses believe what the media tells them to believe. It's a very scary state of affairs and unless more accurate representations of the truth emerge we may easily accept a brutal show like the Running Man in the near future. It's no secret that Reality TV is not very realistic. It's edited and reshaped before being aired and it's only what the networks want you to see. Usually it's far from the real truth.<br /><br />Although rather different than Stephen King's book (the ending is completely changed) the script does conform to the typical Arnie formula. Yes, he does have numerous and very corny one-liners and he does say 'I'll be back' (which he never REALLY said that often anyway, when you think about it) in the most ironic situation yet but he's still a zillion times better in the role then Christopher Reeve or Dolph Lundgren would have been (these two were considered BEFORE Arnie believe it or not).<br /><br />The director is none other than Dave Starsky himself (Paul Michael Glaser). It may not be artistic but it is still strong enough to generate excitement and his use of neon and flourescent colors gives each individual set a pretty cool look. Andrew Davis (not a director I particularly like) was attached before Glaser, though no matter who directs, the film is still marred by a very heavy 80's feel.<br /><br />First of all, Harold Faltermeyer's score (remember him?) is incredibly dated and robs the action scenes of any timeless integrity. And the fashion sense of the movie is far too excessive to be convincingly set in the future. Apart from the dated feel, the only other thing that bugs me is the poorly staged shoot-out that passes as the climax.<br /><br />This new DVD is a zillion times better than the original release. Gone is the horrid letterbox picture. In its place is a brand new hi-definition 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer. The colors sparkle and literally pop from the screen. The new Dolby 5.1 EX and DTS ES soundtrack are also amazing. There constant use of the surround channels to great effect and the bass is strong and powerful. Definitely one of the best re-masters I've seen so far. Two intriguing documentaries, a trailer and a 'Meet the Stalkers' gimmick are included in this 2-disc set that comes in a rather neat slip case. | 1pos
|
This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best! | 1pos
|
To quote Flik, that was my reaction exactly: Wow...you're perfect! This is the best movie! I think I can even say it's become my favorite movie ever, even. Wow. I tell you what, wow. | 1pos
|
This very strange movie is unlike anything made in the west at the time. With its tumultuous emotions and net of visions, dreams, and startling images, its effect is both beautiful and unsettling. The actors are choreographed more like dance than acting. It contains the only dream sequence I know of that actually resembles a real nightmare (sorry, Dali fans). | 1pos
|
Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse. Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear. John O'Conor reads the verse well as Friar Laurence though he never takes it anywhere. Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous. Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.<br /><br />The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.<br /><br />And that's it. The rest is weak to dreadful. Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way. Patrick Ryecart is poorly matched to her, and his self-regard is inexplicable. The Balcony Scene flows smoothly and uneventfully with zero emotional or erotic impact. Their deaths come as a relief. If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.<br /><br />Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible. In this production, Queen Mab abdicates. Awful.<br /><br />The director, Alvin Rakoff, shows only an intermittent gift of putting the camera where it will show us what we want to see. The opening brawl is notably incoherent. However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers. Tybalt then grabs the offended region. However did that get through? <br /><br />R&J is a long play. This version is not recommended for classroom use, or much else. | 0neg
|
Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10. | 0neg
|
I was quite pleased to find this movie in the local video library - Cary Grant in a comedy set in the services, director Stanley Donen, so far what's not to like? It's the sort of film that has me wondering two things - when did all involved (including some well-known names) realize they had a turkey on their hands, and what's the worst thing about it among a number of contending aspects? Still pondering the first, but my vote for the latter goes to the meandering storyline, ahead of the wordy sometimes pretentious script, the uncertain tone, the lack of consistent and well-developed characterization, and the lack of rapport between the characters. You have to add very uneven acting to the criticism but it's understandable that the actors were struggling with this stuff and in addition seem under-rehearsed. Quite often they can hardly get their lines out quick enough. Cary Grant tries to portray his usual charming and urbane persona but at times seems uneasy and staccato in his delivery. I have to say however that I was relieved when the initial suggestions his character will be paired with the unspeakably vulgar Jayne Mansfield go away with the appearance of Suzy Parker. What's to like about the film? - for me chiefly the beauty of Parker who also acts with restraint and a Grace Kelly-like dignity. Generally speaking the film is nice to look at. The naval characters are very smart in their uniforms - however you have to truly wonder at the ghastly black Fu Manchu tunics they don in their luxury hotel suite. Even Grant can't look elegant in his. Back to the credit side, Ray Walston does a commendable job with his character and for me there was an interest in hearing a pre-Hogan's Heroes Werner Klemperer speak without an assumed German accent! | 0neg
|
Curiously, it is Rene Russo's eyes and mouth--not Buddy the Gorilla's-- that emerge as the focal point of "Buddy", a Jim Henson Pictures production through Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope. Somehow, countless close-ups of Russo's face slipped passed in the post-production stages, and she literally fills the screen so many times the poor apes are upstaged. Unintentionally funny true story adapted from Gertrude "Trudy" Davies Lint's memoirs about a wealthy doctor's wife who turns their mansion into a menagerie for pets and wild-life. The movie goes beyond good intentions...it positively drips with earnest sincerity. The movie never sparkles with the kind of "family film" magic that it needed, and before too long both the people and the animals seem distinctly programmed (nothing here feels real). About ten minutes in, two chimpanzees are goofing around in Russo's kitchen and start throwing a butcher's knife back and forth (it misses Alan Cumming's head by inches); yet, no eyebrows are raised because it's all in a day's fun. Still, when full-grown gorilla Buddy gets crazy during a thunderstorm, the cops are called--and everyone stares at Buddy through the window while he busts up the living room furniture. The furniture should be the least of anyone's worries in this flabbergasting, do-gooder failure. But, at least we know Russo was in good hands: whenever director Caroline Thompson needs a good pick-up shot, she gives unstartled Rene another extreme close-up. I wonder what the lipstick budget was on this picture? ** from **** | 0neg
|
Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.<br /><br />The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.<br /><br />British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp | 0neg
|
I read several mixed reviews and several of them downright trashed the movie. I originally became interested in this project because it was being directed by Tony Scott and I have become very interested in his work after Man On Fire had such a profound impact on me. Before I start my review, let me first say this...it's wonderful to see that this movie could have been told in a boring and ordinary manner, yet the writers and Scott chose a different approach.<br /><br />Plot:<br /><br />Simply stated, it's not boring. Most Hollywood movies give 'tried and true' plots that they know will connect with people, often ensuring the audiences acceptance of the film and creating a higher probability of profit. This plot was one of the more interesting ones I had seen in a while. Just for reference, I recently watched 'The Weather Man' and 'Lord of War' and while I will say that these movies are excellent, and I enjoyed them both tremendously, both the plots in these movies are boring and they are told exactly how you would expect them to be told. They don't take any chances whatsoever, and they are extremely predictable after you've watched a fair amount of American films. Domino's plot is both interesting and told in a manner that keeps you thinking, "oh man, they're screwed now". And I feel that has been lacking in a lot of recent films. It has a lot of depth to it, in my opinion, and gives you plenty of things to question while watching it. Overall, this is what kept me so interested in the movie.<br /><br />Characters:<br /><br />I felt that the characters were accurate. Knightley did a wonderful job of portraying a beautiful woman, who was anything but on the inside and wanted to be viewed as what she was. It was obvious that she wanted to prove herself and she took whatever means she had to accomplish that.<br /><br />Choco was also very believable, his use of Spanish in inappropriate situations, his reactions to Domino's lack of affection, as well as his jealousy issues within the team...they all rang true to me, which made me feel that his character was that much more realistic.<br /><br />Rourke's character was the least interesting to me, but it still rang true to me. He seemed like an ordinary guy, trying to make ends meet. I hope that's what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with him because that's what I got out of it. He did a very good job of showing Ed in an Average Joe kind of way that has made his mistakes, yet is still trying to live.<br /><br />Claremont/Ladies: I believe that they provided much needed 'heart' to the story. They weren't just people who are out getting money to buy a Bentley, these were real people who had a real problem and they sought others mean to accomplish that goal. You could empathize with them because, to them, this child's illness was a problem with no other solution. These characters were supposed to show real people who are less fortunate who got into this mess because they needed help.<br /><br />The mobsters: They made the story seem sinister in a way that only the mob can. And I really liked that part. They also padded the story with small intricacies that made the plot that much more interesting.<br /><br />Christopher Walken/90210 guys:<br /><br />They provided the comic relief in an otherwise very serious movie. From Walken's awkward statements to the ceaseless references to the 90210 guys being has-beens. Their involvement in the movie only made it that much more enjoyable.<br /><br />Cinematography....yes....the cinematography. This is where this movie seems to have lost a lot of potential fans. But in my opinion I thought it was genius, the use of the camera to translate the mood of the current situation was extremely effective in my opinion. I considered it a method that was properly realized but could always use improvement, just like anything else. I both applaud and congratulate Scott, the editor, the cinematographer and the director of photography on taking some real chances with this movie. Not only did they go far and above with its presentation, they went that much further. The use of colors, both extremely light and extremely dark provided the 'look' of the film with a sinister and grungy look that accurately depicts the life of the mob, bounty hunters and the less fortunate in a manner that show that their life isn't as peachy or 'clean' as everyone else. If you notice, in times of less stress or conflict, there were very few camera tricks if any at all. This shows that Scott and his crew were trying to achieve something with this look and weren't just doing it for the heck of it. I realize that most people who watched this movie weren't expecting it and it cause many of them to be turned off to this film but I think it was great that Scott took this approach. Hollywood films have grown predictable and bland. Most of them are shot in the same manner with the same twists and turns. And I'm glad that Scott tried to make something different.<br /><br />Granted, this movie isn't for everyone, but to say it's trash and has nothing to offer is completely missing the point. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I'm glad that I spent the money for it. I would recommend this to all, but I'm sure it will only hit a chord with few. I must agree with an earlier poster when he said that many of those who refuse to see outside the 'sphere of MTV' won't appreciate this movie, but I think many people will. We should all try to enjoy it for the fact that Scott and co. took some chances and tried to deliver something that was different and unique. And with that in mind, I think he succeeded tremendously. | 1pos
|
I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.<br /><br />The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.<br /><br />However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.<br /><br />The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.<br /><br />I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.<br /><br />By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too. | 0neg
|
I happen to be the director's nephew. It's taken me years to get my hands on a copy of this film and I can confirm that it is indeed one of the worst movies of all time. My uncle doesn't even have a copy of it anymore (I asked). I'm looking forward to bringing him a copy.<br /><br />Currently the film's average rating is 1.9/10. As far as I can tell, that should put it somewhere in the mid-30s in the IMDb "bottom 100," however with only 206 votes, it hasn't yet placed.<br /><br />It's sad that the film doesn't even get the respect of a bottom 100 title.<br /><br />Anyhow, I'm giving copies of the movie to family members this year for holiday gifts. Best/Worst gift ever? | 0neg
|
This is a good movie, although people unfamiliar with the Modesty Blaise comics and books may find it a little slow and lacking in action. For the Modesty fan, the movie will be very enjoyable, particularly because it is very faithful in its presentation of the Modesty Blaise "history". Peter O'Donnell is listed in the credits as "Creative Consultant" and the film makers must have actually paid attention to him as the plot follows quite closely the details that have been presented in the comic books over the years {although the events have been recast to modern days). The only thing that the true fan may find disappointing is that there is no Willie Garvin in the story. This lack of Willie is again just being faithful to the Modesty Blaise chronology since the movie takes place in the very early days of Modesty's career. Alexandra Staden makes a very believable young Modesty who actually looks a lot like Modesty is supposed to look. A welcome change from the travesty of the Monica Vitti portrayal of Modesty. | 1pos
|
This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.<br /><br />The plot of "Genova" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by "Genova" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. "Genova" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed. | 0neg
|
When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.<br /><br />Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.<br /><br />This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring. | 0neg
|
This movie has Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane, Buffalo Bill and General Custer all together. Gary Cooper plays Wild Bill and Jean Arthur plays Calamity Jane and Charles Bickford plays the bad guy who sells weapons to the Indians and you can hardly recognize him. This was the first time Cecil B. DeMille and Gary Cooper worked together and the next movie the made was basically the same but set in a different time. This movie starts out with Lincoln's assassination and it also deals with an Indian war. Calamity Jane is in love with Wild Bill and Buffalo Bill has gotten married and now wants to stay home. This movie also deals with Custer's last stand and is far from accurate. Gary Cooper is good as usual and i usually don't like Jean Arthur but i liked her here. | 1pos
|
Off the blocks let me just say that I am a huge zombie fan so I don't make statements like the above lightly. Secondly let me say that this is an Italian zombie film and Fulci only directed 15 minutes of it before handing over to Bruno (Rats, Night Of Terror) Mattei. This is no Dawn of the Dead folks.<br /><br />That said this is easily one of the most entertaining zombie films I have ever seen. <br /><br />The script is wonderfully horrible. Just check out the two scientists trying to find an antidote ("Let's try putting these two molecules together"). <br /><br />The zombies come in all varieties. From moaning shufflers, to machete wielding maniacs, to birds! <br /><br />The gore is plentiful. Legs are bitten off, arms amputated, stomachs burst open. <br /><br />The pace is fast, flying from one zombie attack to the next. <br /><br />Then there's the head in the fridge. Oh the head in the fridge! One of the greatest moments in horror since Ash got his hand possessed in Evil Dead 2.<br /><br />You should know already whether you're the sort of person who's going to like this sort of film. Get some mates and some beer and you'll be in for a fun night.<br /><br />Did I mention the head in the fridge?!?!? | 1pos
|
Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.<br /><br />Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.<br /><br />This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:<br /><br />-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot<br /><br />Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.<br /><br />Give the demonic ..... 0/10. | 0neg
|
"Journey of Hope" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated. | 1pos
|
Great Woody Allen? No. Good Woody Allen? Definitely. I found myself, along with the audience in attendance, laughing hard and often at some of the best Woody Allen lines we've heard in a while. The aging Allen created an appropriate role for himself as Scarlett Johansson's "father" ... well, sort of. Some have said Johansson plays "a young Dianne Keaton." I beg to differ. She plays Woody's dialogue, which, in his comedies, always has a very similar feel...like, well, a Woody Allen comedy. That's fine for us Woody appreciators. She certainly did Woody's dialogue far better than the young cast of his last comedy, Melinda/Melinda. Some may find Woody's humor tiresome, but for those of us who love it when it's done right, we look forward to the next. | 1pos
|
There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.<br /><br />Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.<br /><br />Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?<br /><br />The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.<br /><br />The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.<br /><br />The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.<br /><br />There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.<br /><br />Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel. | 0neg
|
This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as "Army of Darkness." AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. "House of the Dead" fails to be "good bad.".<br /><br />There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.<br /><br />Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.<br /><br />Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid... | 0neg
|
This program is really overrated. A detective like Danny Pino's hot-headed character would have been transferred to the "rubber gun squad" years ago. The whole squad is made up of sanctimonious egomaniacs who judge people whose actions go back decades by the standards of 2007. Every Vietnam veteran character they've ever had has turned out to be the killer, unless it was another Vietnam veteran. There has only been one black murderer, and he was put up to it by his white boss. The only Hispanic killer was a "race traitor" who killed another Hispanic to frame a Hispanic street kid for a crime that (naturally) two rich white kids committed. What a bunch of propaganda. Hey,screenwriters: minorities and poor people commit murder too. Only on this show are most murderers upper-class whites.<br /><br />What's more, the arrests of people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s for crimes they committed 50-60 years ago are a joke. No real-life DA will push for murder one because it means the state will be stuck with their humongous medical bills until they finally kick. The state would be doing their families and insurance companies a favor. The prosecutor will just plead them to involuntary manslaughter and they won't serve a day. The only really old criminals who go to prison are either organized crime figures or ex-Nazis, whose high-profile convictions boost DA's careers. | 0neg
|
I am so confused. What in the world was this movie about? What was the killer's motivation? He seemed quite angry, but I have yet to figure out why. Nothing in this movie made sense. It had zero depth. Or less than zero depth. Which I guess would make it a hill. Or a pile. Of crap. The acting was horrible. When I searched for a few of the actors in this movie, they had been in very few things that I had heard of, and that came as absolutely no surprise. I can't decide whether to feel sorry for them for the embarrassment of being in a movie this bad, or to feel that they should never be offered another acting job again. Starting . . . NOW! (Seinfeld reference.) Really, though, don't waste your time with this. There's so little substance that there's nothing there even just to make fun of. This was undoubtedly one of the worst slasher flicks -- NO, one of the worst flicks of ANY KIND, that I have ever had the misfortune to watch, and I've seen quite a few. | 0neg
|
One of a multitude of slashers that appeared in the early eighties, Pranks is notable only for an early performance by Daphne Zuniga (The Sure Thing, The Fly 2); her character dies fairly early on, and the rest of the film is totally forgettable.<br /><br />During their Christmas break, a group of students volunteer to clear a condemned college building of its furniture. A crazy killer, however, throws a spanner in the works by methodically bumping off the youngsters one by one in a variety of gruesome ways.<br /><br />Exploiting every stalk 'n' slash cliché in the book, director Jeffrey Obrow delivers a tedious and unexciting horror that had me praying for the characters to be killed, so that I could get on with watching something more worthwhile. The majority of the deaths (which, let's face it, is why we generally watch this kind of film) are brief and not that gory; the only truly grisly imagery comes right at the end when the bodies of the victims are discovered by the remaining survivor (there is one notably bloody dismembered corpsethe film could've done with more).<br /><br />At the last minute, the film saves itself from the disgrace of receiving the lowest possible score from me by having a nice unexpectedly downbeat ending, but this really is one for slasher completists only. | 0neg
|
When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - "Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara" which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this "Loser-like Sacrificial" attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent. <br /><br />The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner. <br /><br />Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!! | 0neg
|
This is what I call a growth movie. Every character is different and better at the end- and it's all because one woman knows that the place they have chosen is a "tub of love". Josie Lawrence, who is best known as a comedienne, really shines as the woman who brings about all these changes. Even the men in this film go from being self-centered to better men. The book stayed very true to the novel, which is a plus in my book, since I am a librarian. The scenery breath-taking and the message of love genuine. | 1pos
|
Okay, so there is a front view of a Checker taxi, probably late 1930s model. It has the great triangular shaped headlights. There also is a DeSoto cab in this black and white, character driven, almost a musical love gone wrong story.<br /><br />The real pleasure here is the look at 1940s room interiors and fashions and hotel elevators. The hair styles, male and female are gorgeous. If Dolly Parton had Victor Mature's hair she could have made it big. There is an artist loft that would be the envy of every Andy Warhol wannabe.<br /><br />If you watch this expecting a great Casablanca storyline or Sound of Music oom-pah-pah, you will be disappointed. There is a nice little story beneath the runway model approach in this film.<br /><br />My copy on DVD with another movie for $1 was very viewable. The title sequence was cute but not up there with Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or The Pink Panther. This was an RKO movie but it did not have the nice airplane logo that RKO used to use.<br /><br />I liked Victor Mature in One Million, B.C., and Sampson and Delilah and especially in Violent Saturday. See if you can find that one. He was wonderful in the comedy with Peter Sellers called Caccia Alla Volpe or After The Fox.<br /><br />Richard Carlson went on to do I Led Three Lives on TV in the early 1950s.<br /><br />Vic Mature was offered the part of Sampson's father in the remake of Sampson and Delilah. He supposedly was asked if he would have any problems playing the part of the father since he was so well known as Sampson. Victor replied, "If the money is right, I'll play Sampson's mother." <br /><br />Tom Willett | 1pos
|
An actor asks, "What's my motivation?," to understand his or her character. After viewing this this "docudrama," this vague and haphazard farce, a viewer wonders what anyone's motivation was.<br /><br />This inept offspring of daytime T.V. (the Oprah show) missed by a mile a great opportunity to explore weighty issues.<br /><br />Its characters were all shallow and superficial, its story line far less socially redeeming than a "Simpsons" episode. It gratuitously portrayed investigating police as unprofessional and incompetent. It failed to offer why the court might treat the main character, a female child molester, so differently than it would have a male perp.<br /><br />Why did this unrepentant woman begin "grooming" her second grade student, beginning an affair with him when he returned to her sixth grade class? Why did the boy's mother testify in her behalf? The simple answer is overwhelming narcissism, plus generational rationalization and greed. The movie gave no hint of that.<br /><br />Why wasn't the viewer informed that the victim's mother sold interview rights to print and television tabloids, parading her adolescent son on "The Today Show"? That Mary Kay's lawyer cashed in, she herself appealing a "Son of Sam" statute so she could benefit from her crime by selling her story to the highest bidder?<br /><br />Why wasn't it explained that LeTourneau's father was a former right wing Republican congressman, the 1972 American Independent Presidential candidate, the John Birch Society President? In 1983 John Schmitz's political career ended when he was found to have had children by his own community college student, exposed only when that mistress sexually mutilated their infant son? Yet Letourneau's dad had removed his many kids from "too liberal" Catholic schools, fighting to keep all schoolchildren from receiving any sex education?<br /><br />A month after her conditional release, again pregnant with the now 14-year-old's second daughter, Mary Kay received 7 1/2 years in prison for numerous probation violations. A prophetic editorial regarding the sad affair then appeared in the Seattle Times: "At the end of two wretched hours, LeTourneau was led off to jail, and this salacious melange of made-for-TV seaminess was over, until casting begins."<br /><br />Sure enough, 18 months later, filming of this travesty was underway. | 0neg
|
Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.<br /><br />This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny. | 0neg
|
I remember seeing this years ago when it first came out and I was floored by Parker Posey's performance. And the movie was pretty good also. For anyone who's spent a little too much time in the nightclub/after-hours scene, this movie will have a special charm for you. Not too serious, mostly funny, and Parker Posey definitely blazes her talented way through this indie gem.<br /><br />I especially liked the Diaz character (reminded me of every single struggling DJ I've ever known). And many other movies could take a cue from this movie on how to preach the virtue of responsibility without being boring and bland about it.<br /><br />Babaganoosh! | 1pos
|
Josef Von Sternberg directs this magnificent silent film about silent Hollywood and the former Imperial General to the Czar of Russia who has found himself there. Emil Jannings won a well-deserved Oscar, in part, for his role as the general who ironically is cast in a bit part in a silent picture as a Russian general. The movie flashes back to his days in Russia leading up to the country's fall to revolutionaries. William Powell makes his big screen debut as the Hollywood director who casts Jannings in his film. The film serves as an interesting look at the fall of Russia and at an imitation of behind-the-scenes Tinseltown in the early days. Von Sternberg delivers yet another classic, and one that is filled with the great elements of romance, intrigue, and tragedy. | 1pos
|
Johnny Dangerously falls completely in the hit or miss category with it's overblown gags and complete lack of a comprehensive script or story that makes ANY sense. But that's the point, right?<br /><br />The cast is likable; Michael Keaton an excellent comic performer before he took himself too seriously as the years passed. Griffin Dunne, Peter Boyle, Joe Piscopo, Marilu Henner and Danny DeVito all perform with enthusiasm and at least get a lot of laughs from me. But the complete scene stealer here is Richard Dimitri (sneaking the word "Iceholes" into movie history) as a mobster who fares best at murdering the English language.<br /><br />I associate many childhood memories with this film, as I watched it quite often so maybe I'm prone to enjoy it more than many others. Johnny Dangerously is at least a completely innocent gangster film spoof that even relays some well meaning messages about the dangers of smoking (and sex).<br /><br />I like it but it's hard to recommend.<br /><br />7 out of 10. | 1pos
|
Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8. | 1pos
|
The Hanson brothers - Andy (apparently has his act together) and Hank (clearly doesn't have his act together) need money. Andy comes up with a scheme to get some dough that will have consequences for the whole Hanson family.<br /><br />This film delivers. This is a layered, full-blooded roller coaster ride that knows exactly what it is doing. As a crime drama / thriller I would happily compare it to 'No Country For Old Men.' While both films have have an ample supply of character drama and thrills, 'Devil' is more on the thriller side because of its fast pace. 'No Country' is a colder and bleaker film that you can really admire, while 'Devil' is a bit more enjoyable. There is definitely less violence in 'Devil' than 'No Country.' The acting delivers as well. Ethan Hawke, sometimes wooden in the past, brings the jitters, sweating and the deer-in-the-headlights-look to the besieged Hank. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Andy, has the film's hardest scenes and is fast becoming the actor, who you believe can do anything.<br /><br />There's really not much wrong with this film. It jumps back and forth without being confusing. Events spiral out of control, but the film never does - the writing (from first timer Kelly Masterson), directing (veteran Sidney Lumet) and the editing stay as tight as a drum. In many categories, this is award caliber stuff, though maybe films like 'The Departed' and 'No Country' squeezed this one out of the limelight. If you liked those, you'll like this. | 1pos
|
Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever "really" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.<br /><br />You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.<br /><br />Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.<br /><br />But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! <br /><br />It is one thing to rent a "bad" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.<br /><br />Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be "funny" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.<br /><br />Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of "The Forsaken" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The "original" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say). | 0neg
|
'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.<br /><br />My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.<br /><br />'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.<br /><br />The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird. <br /><br />Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.<br /><br />A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own. | 0neg
|
Wow! All I can say is that if Elizabeth Montgomery is the enemy (she speaks Russian), then I'm surrendering right now. In her short skirt, high-top boots, and pronounced bust line, she's a real babe, even if her zombie-like eye-shadow sort of comes and goes. This 30 minutes is no doubt the sexiest of the series. Note the realistic and revealing wrestling match with Bronson until he ungallantly slugs her on the chin, ruining all the fun. Okay, probably I should leave off my hormonal response.<br /><br />This is a very well produced half-hour by that underrated force behind the series's success, Buck Houghton. Naturally, the producers want to lead off the third season with an above average entry. It's post nuclear-holocaust America (we know because she's part of the invading force) and only American Bronson and Soviet Montgomery are left, along with about twenty tons of realistic wreckage. They wander among the destruction in alternating moods, while we wonder how long it will take for biology to trump politics, which of course it eventually does, (lucky Bronson). And that's about it. No real talk, except for what Bronson has to say which is pretty overblown. Nonetheless, the screenplay is still entertaining, and rather daring for its time, even suggesting that not all Russian women looked like truck drivers (a popular Cold War stereotype of the time).<br /><br />In passing-- it's rather curious that the very Slavic-looking Bronson (Buchinsky) would be cast as the American and the glossy-looking Montgomery as the Slav. Appearance-wise, it should be the reverse. My guess is that the producers did not want to cast the American in the physically weaker role of the female, regardless of appearances. However that may be, there is little of the usual TZ fright or atmosphere, still the episode remains a very, very watchable 30 minutes. | 1pos
|
If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen. | 0neg
|
The film did what it set out to do: show how a young girl copes with poverty and grows into her maturity. However, for most of us, this subject has been explored adequately and in most instances with more sophistication than done here. The movie fixated on breasts, which soon became boring and I lost interest. If this was on TV, I would've switched to the latest news on the Starr Report. That's how boring I found this movie. | 0neg
|
I watched this film in shire joy.<br /><br />This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timeless value, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts that are moving, funny, and just great.<br /><br />All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, every detail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.<br /><br />The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look out for that).<br /><br />Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actor do that, ever. It really is amazing.<br /><br />And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closest thing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.<br /><br />If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it, there is something there for all. | 1pos
|
I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.<br /><br />Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.<br /><br />There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.<br /><br />The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?" <br /><br />The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.<br /><br />Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.<br /><br />There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously. | 0neg
|
Debbie Reynolds toe-taps, tangos and, yes, tap-dances her way through this ordinary thriller which has a distinctly fabricated '30s atmosphere. Two ladies, brought together when their sons commit a murder, try starting their lives over by running a tap-dance school for tots in Hollywood. Trouble is, one of them is plagued by neuroses. Can you imagine this thing 10 years earlier with Robert Aldrich directing Bette Davis and Joan Crawford...? Nahh, Bette never would have allowed Joan so much screen-time to strut her stuff, and I can't imagine Bette Davis in the other role, tap-dancing her heart out. This is a purely bogus piece of macabre, written by a slumming Henry Farrell (whose idea of a good "shock" is to stage the mass-murder of a group of rabbits!). Not an ounce of honest fun in the whole tepid package. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.<br /><br />Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".<br /><br />Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.<br /><br />Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"<br /><br />O.K. Bye.<br /><br />P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster? | 0neg
|
THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?<br /><br />Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen. | 0neg
|
Jacknife is a masterpiece of the 80's. It's a movie that breaths through amazing acting and a very interesting directing touch. In Jacknife both lovers of European and American cinema can find things to relate on. The screenplay is very compelling and full of beautiful characters. Ed Harris is giving one of the greatest performances up to date. He portrays his alcoholic hero superbly making us feel his broken heart in each line, in each move. Robert De Niro makes us once again think of him as one of the greatest actors of all time in one of the simplest but also most realistic performances in his career. Jacknife is never getting boring as it shows its heroes clear of any typical Hollywood's typical character elements. After the war none is a hero. Everybody is a loser, and this movie is about that simple truth. None can mend up his pieces after a war, just like the heroes of this movie. Jacknife is about the diseases of the soul that war creates. Simply magnificent movie. | 1pos
|
Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.<br /><br />This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound. | 1pos
|
Actually I liked this movie very, very much. Not because of it`s plot, acting, jokes, no. I liked it, because it`s one of the worse movies ever created. It`s so lame, so bad, that it becomes terribly funny. Some jokes are actually cool, but the rest makes me pray for unemployment for the scriptwriter. "Men in white" are so dumb and stupid, that you can do only two things. Turn the TV off or roll on the floor laughing (beer helps a lot:). I chose the second option. | 1pos
|
Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.<br /><br />Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!<br /><br />Best lines in the movie:<br /><br />Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...<br /><br />Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.<br /><br />Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!<br /><br />LOL! | 1pos
|
This is my all-time favorite Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers film. The dialogue between the two is so cute and funny and very clever. Not to mention this film contains some of the best songs recorded by the two; like I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket and Let's Face the Music and Dance. If I remember correctly, this was the film that introduced me to Fred Astaire so I suppose because of that it will always hold a special place in my heart (sorry for the sentimental cr*p but I'm woman so get over it)All in all this film gets an 8/10 from me. The choreography was superb and also the fact that Lucille Ball is in it makes it even more awesome. | 1pos
|
Sure, for it's super imagery and awesome sound, it's a great home theater "show off" disk, but this is also a touching drama as well as an informative documentary. The parallel stories that are intertwined throughout this film will keep all viewers interested. Young, old, boys and girls alike will find that deep down, we are all fans of the automobile, especially the high performance indy machines that are the result of generations blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity and perseverance. The Mark Knopfler and Ry Cooder sound track is perfectly matched to the visuals and the content. I don't want to give away the ending, but the final driving sequence to Quincy Jones' "Days Like These" just might bring a tear to your eye. Enjoy it! | 1pos
|
There's nothing particularly original about this story of corrupt unions on one side and the "chief attorney" on the other. The stark but unimaginative lighting and photography stems from the fagged out noir cycle. The story could easily have been out of a Warner Brothers drawer with George Raft in the lead. The performances are routine, the direction flat, and even the set dressing perfunctory. (An alley is shown by a single plaster wall of simulated brick. It has one poster on it. The poster says, "Post No Bills.") We are introduced to the story and some of the characters by a portentous narrator who informs us that, while most unions work hard and honestly to advance the causes of their members, a few are corrupt. But we don't really get to know much about the unions or how they operate, although I suppose they were fair game after the success of "On the Waterfront" a few years earlier. Here they're just a peg to hang the tale on. The real ring leader is a disbarred lawyer who runs things through three or four thugs. The District Attorney (or whatever he is) finds out, like Dana Andrews did in "Boomerang," that the wrong man (Dick Foran) is charged with a murder and he spends the rest of the film almost alone, digging up evidence of Foran's innocence. He gets into fist fights and shoot outs like any inexpensive movie private eye.<br /><br />Brian Keith is the D.A. He's shown some insinuating displays of talent elsewhere, but here he spends most of the time speaking quietly and staring at the floor. Elisha Cook, Jr., is a likable rummy but can't do a good drunk. Beverley Garland is okay but is undermined by the direction, which has her gawking in a night club when she should be furtive. The remainder of the cast would be suitable for a TV series.<br /><br />And nobody is helped by the writing. When a "B girl" is about to be shipped by the union mob to the Filippines, someone advises her that she only has to learn a few words of Spanish. "I only know one word," she says, "Si. Yes." The writers have not trusted the audience to know that "si" in Spanish means "yes." The plot is clumsy and has holes in it. Keith visits a witness in her flat over a night club. He enters the door and has a gun shoved in his back by a yegg, but he outwits the heavy and knocks him out. Then the orders someone to call the police. The rest of the scene, played out at some length in the night club downstairs, forgets all about the police and they never show up, nor are they expected by anyone.<br /><br />It's nothing to be ashamed of, and some people might enjoy it, but there is similar stuff, better done, elsewhere. | 0neg
|
The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.<br /><br />I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.<br /><br />To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.<br /><br />I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film..... | 1pos
|
i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10 | 0neg
|
This movie is really bad. The acting is plain awful except Michael Ironside. I don't get the story. Richard Grieco is the only survivor after a fight between two Mc-gangs. He comes to a town and suddenly he is choosened to fight against the bad people who wants indian-land. At the cover it said he was a indian himself that returned too his home-town, I didn't hear that in the movie, if so it wasn't clear.<br /><br />Richard Grieco was one hell of a bad actor. Stiff and ugly. He said his lines like it too. And we wouldn't talk about Sean Young, she hasn' been any of my favourite actors but in this movie she plays a indian women who falls in love with Bolt (Grieco). She is awful.<br /><br />When I rented it I choosed between this and Subterfuge with Amanda Pays. I choosed this one because of Michael Ironside was in the cast. Maybe I should have taken Subterfuge.<br /><br />Don't see this unless you think Richard Grieco looks tough on a motorbike with sunglasses.<br /><br />I will soon uptade the cast-list because I have it at home. I wrote it down after I seen the movie. | 0neg
|
Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.<br /><br />The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.<br /><br />I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.<br /><br />Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.<br /><br />My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.<br /><br />All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.<br /><br />The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.<br /><br />If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan. | 1pos
|
I saw this movie during a Tolkien-themed Interim class during my sophomore year of college. I was seated unfortunately close to the screen and my professor chose me to serve as a whipping boy- everyone else was laughing, but they weren't within constant eyesight.<br /><br />Let's get it out of the way: the Peter Jackson 'Lord of the Rings' films do owe something to the Bakshi film. In Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring, for instance, the scene in which the Black Riders assault the empty inn beds is almost a complete carbon copy of the scene in Bakshi's film, shot by shot. You could call this plagiarism or homage, depending on your agenda. <br /><br />I'm sure the similarities don't stop there. I'm not going to do any research to find out what they are, because that would imply I have some mote of respect for this film. I'm sure others have outlined the similarities- look around.<br /><br />This movie is a complete train wreck in every sense of the metaphor, and many, many people died in the accident. I've decided to list what I can remember in a more or less chronological fashion- If I've left out anything else that offended me it's because I'm completely overwhelmed, confronted with a wealth of failure (and, at high points, mediocrity).<br /><br />*Due to heavy use of rotoscoping, Gandalf is no longer a gentle, wise wizard but a wildly flailing prophet of doom (whose hat inexplicably changes color once or twice during the course of the film).<br /><br />*Saruman the White is sometimes referred to as 'Aruman' during the film, without explanation. He wears purple and red for some mysterious reason.<br /><br />*Sam is flat out hideous. The portrayal of his friendship with Frodo is strangely childlike and unsatisfying. Yes, hobbits are small like children, but they are NOT children.<br /><br />*Merry and Pippin are never introduced--they simply appear during a scene change with a one-sentence explanation. The film is filled with sloppy editing like this.<br /><br />*Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry are singing merrily as they skip through along the road. One of the hobbits procures a lute at least twice as large as he is from behind his back--which was not visible before--and begins strumming in typical fantasy bard fashion as they all break into "la-la-la"s. AWFUL.<br /><br />*Aragorn, apparently, is a Native American dressed in an extremely stereotypical fantasy tunic (no pants), complete with huge, square pilgrim belt buckle. He is arguably the worst swordsman in the entire movie--oftentimes he gets one wobbly swing in before being knocked flat on his ass.<br /><br />*The Black Riders appear more like lepers than menacing instruments of evil. They limp everywhere they go at a painfully slow pace. This is disturbing to be sure, but not frightening.<br /><br />*The scene before the Black Riders attempt to cross the Ford of Bruinen (in which they stare at Frodo, who is on the other side on horseback) goes on forever, during which time the Riders rear their horses in a vaguely threatening manner and... do nothing else. The scene was probably intended to illustrate Frodo's hallucinatory decline as he succumbs to his wound. It turns out to be more plodding than anything else.<br /><br />*Gimli the Dwarf is just as tall as Legolas the Elf. He's a DWARF. There is simply no excuse for that. He also looks like a bastardized David the Gnome. It's a crude but accurate description.<br /><br />*Boromir appears to have pilfered Elmer Fudd's golden Viking armor from that Bugs Bunny opera episode. He looks ridiculous.<br /><br />*Despite the similarity to Tolkien's illustration, the Balrog is howl inducing and the least-threatening villain in the entire film. It looks like someone wearing pink bedroom slippers, and it's barely taller than Gandalf. "Purists" may prefer this Balrog, but I'll take Jackson's version any day.<br /><br />*The battle scenes are awkward and embarrassing. Almost none of the characters display any level of competency with their armaments. I'm not asking for action-packed scenes like those in Jackson's film, but they ARE supposed to be fighting.<br /><br />*Treebeard makes a very short appearance, and I was sorry he bothered to show up at all. Watch the film, you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />Alright, now for the GOOD parts of the film.<br /><br />*Some of the voice acting is pretty good. It isn't that Aragorn SOUNDS bad, he just looks kind of like the Jolly Green Giant.<br /><br />*Galadriel is somewhat interesting in this portrayal; like Tom Bombadil, she seems immune to the Ring's powers of temptation, and her voice actress isn't horrible either.<br /><br />*Boromir's death isn't as heart wrenching as in Jackson's portrayal of the same scene, but it's still appropriately dramatic (and more true to his death in the book, though I don't believe Jackson made a mistake shooting it the way he did).<br /><br />*As my professor pointed out (between whispered threats), the orcs (mainly at Helm's Deep, if I'm correct) resemble the war-ravaged corpses of soldiers, a political statement that works pretty well if you realize what's being attempted.<br /><br />*While this isn't really a positive point about the film, Bakshi can't be blamed for the majority of the failures in this movie, or so I've been told--the project was on a tight budget, and late in its production he lost creative control to some of the higher-ups (who I'm sure hadn't read the books).<br /><br />Let me be clear: I respect Bakshi for even attempting something of this magnitude. I simply have a hard time believing he was happy with the final product. <br /><br />Overall, I cannot in any way recommend this blasphemous adaptation of Tolkien's classic trilogy even for laughs, unless you've already read the books and have your own visualizations of the characters, places and events. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, will pick a copy of this up in confusion; if you do, keep an open mind and glean what good you can from it. | 0neg
|
I really, really enjoyed watching this movie! At first, seeing its poster I thought it was just another easy romantic comedy ... but it is simply more than this! I personally believe that this idea (that I'm sure a good part of the viewers had just before they saw the movie) it's yet another important part of the big concept of this movie itself (or even of its marketing strategy)! What I mean is: Nowadays we are slaves to images! To impressions! I went to the cinema to view this film having the wrong impression, the wrong expectations, and at the end I felt how superficial I could be! To exemplify it comes to my mind the sequence near the end in which Sidney buys the plane ticket to go back to New York and as he is asked to 'give an autograph', meaning to sign for the ticket, he believes that just because he got on TV thanks to the scandal at the awards he is now some kind of celebrity. And this is just, I believe, the climax of this main theme around which the movies revolves. Above this, I believe the movie also offers us a solution to get along with this, illustrated throughout the movie by Sidney's attitude: don't become too serious about yourself or about anybody else ... "even saints were people in the beginning" ... as Sophie once says in the movie. The saints of the moment are the stars. We attribute them an 'aura' of perfection, of eternal happiness, but the reality is much less than that. Even the saints of any religion are images, ideal models of how to behave and how to live your life. Even they were not for real ... they became 'for real' after they died and we looked back at them. And that's the catch: we need our saints! we need our stars! We strive for them as if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have anything to strive for. And television and all other media are means to create and capture our strivings. We desperately need benchmarks in regard to which to measure ourselves. And that's how we got in the cinema to watch this movie in the first place: to see if we can fit the benchmark, or if the benchmark is to small for us. This time it was larger than we expected. | 1pos
|
Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess. | 0neg
|
This is an excellent film, and is the sort of treasure that one can only catch through sporadic cinema showings, as it is unavailable on video/DVD. The way that the film begins with the two lovers arriving, and ends with them leaving (although quite a lot happens in between, and they don't stay in one place during this time), gives you a sense of closure, and a feeling that all is right with the world. If you get a chance to see this film, then do. I can't wait to see it again, and wish that it could be put on general release. | 1pos
|
This is a rather tame fluff piece concerning WW II codes being broken, stolen, etc. The acting is about what I expected from this cast of MGM "B" actors.<br /><br />One big caution. Jean Rogers, who did such a great job playing the very sexy Dale Arden in the first two Flash Gordon serials is just awful in this movie. Her character is extremely annoying. She absolutely never lets-up with her overacting. We are supposed to believe that during the height of a World War in what would obviously be a Top Secret code facility, she would be allowed to just pop in and out of any office of her choosing although she has no official function. From that standpoint I'm sorry that I ever watched this film. It has forever changed my perception of Ms. Rogers. Talentwise, she is an extreme lightweight.<br /><br />Lee Bowman is his usual self, meaning that he is merely adequate.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Im going to keep this fairly brief as to not spoil anything for you. This movie is awesome. From beginning to end, it is filled with genuine thrills. The fight scenes are fantastic, the chase scenes are enthralling, and it moves at such a pace that it really only felt slow toward the end when things are explained, but that is only because everything that preceded it. Damon shines and really has proved a very solid actor, daring you not to believe him in this role. He is this role. A welcome addition to the series in David Straithrain (hope i spelled that close to right) as a seedy CIA agent out to kill Bourne. This is non stop and will truly leave you on the edge of your seat for most of the way. Some things toward the end are just a smidgeon preposterous, thus negating a 10 rating. The ending is left open for sequels and I sure hope that they consider doing more of these, for none have been bad. Excellent film all in all and a fantastic ending to an amazing trilogy.<br /><br />P.S. The shaky cam did not hurt any of the action, but I still think we could do without it. The good news is, you only really notice it when people are talking and not so much the action. | 1pos
|
In the Tower of Babel installment of the mini-series, the narrator describes the builders of the tower as "the descendants of Moses."<br /><br />That's like saying George Washington lived many centuries before Alexander the Great.<br /><br />Or that the light bulb was invented before the wheel.<br /><br />Or that the guided missile was the forerunner of the bow-and-arrow.<br /><br />Need I say more?<br /><br />The writers of The Greatest Heroes of the Bible should have at least paid closer attention to the chronologies of Biblical people and events. | 0neg
|
In Micro Phonies the stooges are at there best. In this short the trio are handymen working in a recording studio. They end up getting a look at Alice Van Doren (Christine Mcintyre)singing the voice of spring. The voice is amazing. Curly in drags is heard by Mrs. Bixby (Symona Boniface). Moe calls Curly Senior Cucaracha. The three stooges end up going to party where Curly is going to dress up in drags. They play a record of the voices of spring and all is going well until Moe destroy the record on Curly's head. They end up using the lucia sexlet until the baritone recognizes them and unplugs it. Alice Van Doren catches on to the boy scream and hides behind a curtain to help them out. All is well until the baritone wonders how Curly is singing without the aid of a phonograph discovers Alice behind the curtain. The three stooges are revealed to be frauds but Alice's father discovers his daughter's talent and agrees that she should become a singer. The stooge are pelted out of the room. Excellent. | 1pos
|
This was stupid funny movie.. Cheech and Chong are the dopiest wasted guys ever... i rate this film a 7.. but if you like this one then go see Jay and Silentbob! There funnier and crazier. Now Cheech is a sellout working on kids movies..... wheres chong? | 1pos
|
An absolutely brilliant film! Jiri Trnka, the master of puppet animation, confronts totalitarianism in this, his final, film. It would be banned by the Communist Czechoslovakian government (at the time), despite taking the country's highest animation award.<br /><br />In this dark and entertaining short film, an artist attempts to create a new pot for his favourite plant. He happily makes his creations while dreaming that his plant will grow to be a beautiful rose. All of a sudden, he here's a knock at the door, and in comes this giant omnipotent hand, that tries to force the artist to make statues in it's likeness. The artist resists as best he can, but he eventually becomes overwhelmed by the constant attempts, by the hand, to force him to conform. He becomes brainwashed; an intellectual zombie. At this point the hand attaches strings to the artist, puts him in a cage, and uses him to make hand statues. All the while glorifying the artist's work and awarding him with medals and honours.<br /><br />The artist's inner lust to be able to express himself freely is what helps him prevail over his indoctrination, and enables him escape his prison, whether it be literal or in his mind, and return to his home where he now must live in constant fear of the wrath of the omnipotent hand. He shuts himself in, thinking he is out of the reach of the almighty hand, but in the process he puts his plant and pot up high, hoping it is out of the reach of the hand, and it ends up falling on his head, killing him. The artist is inevitabally destroyed by his own creation. All because of the constant fear he had to live with once he escaped the hand's strings. Once dead, the hand paints the artist as a great person, a national hero. Unfortunately not in the circumstances or for the reasons that the artist would like to be remembered.<br /><br />Trnka's condemnation of Totalitarian society, and their lack of right for free expression is dark, damning and an amazingly animated. It is no wonder the government banned it as this is the sort of media that people admire, and would perhaps even listen to. That was obviously not acceptable. An amazing example of an artists civil disobedience and the impact it can have. And still quite relevant today for many parts of the world, from the US to the middle east. A must see and definite 10 out of 10! Talk about going out with a bang! | 1pos
|
This is essentially a variation on House Of Wax ,in both the plot and the type of role played by the star of both movies ,Vincent Price.In both pictures he plays a talented artist who is sent toppling over the edge into insanity when his creations are usurped by other,less talented and less scrupulous people .In this movie he plays a designer of illusions for stage magicians who aspires to set out on a performing career himself only to be frustrated when another illusionist ,the Great Rinaldo (John Emery)insists that he honour his contract and give him first choice of any illusions he designs.Price is already ill disposed towards Rinaldi as his former wife is now a paramour of Rinaldi. He deploys his talents as an illusionist and as a brilliant mimic to avenge himself upon Rinaldi and others who thwart his plans for recognition as a performer and a designer.<br /><br />Price is pretty much the whole show here and gives a well judged star turn as a wronged man whose predicament earns audience sympathy.The rest of the cast are competent if colourless and the weight of the whole venture falls on Price who carries the burden with ease .<br /><br />Good solid B Movie melodrama , this is a crime movie rather than a horror picture and is enjoyable providing you don't expect a masterpiece .Shot in black and white it is low on gore and is best seen as melodrama and enjoyed for the presence of its star giving an idiosyncratic performance | 1pos
|
Marvelous film again dealing with the trials and tribulations of World War 11 England. What makes this film so good is the touching of the human element.This film is definitely in the tradition of such British line classics such as "Mrs. Miniver" and "Hope and Glory." As is the case with this film, we see the desperation of people in the time of war.<br /><br />The performances are outstanding here especially by the embittered John Thaw, who is assigned a child who has been evacuated from the London bombing.<br /><br />We soon see why this child wets his bed. He comes from a lunatic mother who has abused him terribly.<br /><br />The old man takes to the child and brings happiness into his sad life. When the child is returned to his mother, the old man goes to London and seeks him out only to find tragedy. He literally kidnaps the boy and is able to convince a higher up that the child is better off with him than being in a boy's home.<br /><br />The picture is so good because it deals and builds on endearing relationships. | 1pos
|
I bought this movie exciting a gloriously gratuitous, over the top, entertaining bloodbath. I got none of them. This film fails on practically every level, not in the least frightening, or funny, it is simply terrible film-making, and never provides the audience with anything worth seeing. What is so bad about it is that far from being as raw, violent and brutal as it had promised to be, there is very little violence at all. Virtually no blood shed, and no excitement whatsoever. Acting, direction and dialogue is absolutely unbearable. Honestly, it is truly laughable. I could hardly sit through this total garbage once; I certainly will never want to watch it again. Don't waste your time with a waste of celluloid like this; it is truly possibly the worst film ever made. If I could give it minus stars, I would. | 0neg
|
The film's design seems to be the alpha and omega of some of the major issues in this country (U.S.). We see relationships all over at the university setting for the film. Befittingly, the obvious of student v.s. teacher is present. But what the film adds to its value is its other relationships: male v.s. female, white v.s. black, and the individual v.s. society. But most important of all and in direct relation to all of the other relationships is the individual v.s. himself. <br /><br />I was amazed at how bilateral a point of view the director gave to showing the race relations on campus. Most films typically show the injustices of one side while showing the suffering of the other. This film showed the injustices and suffering of both sides. It did not attempt to show how either was right, although I would say the skin heads were shown a much crueler and vindictive (quite obvious towards the end). The film also discusses sex and rape. It is ironically this injustice that in some ways brings the two races together, for a time. Lawrence Fishburne does an over-the-top performance as the sagacious Profesor Phipps. He crumbles the idea of race favortism and instead shows the parallelism of the lazy and down-trodden with the industrious and positive. Other stars that make this film are Omar Epps, Ice Cube, and Jennifer Connelly. Michael Rapaport gives an excellent portrayal of a confused youth with misplaced anger who is looking for acceptance. Tyra Banks make her film debut and proves supermodels can act.<br /><br />Higher Learning gets its name in showing college as more than going to class and getting a piece of paper. In fact, I would say the film is almost a satire in showing students interactions with each other, rather than some dry book, as the real education at a university. It is a life-learning process, not a textual one. I think you'll find "Higher Learning" is apropos to the important issues at many universities and even life in general. 8/10 | 1pos
|
After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers. <br /><br />We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.<br /><br />The main character did have a cool bike.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys. | 0neg
|
If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, "no, don't do that!", "why are you so stupid", "look out!", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well. | 0neg
|
I found this to be a so-so romance/drama that has a nice ending and a generally nice feel to it. It's not a Hallmark Hall Of Fame-type family film with sleeping-before-marriage considered "normal" behavior but considering it stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro, I would have expected a lot rougher movie, at least language-wise. <br /><br />The most memorable part of the film is the portrayal of how difficult it must be to learn how to read and write when you are already an adult. That's the big theme of the movie and it involves some touching scenes but, to be honest, the film isn't that memorable.<br /><br />It's still a fairly mild, nice tale that I would be happy to recommend. | 1pos
|
I thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love story
boring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it. | 0neg
|
Yakitate! Ja-pan (translated as Fresh Baked! Japanese Bread) is the story of a young man named Azuma Kazuma and his journey to make the perfect Japanese Bread or Ja-pan, for Japan, and for the Japanese, that will be recognized the the whole world.<br /><br />Of course, that's just on the outside. In reality, Yakitate! Ja-pan isn't really about the bread, but the reaction that come after eating the bread, and the pun that comes with the reaction. The series is lovable because of these puns. From popular anime titles like Naruto, Detective Conan, and Dragon Ball to blockbuster movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. It's all there.<br /><br />So what makes this title different from other titles of the same genre like Cooking Master Boy or Mr. Ajikko? Well, unlike the others who use cooking for world domination, Yakitate! Ja-pan is purely comedy. Sure, there are times that the story turns to drama, or even murder, but the comedic atmosphere makes you laugh at them. You'll be laughing at their own view of heaven. Just watch it.<br /><br />Just remember that this is also fiction, although some of the bread made here are based on real bread, eating the home made Japan #2 won't turn you to a Super Saiyan or turn your body to rubber. | 1pos
|
The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy. | 0neg
|
After watching this movie I was honestly disappointed - not because of the actors, story or directing - I was disappointed by this film advertisements.<br /><br />The trailers were suggesting that the battalion "have chosen the third way out" other than surrender or die (Polish infos were even misguiding that they had the choice between being killed by own artillery or German guns, they even translated the title wrong as "misplaced battalion"). This have tickled the right spot and I bought the movie.<br /><br />The disappointment started when I realized that the third way is to just sit down and count dead bodies followed by sitting down and counting dead bodies... Then I began to think "hey, this story can't be that simple... I bet this clever officer will find some cunning way to save what left of his troops". Well, he didn't, they were just sitting and waiting for something to happen. And so was I.<br /><br />The story was based on real events of World War I, so the writers couldn't make much use of their imagination, but even thought I found this movie really unchallenging and even a little bit boring. And as I wrote in the first place - it isn't fault of actors, writers or director - their marketing people have raised my expectations high above the level that this movie could cope with. | 0neg
|
Sidney Franklin's "The Good Earth" has achieved classic status thanks to a timeless story and superb acting, especially from Luis Ranier, who won an Oscar for her portrayal of O-Lan. Rainers performance is so complete, she is nearly unrecognizable. Having very little dialogue throughout the entire film (and it is a long one), Rainer relies instead on facial and body language. She looks and acts Chinese to the point that anyone unfamiliar with her work could easily mistake her as such.<br /><br />The film remains relevant today because it explores the rags to riches story and the universal themes that come with it. When Lung and wife O-Lan finally achieve financial success after years of famine and poverty, they find a life full of possessions but lacking in meaning. It is only when they return to the earth after fighting off a swarm of locusts (the special effects used to create them are still incredible and beautiful to watch) that they again find fulfillment. A common formula told with the unique perspective of a Chinese family (especially for 1937) makes the film a classic. Money isn't worth anything without friends and family, a point that the film drives home perfectly in it's last 10 minutes with an emotionally fulfilling conclusion. | 1pos
|
A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem "solved". They are of course "out foxed" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.<br /><br />The"film" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book. | 0neg
|
We saw the silent version of this film, and it is quite simply shimmeringly beautiful. It's quite hard to see how a sound version could have been created, since it is shot with pure silent technique, long wordless sweeps of narrative without a single intertitle -- save for a few disconcerting sequences where Louise Brooks, playing a French typist, is quite visibly speaking in English... The only section that obviously cries out for sound is the final scene, where Brooks is watching the rushes for her test 'for a sound film': footage which plays constantly in the background as the action unfolds, with her mouth moving in ceaseless soundless song. I was unsurprised to learn afterwards that this passage alone in the talkie version had been hailed as an exemplar of new technique! <br /><br />In the sunny beauty of its opening scenes and the fairy-tale inevitability of what follows, the film resembles a dream. As a 'Louise Brooks movie' it was not at all what I was expecting, either from her Hollywood comedies or from G.W.Pabst's German melodramas: I found the idiom more fluent and enjoyable than either, and Brooks herself is a different creature, a sturdy laughing young animal rather than a shop-window vamp or manipulated doll.<br /><br />But what gives this film greater depth than at first appears is the unexpected second half; repelled by the rich parasites who cluster around her beauty, the pauper princess returns to a tear-stained reunion with her humbly-born true love... and the tale might very well have been ended there. Fairy-tale, however, turns to tragedy. The dilettante Grabovsky, confident in his ability to manipulate the woman he desires, is yet all too correct in his self-interested prediction -- the young lovers cannot make each other happy -- and André, ironically, was right to mistrust the social influence of beauty contests: after the intoxication of her moment's glory, Lucienne frets herself to despair over the humdrum routine of married life while her husband, in turn, is driven wild by any reminder of the whole affair. If it were a simple case of a mis-matched marriage, that would be one thing... but the true tragedy is that they do love each other.<br /><br />In many ways "Prix de Beauté" reminds me of Murnau's "Sunrise". But if so, the fairground and photographer scenes here would form a distorted mirror-image of the joyous reconciliation in "Sunrise"; no dream but an alienating nightmare. And the following dawn brings not a miraculous reunion but an empty bed and deserted home. Leaving a letter to say that she loves him and will always love him, Lucienne vanishes again from André's life in quest of brightness and freedom; and this time she will never come back.<br /><br />Gossip columns confirm all André's worst convictions, as he learns of his wife's whereabouts through reports coupling her name with Grabovsky. When the young workman penetrates at last to the lavish sanctum of the screening-room, it is with drawn gun -- to be greeted by the sight of his rival courting and caressing a laughing Lucienne, the same woman who had pledged her undying affection as she left him. He kills her, but even as he kills is transfixed by the living image on screen, Lucienne in all her transformed glory as he never saw her. The two women are juxtaposed in an endless, powerful moment, as André is seen, seized, unresisting, and pulled away: the dying girl and her singing self still projected above, caught unknowing out of time into celluloid eternity, playing on unconscious of life or death or love beneath her...<br /><br />The main jarring element in the film is the character of André's co-worker Antonin, who appears to serve no role throughout other than to be the licensed butt of his contemporaries' malice. He is the ugly one who can never get the girl, the ungainly wimp who is tripped and tormented in the washrooms and at work, and must take it all with an uncertain ingratiating smile in his fruitless hope for social acceptance: a typical product of the bullying of the more gifted and popular, in other words, but one the audience is apparently being invited to laugh at along with his tormentors. Unless the intention is to expose a darker side to the protagonists (for which I perceive no sign), the character seems to exist merely as comic relief, but comic relief with a distinctly nasty edge. When we know him only as an inept Peeping Tom at the waterside, it's easy to laugh, although the others' revenge seems a little over the top; when we discover that he is no chance-met stranger but André's colleague and regular sidekick, the continuing attacks rapidly cease to be very funny.<br /><br />But it is the images that remain. Beauty, nightmare, and dream. | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits