Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I loved this movie so much. I'm a big fan of Amanda Bynes's recently ended show. I admire her(besides her body) for her acting capability. She is a good actress.<br /><br />The movie was great. Its about a girl named Viola who wants to play soccer, but when her school cuts the girls soccer team she gets upset. Her brother is set to go to a prestigious school and he decides to leave to England. So Viola wants to make an impression by playing on the soccer team at the boarding school. She goes to the school and tries out for the soccer team. She gets in. Meanwhile she meets Duke who is a sensitive guy who plays on the soccer team. He really likes Olivia (Laura Ramsey) who likes Sebastian-who is really viola. Sebastian is dating Monique and suspects that Sebastian isn't being himself.<br /><br />This is certainly NOT a chick flick and I enjoyed it a lot. Its so funny and lovable. I don't think I have seen AManda act better.
| 1pos
|
`It's as if this town has the power to suck your brain right out of your head.' -Patti<br /><br />Patti (Christina Ricci) is a sarcastic teenaged girl, bored with her all-too-average little town. Bored that is until a woman is kidnapped and she finds what she believes to be clues to the poor lady's whereabouts. Now, with the help of her precious cat `D.C.' and an inept FBI agent (Doug E. Doug) she must find her.<br /><br />That Darn Cat is a bad movie. It is quite foolish and it has humor that often falls quite flat. There are, however, a few buds of talent in it. Doug E. Doug was good in Cool Runnings. His performance as `Senga' was really funny. Here he is wasted as the bumbling FBI agent. He does have a good scene when he imitates the cat, though. Micheal Mckean plays Patti's father. His character must be the most understanding parent to ever live. This poor guy has his expensive cigar crushed, gets arrested for picking up his own cat, and gets bitched-at by his snippy wife and STILL doesn't get angry at his daughter for causing all of his troubles. I wish my old man was like that. The only real good performance is Christina Ricci's. She entertaining as the ever-annoyed Patti, but her occasional very bad dialogue pulls her performance down. You might also recognize Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, Everybody Loves Raymond), the old lady from Wings and Cliff from Cheers, in this movie. This is a movie that all these actors would probably like to forget. Even the cat isn't very good... I really can't recommend 1997's That Darn Cat. Some young children (under 8) might enjoy it a bit, but every one else should look elsewhere. If you're looking for a good Christina Ricci movie, I suggest Addams Family Values, The Opposite of Sex or Sleepy Hollow. If a fun family film is what you're after, try Snow Day, instead.<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.<br /><br />No film epitomized this more than "Stroker Ace" which makes "Cannonball Run" look like a classic and "Cannonball Run II" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.<br /><br />If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse.
| 0neg
|
The thing viewers will remember most is the bad headache the movie has given them due to the overly flashy, shaky, camera-work and the fast, confusing cutting. I am not against those kind of stylistic devices if they are done right like Oliver Stone and Steven Soderbergh proof with most of their movies, but in this case there was WAY too much. It seems like the jump-cuts and light flashes that accompanied every flight over Mexico city and every important scene were there to distract you from realizing that the story is quite thin and the whole thing was very predictable. The biggest disappointment lies in the fact that you can easily figure out how the whole thing is going to end. For a movie that pretends to be violent, ruthless and morally corrupt it is inexcusable that it's story has been told so many times and with a lot more depth and character development. That is another disappointing aspect of the movie. If I want to watch an over the top action flick I do not need any justification, but this movie tried to justify the killing spree of Denzel Washington's character and poorly failed in delivering any believable performances. The first half hour or so nothing much happens except that dumb archetypes and clichés are portrayed and when the action machine starts rolling it is so quickly cut that you do not know what really happens. So the movie does not work either on the level of a believable drama/thriller , nor as a pure action movie. Of course the movie is not as bad as some oft the totally messed up blockbusters of the last years, but I absolutely cannot understand why so many people claim this movie to be something fresh and so cool. For a video clip it is way too long and for a movie it has too little substance.
| 0neg
|
This was soul-provoking! I am an Iranian, and living in th 21st century, I didn't know that such big tribes have been living in such conditions at the time of my grandfather!<br /><br />You see that today, or even in 1925, on one side of the world a lady or a baby could have everything served for him or her clean and on-demand, but here 80 years ago, people ventured their life to go to somewhere with more grass. It's really interesting that these Persians bear those difficulties to find pasture for their sheep, but they lose many the sheep on their way.<br /><br />I praise the Americans who accompanied this tribe, they were as tough as Bakhtiari people.
| 1pos
|
"Shadows" is often acclaimed as the film that was the breakthrough for American independent cinema. Whether thats true or not, it is an undeniably important film, one whose influence can be traced all the way to today's Sundance fodder. Here is a film which tackles controversial topics of the day (namely racism), and refuses to give easy answers and show them in a manipulative fashion. Also, it deals with sex in a frank manner that Hollywood wouldn't even discuss until "The Graduate".<br /><br />Still, the question remains is it as powerful today as when it was originally released? The answer is yes. While many important films are hard to watch and dated nowadays, "Shadows" retains every ounce of emotional resonance when viewed now. It deals with racism as a personal issue and not a political one, so its still relevant. Plus, it works as a great time capsule, capturing the 1950s beat generation and New York art scene in a way possibly no other film has.<br /><br />On a technical level, its admittedly uneven. Cassavetes had yet to gain full confidence as a director and the choppy editing reflects the film's low budget. Still, the film's story is remains powerful. Plus, the acting, considering the inexperience of the cast and improvisational nature, is phenomenal. All around, the actors create realistic characters, ones who remain sympathetic despite their often less than admirable actions. "Shadows" is absolutely mandatory viewing for film buffs. (9/10)
| 1pos
|
This could be looked at in many different ways. This movie sucks, its good or its just plain weird. The third one probably explains this movie best. It has strange themes and just has a strange plot. So who else but Christopher Walken would play in this no matter how bad, average or even how good it might be.<br /><br />The acting was what you would expect especially out of Ben Stiller. Jack Black I have always liked so you know what you will get out of him but this is not bad. Christopher Walken is always off the wall. He is always enjoyable to watch no matter how bad the movie is. Comedy wise it is somewhat funny. This of course meaning that it does have its moments (though very few) but can get a little over top here and there which makes me feel like the movie is just desperate for laughs but of course not in a good way.<br /><br />The directing was average as well. Barry Levinson is a slightly overrated director and really did not do a good job here. This movie seemed that it had a lot more potential and he did not do much to reach it. Just very average and did not seem like a lot of effort was put into making this film.<br /><br />The writing is the key to a good comedy. Obviously that means the writing here failed. At best it is below average. Considering it does have its moments it was not too horrible. That is never a good thing to say about a movie though. <br /><br />If not for Christopher Walken and it stupid ridiculous ending I would have given it a lower rating. He is always quite a character in his movies. Stil this is just a whacked out strange movie with strange characters that really don't go anywhere. Not completely horrible but I would not really recommend it though because it is a very forgettable movie.
| 0neg
|
It's a good thing I didn't watch this while i was pregnant.I definitely would have cried my eyes out and/or vomit. It was Kind of gruesome mainly disturbing. I personally thought the baby was adorable in its own twisted little way.However as a mom I cringed when Beth stabbed herself in the stomach and when Virgina aborted the child during her 3rd trimester with rusty utensils no less.Also,as an animal lover i almost cried when she scratched the cat to a bloody pulp.However,As creepy and sinister as the baby was I was rooting for it to live.And as twisted as the movie was I am extremely intrigued to see the sequel...... ......... ....... ......... ......... ....... ...... .....
| 0neg
|
This movie is bad as we all knew it would be. Most times i usually love the bad 80s / early 90s trash-can comedy (haha no pun intended). I list Ski School, Career opportunities, Hot Shots, Summer School and many more made around this time. This even has the classic yet forgotten comedy of Dean Cameron (aka.. ski School section 8 instructor and Party Maniac for Summer School). But this movie is just to slow. It takes almost 30 min to get going and we have to sit through pointless dialog between to half-wits the Sheen boys (E&C). And yes i can hear the bloggers dieing to trash me with "obviously you don't watch 2 and 1/2 men). Well Charlie was not at the level he is now during this flick...not that he's anything worth watching now. Charlie only shines when his co-stars support him and Emilio isn't anymore than an overused wonder bra offering little support. Actually, this movie was written by Emilio and it shows. It has no real ending (come on Emilio, even the Ski School 2 writers barfed out an ending). No idea how any issue brought is solved, no hot babes, no swearing to lighten the bad plot, characters, acting... I'm now tired of this tirade. Just save your time and watch the movies i listed above. You'll enjoy them much more.
| 0neg
|
This film truly was poor. I went to the theatre expecting something exciting, and instead was afforded the opportunity to hone my "guess the next plot twist before it happens" skills. Seriously, the plot was written with an extra thick crayon so everyone could see. Nothing was truly shocking. In fact, even the gore was met with such complete suspension of belief that it really didn't add up to much.<br /><br />The excessive wise cracking and cops talking shop at the crime scenes made it seem all the more phony. And the scene where Lambert's character is struggling with the clues and reaches his "investigative epiphany" goes to great lengths to indicate the level of intellect expected from the audience - little.<br /><br />Probably the most annoying aspect of the cinematography was the "X-Files" treatment: Every building in the film, whether it's the precinct building, or a house at noon, or a hospital, was suffering from a lack of any discernible lighting (not to mention a lack of 'patients' in the case of the hospital). I don't recall a single scene when someone flipped on a light switch. It sure would have been nice.<br /><br />Mr. Lambert really isn't an Oscar-grade actor, so I suppose you have to take this film for what it's worth. In the end, I've reached the conclusion that the only thing that would make this film seem more entertaining is to watch it after watching "The Warriors". Otherwise, you're left with an effort that is dull and unoriginal, and nowhere near the equal of films of the genre such as "Silence of the Lambs".
| 0neg
|
A trio sit at a restaurant table and stare wordlessly into space. Later, they lean on a rail and stare across the Channel at England. A man works a hoe repetitively in his garden, only his head and upper torso visible on the screen. A man and a woman watch another man peeing against a stone wall. Each of these silent shots lasts for roughly one full minute. Absolutely no information is imparted that could not be given to us in about one quarter of the time. The editor must have been half asleep. I know I was.<br /><br />The movie open with a startling shot of the raw vagina of an obviously dead body. One's gorge rises. But then the policeman (Schotte) exchanges a few words with a neighboring couple and begins to tag along after them and the case is forgotten for the next half hour while Schotte and his friends trade unfunny insults with each other and with strangers. Eventually the thread of the case is picked up again but proceeds slowly, almost aimlessly, following the stylistic pattern already established.<br /><br />Sometimes in movies like this, the location shooting provides a kind of atmosphere that compensates for the dullness of the story, but not here. The houses of the French village are attached to one another in long rows. The house fronts abut the pavement directly, with no steps. The fronts show virtually no decoration and are pretty much indistinguishable. The flat farmlands are featureless. What might have been one of the more interesting episodes -- a visit to a stone fort on the coast -- bores the trio until they begin behaving like snots and are asked to leave.<br /><br />The acting is minimal. Nobody seems particularly anxious to say anything. No jokes are made. Nothing amusing happens. The policeman has a face almost as interesting as Randy Quaid's. The babe, a tall hefty blonde, looks like the kind of shot putter on steroids that the East Germans used to field at the Olympic Games.<br /><br />I sat through more than an hour of it before giving it up. Maybe I'll take a crack at it some other time. Unless I've missed something or unless it turns into some deranged Monty Python routine towards the end, I don't think you'll get much out of renting it.
| 0neg
|
This is a complex film that explores the effects of Fordist and Taylorist modes of industrial capitalist production on human relations. There are constant references to assembly line production, where workers are treated as cogs in a machine, overseen by managers wielding clipboards, controlling how much hair the workers leave exposed, and firing workers (Stanley) who meet all criteria (as his supervisor says, are always on time, are hard workers, do good work) but who may in some unspecified future make a mistake. <br /><br />This system destroys families - Stanley has to send his father to a nursing home (where he quickly dies) after Stanley loses his job. Iris' daughter is a single teen mother who drops out of high school to take a job in the plant. References are made to the fact that now, with declining wages, both partners need to work, the implication being that there's nobody left at home to care for the kids. Iris' husband is dead from an illness, and with the multiple references in the film about the costs of medical care, the viewer must wonder if he might have lived with better and more costly care. Iris' brother in law gets abusive after yet another unsuccessful day at the unemployment office when his wife yells at him for buying a beer with her savings instead of leaving it for her face lift and/or teeth job (even the working class with no stake in conventional bourgeois notions of perfection and beauty buy into them). The one reference to race in the film is through a black factory line worker whose husband is in jail (presumably, he's also black, and black men suffer disproportionally high incarceration rates). She remarks that he, like her, "is doing time" - her family is composed of a prisoner and a wage slave.<br /><br />Stanley, however, still believes in human relations and is therefore for most of the film outside of the system of Fordist capitalism. He cares for his father in spite of the fact that it was his father's traveling salesman job that resulted in his illiteracy - he has not yet reduced human relations to a purely instrumental contract, as Iris' brother in law does (suggesting that he "married the wrong sister"). He does not, as Iris says, conform to the work-eat-sleep routine of everyone else; rather, he uses technology and the techniques of industrial production in an artisanal and creative way, in a sort of Bauhaus ideal. This was the dream of early modernists and 1920's socialists (such as the Bauhaus) - to use technology to provide for all basic needs, allowing for more free time for creative human work and fuller human relations. He is also outside of traditional gender relations. He cooks, he cleans, he cares for his family, and he knows how to iron. Iris, on the other hand, lives in a traditionally male role - she's a factory worker, the mains source of income for her (extended) family, and she brings Stanley into the public realm, traditionally off-limits to women. By teaching him to read and write, she gives him access to the world of knowledge, also traditionally gendered male.<br /><br />Literacy here is used as a metaphor for the (traditionally masculine) public realm and the systems of circulation (monetary, vehicular, cultural) that enable participation in the public realm. Without this access, Stanley is feminized - the jobs open to him are cooking and cleaning. He is excluded from all regular circulations, unable to participate in the monetary (can't open a bank account), in the vehicular (can't get a driver's license, can't ride the bus), and in the social (he asks if he exists if he can't write his name).<br /><br />After learning to read, he grabs books on auto repair, farming, and spirituality (the Bible). The Word of God is therefore relativized, placed on the same value plane as how-to books. In fact, organized religion in general is only very occasionally present - the Bible also appears on a dresser as the camera pans to find Stanley and Iris having sex. It is, however, acknowledged as a moral force - Iris, clearly a character devoted to living a "good" life, mentions at the beginning of the film that her rosary was among the objects lost in a purse snatching.<br /><br />Once able to read, he enters the system and lands a managerial position with a health care plan, a car, and a house, taking his place at the head of the family, the breadwinner. Presumably, he's an industrial designer, dreaming up products that will require others enduring the drudgery of the assembly line to produce. This ending, probably the only bit of conventional Hollywood in the film, is so incongruous with all that has come before that I at least wonder if it wasn't forced in by some Studio exec suddenly worried about the lack of a feel-good ending and its potential effect on the bottom line.<br /><br />Now that, according to the pundits, we've comfortably moved on to post-industrial capitalism, the film also has a slightly nostalgic feel, as though we needed the historical distance to really analyze what happened during that period. <br /><br />Nevertheless, it's highly recommended - at least if you want to exercise your brain. Disregard the ending, and it's close to a perfect 10.
| 1pos
|
A study in BAD. Bad direction, bad acting, bad writing and f/x that´ll teach you that you´d better upgrade your computer before filming. It´s the kind of flick you used to do totally drunk in your cellar with Dad´s camera when you were young at heart. But YOU certainly would not show it in public when you´re sober again, would you? YOU wouldn´t even view it. Avoid at all costs.
| 0neg
|
Emraan Hashmi post MURDER did some good roles in Bhatt films but other director just made use of his kissing and naughty image<br /><br />AKSAR is one of them and it came after AAA, JAWANI DIWANI in a row and I was already fed up of him and such roles <br /><br />The film has a nice twist at the start i felt like an Abbas Mustan film but then it turns into a routine film with sudden love, sudden jealousy and a bad climax<br /><br />Anant Mahadevan makes a terrible film Music is saving grace Camera-work is fabulous<br /><br />Emraan Hashmi just repeats his act of his earlier films and has 2 expressions throughout Dino looks stiff, talks as if he is practicing Hindi and does okay in some scenes Udita is expressionless and irritates
| 0neg
|
but just as entertaining and random! Love it or hate it, but don't expect a sophisticated plot or nail-biting cliffhanger. Think of it like Seinfeld, but without the follow-through and repeat performances of wacky characters (well...so far; i have a feeling i will develop favourites as the season continues).<br /><br />"Creature Comforts" is not for the faint of humour - it's meant to be enjoyed with the least amount of effort on your brain's part. Which is why this show embodies everything i need in a program when i get home from work in the evening: superficial conversation in the background with just the right amount of "cute" to the characters for me to enjoy when i eventually look up from the computer to see what i'm missing.<br /><br />Funnier than most of today's sitcoms, calmer than an evening at NASCAR. Just the right mix of dead air and comebacks. Can't wait for the next one.
| 1pos
|
Definitely not a film to revolutionize the industry or introduce any new techniques of film-making, this is a very handsome and solid production. It's miraculous that we can today enjoy it in superb quality on DVD - probably most of the viewers about a 100 years ago saw a black and white copy, as the stencil tinted de luxe edition was available only at the very best theaters. Even if you are not fascinated by this film or the subject of it, you can't but marvel at the copy released by Image Entertainment (together with another gem, From the Manger To the Cross, 1912). It's virtually impossible to see a film that is over a century old but shows so little damage. The process of stencil colouring was a very effective one and, compared to the occasionally blurry and smeared images of hand coloured film, the colours are crisp and well defined. Filmed within the limitations of the film-making as known back in 1902 when the filming commenced, the static nature of the scenes can today be considered almost intentional, meditative and solemn. The tableaux keep moving at a steady paste, so the film never gets tedious. You might not be fascinated by this film as a work of cinematography, but it sure is handsome as a work of academic, picturesque art. If you are a religious person, the fact that you are watching anonymous, long since departed people playing long since departed characters, adds to the mystery significantly. A proper viewing for Christmas or Lent. <br /><br />P.S: I've ticked the "contains spoilers" box just for fun. As you can see, I haven't revealed the ending.
| 1pos
|
Amateurism best describes the film adaptation of the best-selling philosophical novel "The Celestine Prophecy", which follows the spiritual awakening of an out of work teacher in a mysterious village in Peru. Home video quality actors present so-called characters spewing overwrought exposition and metaphysical hokum, while the film is propelled by the extremely heavy-handed direction of Armand Mastroianni. Even though there are visible attempts at measuring up to and interesting fans of stronger fare in the vain of ABC's "Lost" or Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", the filmmakers are hardly up to the task. This film reeks of ill-conceived mass consumption spiritual propaganda, and the results are so awful few can wade through this mess to spot a real point.
| 0neg
|
Alive<br /><br />Alive is a very entertaining SCI-FI movie from Japan. I have noticed a lot of disappointed film geeks who loved Versus this director's debut film or his third film Azumi. I have heard they are blood drenched films with swords and zombies and all kinds of goodies. Frankly I went to the video store to get Versus but I am just fine with Alive.<br /><br />If you are looking for beginning to end wall to wall action then Alive is not your pick. There is plenty of action however it comes as pay-off for a whole hour of character driven build-up. Personally I think it is well done and worth it.<br /><br />Of course some of the plot is silly as with many SCI-Fi action films and I think the subtitles using the term foreign object could have replaced with parasite for greater effect. This film is brutal when it needs to be so faint of heart need not apply.<br /><br />They kept the budget down by for the most part confining all the action to one underground building(taking a cue from the cube) but the film doesn't suffer for it. Another bonus for this film is intense gothic imagines that are done with great artistic flair during the many Flashbacks and dream sequences. <br /><br />Rent this!
| 1pos
|
Necessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic "Moby Dick". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...<br /><br />There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best. <br /><br />**** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes
| 0neg
|
Over the years I seemed to have missed this picture of Ronald Reagan, and due to his recent passing to the big screen in heaven, it was shown on TV recently. This is a great low budget B&W film of the late 1930's, however, it is very interesting to see how criminals used their talents to steal money from insurance companies with false claims during this particular time frame. I was surprised at the role Ronald Reagan,(Eric Gregg),"The Killer's,'64, played in this picture, along with a great veteran film star, Sheila Bromley,(Nona Gregg),"Nightmare Circus",'73, who was a great supporting actor. It was a great film that showed Ronald Reagan as a very young man reaching for the stars in his career in Hollywood at the time. God Bless HIM !
| 1pos
|
FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first "rockin'" episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature "The Thing", and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of "The Thing".<br /><br />The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.<br /><br />Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.<br /><br />Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and "The Thing": art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.<br /><br />8/10
| 1pos
|
When I first became a father about 5.5 years ago, I was prepared for many of the sacrifices I'd have to make. I knew I'd have to change diapers and take them to swimming lessons and attend many a freezing Santa Claus parade, but I wasn't ready for the kind of sacrifice I made last night. This, in my humble opinion, is cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />Underdog is bad. It's not quite Karate Dog bad, but it makes The Shaggy Dog feel like Pulp Fiction. If Underdog were a television show, I'd recommend flipping on by. Not even the presence of Puddy and the voice of Banky Edwards can save it. Bow. Wow.<br /><br />It was also just about the best 80 minutes I've ever enjoyed. James was seated to the right of me and Michelle to the left, and I spent more time watching their reaction to this talking, flying mutt than watching the screen. At 5 and 3 years old, they were the target audience, and this movie nailed the target. There's a scene where Underdog belches loudly in another dogs face and Michelle thought it was the funniest scene ever captured on film. When Underdog was flying into outer space, James was literally at the edge of his seat, mesmerized. The kids absolutely loved Underdog, and that's why I was there. That's what last night was all about.<br /><br />Unless you're accompanying someone under the age of ten, you have no business wasting a second of your life watching this brutal film. But if you are looking to kill 80 minutes with your four year old, I won't judge. I had a blast.
| 0neg
|
this is a really great series. i love the show and i am so glad it isn't canceled yet. it has really good humor and shows the realistic bond between a young mother and her daughter. o yes for Gilmore girls! it is very awesome. they are such a sarcastic humorous bunch. they do everything together just like my mom and me. ya for Gilmore girls. um, i'm running out of lines. but i love how Luke and Lorelei's relationship is finally shaping up. they so needed to be together. and i absolutely just love Sookie St. James! she is so awesome . and the show wouldn't be anywhere without Michel. the whole show is dry humor, sarcasm, and life in a very small town where everyone knows each other....especially the Gilmore Girls.
| 1pos
|
As John Grierson pointed out: "The documentary genre can be defined like this: the creative interpretation of reality"<br /><br />This fabulous 180-minute documentary marks the first time a computer-generated project about dinosaurs respects the intelligence of the viewer.<br /><br />When I saw Jurassic Park, which I was expecting with great excitement, I was left extremely disappointed. Of course the dinosaurs were great, but the story-telling was unnecessary. I thought: "What if they made a documentary on dinosaurs, with no crying children or bad puns, just dinosaurs made as realistic as possible, to let us marvel at what was once reality."<br /><br />My dream came true. The BBC has produced an exhilarating documentary exploring the different eras of the dinosaurs.<br /><br />This part is to all the people that seem to disagree with the fact that they had to guess at many points concerning the behavior, skin patterns etc: Of course they have to. Nobody was there. I think it is fantastic that they could present something as realistic as that. The guessings are all based on the knowings of many paleontologists, and it allows the viewer to have a pretty good idea of what it was like. If you wanna stick to what we know for sure, then just go visit a dinosaur bones museum. That is why I incorporated the Grierson quote at the beginning of this comment.<br /><br />Anyway, hats off to the creators of it.
| 1pos
|
I should have known better..the clues were all over IMDB.com. This flick was written and directed by the same guy who has no track record. The cast is a bunch of unknowns with the possible exception of Joe Estevez who seems to specialize in bad movies. Etc. Suffice it to say, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to see this awful, amateurish attempt at film making. Turn on any broadcast channel at 3am and you'll see better movies. Nuff said.
| 0neg
|
This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film.
| 1pos
|
Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.<br /><br />So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow
| 0neg
|
If you have not heard of this film from Walt Disney Pictures, do not worry about it. It would be classed along the other films by Disney that are meant for educational purposes like "Family Planning".<br /><br />It was co-produced with Kotex to teach pre-teen girls about Menstruation, supposably. It only educates at a superficial level, so it does not go into heavy detail for the animated "Ram's Head"/ Reproductive System sequence.<br /><br />The film does show "The Wonderful World of Disney" elements like the turning of the page and the use of animation to tell the story.<br /><br />This film is impossible to find, so if you can find the film, best luck to you and enjoy.
| 1pos
|
I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.
| 0neg
|
That's how I was when I walked (staggered) out of this "film". I couldn't leave, because it was at a film festival and the cinema was full of people. I was stuck in the middle. Trapped.<br /><br />The tiny fragment of original footage which attempted to bind this film together features some of the worst acting ever to grace the big screen. The daughter was a stand out performance - stand out in the bad sense.<br /><br />Thge cinematography was hideous, consisting of disjointed framing and some of the oddest lighting I've witnessed.<br /><br />As for the stock footage... well at first one...<br /><br />Wait.<br /><br />Why am I reviewing this film? Why do I acknowledge its existence? Please, don't watch it. Do something useful with two hours of your life and go watch some paint dry.
| 0neg
|
I swear, I had never seen such a bad movie as Half Caste is. Not only because it just makes no sense, is a huge piece of egolatry and self-confidence that makes me puke.<br /><br />Sebastian Apocada (in Spanish Apocada has a similar pronunciation to "apocado" which means "out of life and happiness") makes here a one man army movie thinking he is Sam Raimi or the boys who directed the Blair Witch project. This is the Blair Kittie project, with an expensive low budget.<br /><br />The story, a couple of American Filmmakers that go to Africa to make a documentary of the Half Caste, is just no-sense. The way of filming, inserting high speed shots with slow motion shots, just revolts your stomach more than the stupid lines (what the hell is that dialog about Bestiality?) or the lame performances. By the way, I don't believe this cast (or caste?) is American, they all look European to me.<br /><br />To finish this, just say that the filmmakers made an intelligent move about selling the movie. They put a fake award achievement (as most original film) and a nice cover (in Spain the cover had the Half caste image in negative), so I feel now unhappy, because I can't demand my 14 Euros back.
| 0neg
|
Gerald (Richard Carlson) and Kitty (Veronica Hurst) have just finished celebrating their engagement announcement in France with family and friends, when he receives a letter asking him to visit an ancestral castle located in Scotland. Gerald's uncle reportedly has fallen ill and has requested Gerald, the sole heir, be present. Gerald goes off to Scotland, leaving his future bride behind. A few weeks pass and he doesn't come back. Concerned, Kitty sends out telegrams but doesn't hear back from her fiancé. Four more weeks pass and Kitty finally receives a weird response from Gerald, calling off the engagement and telling her to move on with her life. Not ready to give up on her relationship and looking for answers, Kitty hops on a plane and decides to pay Gerald a visit. Accompanying her on the trip is her level-headed aunt Edith (Katherine Emery, best known for her starring role in the classic chiller ISLE OF THE DEAD). When Kitty and Edith arrive at the MacTeam estate they immediately suspect something strange is afoot. For starters Gerald seems to have aged twenty-years in a matter of weeks. Secondly, this once nice and charming guy has turned into a complete jerk who repeatedly demands they leave the castle and never come back. When Edith comes down with a mild cold, Kitty uses it as an excuse to stay there to try to get to the bottom of things.<br /><br />Why is Gerald being so cold and cruel to the woman he was just about to marry? Why is Gerald so opposed to having company? Why do the house rules state that guests must be locked inside their bedrooms at night? Why are guests forbidden to enter certain areas of the estate, such as Gerald's bedroom and a large hedge maze out back? And what's making those strange dragging noises every night? These are just some of the questions THE MAZE poses. The movie actually does a fine job building up mystery and intrigue. You genuinely become interested in what's going on and patiently await the resolution to explain the weird events that are taking place. And then IT happens... I definitely don't want to ruin the finale of this film because you're better off not knowing, but it takes one of the most unbelievable and jaw-droppingly strange turns I've seen in any movie. It's wonderfully ludicrous in a way, but it also takes a pretty solid little b/w mystery and sends it straight into Z-Grade schlock territory. And yet, this ending seems so out of place, you're not likely to forget it once you see it.<br /><br />Despite the ending (or maybe even partially because of the ending), I really enjoyed this odd bird. It's extremely talky and slow moving for the duration of the run time, but it managed to keep my interest throughout. Director William Cameron Menzies (who made the much more famous INVADERS FROM MARS the same year) is best known as a two-time Oscar-winning art director and his set designs here are also really interesting. There's almost a silent movie feel at times, with model work for some of the exteriors, some painted backdrops and sparsely decorated interiors with very high ceilings. As with any good castle set there are also secret passageways and long staircases. This one also throws in a few rubber-bats-on-strings for good measure.<br /><br />A few of the actors are a little stiff and awkward, but I liked most of the cast. Hurst is one of those obscure and mostly unknown actresses who unfortunately never seemed to catch on despite being both beautiful and talented. Emery, who also gets to play narrator in framing shots at the beginning and end of the film, is decent enough as the overly mannered and cautious aunt. My favorite however was Michael Pate as the silver-haired sinister servant who does this hilariously upright zombie walk every time he ascends the stairs. Also on board in smaller roles are Hillary Brooke (who played the title role in the Sherlock Holmes mystery THE WOMAN IN GREEN) and Lilian Bond (Whale's THE OLD DARK HOUSE). Of course Carlson also starred in IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and some other horror flicks, so you've got yourself a pretty decent cast for genre fans right there. I say check it out!
| 1pos
|
Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Truly I Love Lucy as well...comedic genius yes.....MAME...NEVER...she was as ridiculous as Mame...as was the film adaptation of Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood. Both just completely missed the point. Roslind Russell was, is and always will be the first and only Mame. Perhaps as a young starlet, Ball could have pulled off a role like this, where her inherent beauty and youth could have carried her through...but this seemed a desperate attempt from an aged star to show that she was still viable in the field. The reason there are sooo many more supporters of Russell's version (aside from the fact that you cant improve upon the original) is that Russell had presence, she absorbs every scene, whereas Lucille Ball might as well be a pattern on the wallpaper in Mame for all the attention she commands in the role.
| 0neg
|
I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film.
| 0neg
|
This is my first comment! This is a fantastic movie! I watched it all by luck one night on TV. At first 5 minutes i thought it was a B movie, but afterward i understood what an amazing product this was.<br /><br />I suggested to some friends to see the movie, only to tell me that it was a bad B movie. How wrong. Superficial critiques.<br /><br />I think that the movie is almost a product of genius! The well known director made an excellent job here and it is a shame to tell that he was out of the game all this time.
| 1pos
|
Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree.
| 1pos
|
This may not be the worst movie ever made, but it is absolutely the most boring. Wonder why it is shot mostly in the dark, and mostly with Vincent Gallo walking away from the camera, or looking down? Because he doesn't want to show his face for actually agreeing to being in this movie. I liked his early stuff, but the pretentiousness of the "Brown Bunny" and then being cast in this drivel knocked him down a peg in my book. And Val Kilmer? I actually want to send him a sympathy card. The "doors" to this??? Actually the casting was the only reason I watched this movie, and Val doesn't even show up until the movie is more than halfway over. Simply a sad movie.
| 0neg
|
Ram Gopal Verma usually makes so-so cookie cutter formula fare, lifted from some Hollywood flick. His every film after Shiva is in the cookie-cutter genre. Occasionally, he makes a truly horrible movie like this one. <br /><br />For the first 55 minutes, we are introduced to the only 2 characters, a struggling gymnast masquerading as a skilled dancer (go figure!) and a wannabe actor trying to strike it rich in Bollywood. They fall in love, zero becomes hero, dancer/gymnast gets no break, gymnastics, angst, the usual heartbreak, more gymnastics, angst, song, dance, angst, some more gymnastics, more ridiculous gymnastics and before you know it, you're fast asleep. And this despite the HOT SEXY HOT HOT SEXY HOT bod of the leading lady-cum-gymnast-cum-dancer.<br /><br />But hey, you're not alone!! The editor, director, photographer, in fact the whole cast and crew are asleep thru-out the entire production. Only difference being they got paid to snooze while you paid money for this crap, so you lose. Ha, joke's on you. Don't feel sorry for yourself but for our poor broke gal as she tones up daily in her high-rise penthouse in the sexiest of leotards and exercise-wear. Puh-leese, when will the poor thang get a break, she's STARR-VINNNG?!<br /><br />Antara Mali cannot act. RGV's lost his marbles. Abhishek tried hard but failed. No plot. No story. Nothing. She must've paid RGV handsomely to make this all-nonsense stuff in addition to free gymnastics lessons on his casting couch. What a super deal. No need for an acting career.<br /><br />Such absolute rubbish can only be "Made in Bollywood" of course!
| 0neg
|
"Fat Girls" is among the worst films within the indie gay genre.<br /><br />The premise is promising: an average-looking gay teen is trapped in a repressive small TX town. His only kindred spirits are the other village HS misfits: the class 'fat girl', a naïve immigrant from Cuba, and the sensitive drama teacher. So far, interesting. In theory, this plot line creates a decent setup for an appealing coming of age story with a built-in audience---the thousands of gay men who grew up in small towns across America and experienced this adolescent anxiety first hand, peppered with a dose of self-deprecating humor.<br /><br />Unfortunately, rather than a nuanced dramedy, Ash Christian approaches his autobiographical subject matter with a poorly executed attempt at irony and dark humor. The result is a cast of unlikeable, derivative, two-dimensional characters which the viewer cannot but help feel indifferent toward. Sabrina (Fink) is a quasi-Goth bitter navel-gazer. She is such a prickly, unsympathetic person; there is little doubt as to the reason for her friendless condition. The chemistry between her and Rodney (Christian) registers zero. This may have been bad casting, but is more likely due to a screenplay which is simply unsalvageable. Consequently, one is left wondering when there is such a non-existent bond, what could possibly warrant their near-constant companionship throughout the story.<br /><br />Sabrina's newfound boyfriend, Rudy (de Jesus), and Rodney's mother Judy (Theaker) are among the most exaggerated of the clichéd stock characters ripped off from dozens of other films. Rudy is the horny undersexed immigrant/nerd lifted directly from every raunchy adolescent "comedy" ever made within the realm of TV or film. Judy is the born-again obsessed with Jesus- talk and big hair. Just when you thought the Tammy Faye thing had been done to death, Christian inserts a scene where Judy's mascara is running with her tears! Is there anyone in the civilized world that can possibly think this tired old stereotype gag is still funny after seeing it ad nauseum for 20 years?<br /><br />In addition to the failed attempts at sardonic humor, there are many puzzling story inconsistencies. Rodney considers himself a "fat ugly" loser. However, he simultaneously manages to participate in casual and regular impromptu trysts with the ubiquitous school jock/hunk, Ted (Miller). Although these liaisons are devoid of emotional fulfillment, most gay teens (filled with raging testosterone, just like their hetero brethren) would find this to be a rather enviable arrangement given the more common alternative of involuntary celibacy.<br /><br />Rodney finds an object for his affection in Bobby (Bruening), an exotic transplant from England. Against all believable odds, the lad not only happens to land in this tiny TX hamlet, but is conveniently openly gay to boot. Like Sabrina, Bobby is an icy, angry smart aleck and the viewer is left head-scratching as to his magnetic appeal. <br /><br />Much to his delight, Rodney is invited by his new crush to the town gay bar, where Bobby claims to be the DJ. Upon arrival, the boyfriend-to-be promptly leaves Rodney solo and heads off to another area of the bar for a quick encounter with a rather handsome young man. This is yet one more of the ridiculously inexplicable plot elements since Rodney's feeling as an outcast are supposedly derived largely from his lonely existence in a parochial town. As tiny as the town is, they have openly gay students at the high school? A secretly bisexual football captain? Lesbian moms? A Gay teacher? and it has a gay bar downtown (patronized by attractive men, no less)? Apparently, the place is not so backwater after all.<br /><br />Ten years earlier, Todd Stephens' "Edge of Seventeen" covered nearly the same material with a much more creative, honest, touching, and humorous film.
| 0neg
|
I'm actually surprised at the amount of good ratings this anti-Christian pseudo-documentary got. Now, I respect the guy's opinion and faith, I myself am not, at this state, believer of the taught Christian doctrine. However, anti-Christian propaganda is somewhat of a different issue.<br /><br />This film has valid points, but they are very few and represented in a very biased context. I'm not recommending against seeing it. In fact, I think everyone should see it and decide on their own whether they believe it or not. And this is actually more of a chance than the one the director gives to Christian teachings. Rather than an inquiring approach on the subject, it looks like a personal vendetta on the Christian school that affected his childhood. It also misrepresents the Christians most of the times as either incredibly naive or fundamentalists, no moderation in between.<br /><br />The director uses movie scenes from Passion of Christ without permission, sets up an interview with the headmaster of his former school and presents almost solely anti-Christian historians and writers. I actually found the headmaster to be the most down-to-earth person and think that his attitude was fully justified. I also strongly doubt that any of the Christian believers who were interviewed were consulted afterwords or even told before the interview the purpose of the inquiry.<br /><br />With this being said, there are certainly new and interesting facts to be found here and some very original thoughts on the question of Christianity. But the way in which this whole think is produced is often offensive, highly unprofessional and dreadfully biased.
| 0neg
|
I can't believe this show is still rating a 9 out of 10. I could see if those votes were in the first 2 seasons, but what would possess anyone to continue to rate it high after that? I was a huge fan the 1st season. I was hooked - all the mystery, suspense, unexplained events. You never knew what was going to happen next. By season 2, I was still watching faithfully, but was getting a little frustrated that some basic things had yet to be explained. And instead of giving you more answers, it just seemed like more questions. I LOVE suspense, but you have to throw people a bone every now and then to keep them watching.<br /><br />Now, I can't even remember what finally turned me off, but somewhere in season 2, I had enough. I'm not a big fan of appointment viewing - and you clearly can't miss an episode to stay up on what's happening. So, it was no longer worth the effort to me.<br /><br />It's a shame that they couldn't have been a little smarter and more considerate of the loyal fans. I agree with some of the posters that it appears ABC just got greedy and decided to see how long they can stretch this show out. Don't they realize that in the end, they are going to lose more fans than they could possibly gain.
| 0neg
|
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which in many ways, as Hitchcock did on several occasions, was a first attempt at a plot which he re-shot later in his career. Possibly the most amazing thing about it, however, is how faceless the lead characters are. After watching, one remembers Murray Alper as the jovial truck driver, Vaughan Glaser's touching turn as a blind "patriot", the unforgettable traveling Freak Show and of course Otto Kruger as the suave and sophisticated villain, all of whom completely overshadow Bob Cummings as the rather wooden fugitive (compare that bridge jump to Harrison Ford's similar stunt in Andrew Davis' "The Fugitive") and Priscilla Lane whose change of heart and subsequent love towards Cummings is never quite believable.<br /><br />The other major support player is, of course, Hitchcock himself who bookends the film with 2 extraordinary stunts. Many people criticise the older films for their lack of realistic special effects. My feelings are that with lack of technology, to even attempt and convey what the director wants to show is an amazing achievement.<br /><br />Obviously this film carries an anti-fascist message, made at the time of the Second World War, but being a Hitchcock it is never the most important thing and the emphasis is always on the action. Well worth checking out, especially for the support roles.
| 1pos
|
Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%.
| 1pos
|
I love Ashley Judd and think all of her movies are great. Ruby<br /><br />in Paradise is one of her best. It is a very understated movie that you really have to watch close to appreciate it. A story of a woman trying to make it on her own and refusing to give in to temptations that would make her life easy. Some of her movies such as Kiss The Girls and Time to Kill probably did better at the box office and video rentals. They were very good movies<br /><br />also, but take the time to really look at Ruby and I think you will agree it is one of Ashley's Best.<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
As a massive fan of fantasy in general, and of the works of Neil Gaiman *in particular*, I've been looking forward to this film so avidly, so hungrily and with such a bittersweet mixture of anticipation and fear of disappointment that I can scarcely believe it's finally here. And you know what? I needn't have feared, the film version is bl**dy awesome. Different from the book, but in a good way - less whimsical, more comical, still deeply sweet and enchanting.<br /><br />The special effects are absolutely spot-on, and make magic feel a natural and proper part of the world of Wall without being overtly spectacular and intrusive.<br /><br />Proper attention has been paid to storytelling and pacing, and the casting in the main is a triumph, with the ghostly Princes (whose roll-call read almost as a "Who's Who" of currently cool British comedy - Rupert Everett, David Walliams of Little Britain fame, two of the blokes from Green Wing etc) stealing most of the best lines and pretty much all of the films' funniest moments, which exist in abundance. <br /><br />In fact, the one minor criticism I have at all of the film is that sometimes the comedy elements become a little OTT, subtlety goes out of the window to the detraction of the main story.... Ricky Gervais' cameo, for example, was far too much just "Ricky Gervais doing his usual David Brent from the Office comedy persona" for my liking, and in my opinion, created an unwelcome and jolting break from the magical spell of the progressing story (though in fairness, from memory I believe the Ferdy character in the original book WAS pretty "Ricky Gervais"-esquire when I think back on it)....<br /><br />But this is a minor quibble in an otherwise immaculately cast and scripted fairytale with a good mixture of action and romance. Charlie Cox, as the protagonist Tristan, captures the correct mixture of naivety, subtle comedy and self-realisation required for a story like this where a "humble young boy embarks on life-changing quest"; Claire Danes as Yvaine is beautiful, feisty and just ever so slightly alien or ethereal, a perfect interpretation of her stellar role; Robert De Niro, in the cameo every reviewer is talking about, is indeed deserving of praise, rollicking good fun (looks like he's having a ball, too)... and Michelle Pfeiffer is triumphantly cool and nasty as wicked witch Lamia, my favourite performance of the film overall. If you enjoyed her deliciously b!tchy performance in the recent "Hairspray" then you will thoroughly enjoy her in this, too.<br /><br />So to round off this review: you will laugh, for sure, you will smile, and you may even cry - Stardust is a beautiful, heart-warming fairytale for all the family, with a heart of gold and more sass 'n smarts than is immediately apparent. One of my all-time favourite films is the absolutely fantastic Princess Bride, and Stardust is being readily likened to this with good reason as it is a very similar type of film exploring similar themes and territory.... and just as The Princess Bride remains fresh, smart and funny twenty years after its initial release, I believe that the delicious tongue-in-cheek sweetness of Stardust will be showing up as a family favourite on our televisions (or equivalent future device!) for many years to come.
| 1pos
|
I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.
| 0neg
|
Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.
| 0neg
|
I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying "oh brother, what a load of ....". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off.
| 0neg
|
I decided to write a comment on this amazing movie because here on IMDb it is cited that John Woo, a mediocre director who made some decent films back in his pre-American years but totally ruined his reputation by his latest, made in US films, plans to remake it. Well, here are a couple of reasons why it is one of the stupidest ideas for a remake ever: The plot of the film is simple and even clichéd by today's standards, but what makes the film a masterpiece is acting by the four leads, unique direction by Mellville, cinematography, music and its style. There is no way any director today can make such film, it is impossible to create such an atmosphere in a movie in today's Box-office targeted movie business. <br /><br />John Woo did make a more or less decent film which borrowed from Melville's Le Samourai - The Killer, but remember, it was made when the director was not spoiled by big budgets and expensive (in salaries) but cheap (in acting merits) actors. So what I'm saying is that this is one of the greatest films ever made, together with another film by Melville - Le Samourai. Watch it. And even if the remake will be made, try to avoid it before seeing the great original first.
| 1pos
|
This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living. <br /><br />Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie. <br /><br />Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in colour. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that. <br /><br />Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it.
| 1pos
|
I had only written one review on IMDb prior to this, as I consider most games as unworthy of the time and effort...Curse of Monkey Island is different.<br /><br />Having played and been impressed by Monkey 1 and 2, I had great expectations for the third release...and was not disappointed. The first thing that hit me was the substantially improved graphics. Don't get me wrong, for games made in 1990 and 1991 respectively, Monkey 1 and 2 were ground-breaking and provided the goods well, but CMI steps up and delivers a superb cartoon-style game-play which is both fun and satisfying. All scenes and settings have been carefully crafted and well thought out, and suit this type of game perfectly. The animation/CGI is a mixture of realism and exaggeration; a fantastic combination in this case. <br /><br />For me the script has been crucial in the success of the previous two games. The CMI script is clever, appropriate and, above all, absolutely hilarious. Added to this, the script is now audio unlike the previous two where speech is displayed in text format at the bottom of the screen. Dominic Armato's voice is perfect for Guybrush: witty, clear and slightly naive. All other voice talents fit their characters perfectly, especially Earl Boen who is the voice behind LeChuck. I loved every single character throughout the game: not just their personalities and wit, but the way each character is animated superbly and distinctively. Whilst on the subject of audio effects, the soundtrack is worth a mention. The soundtracks for Monkey 1 and 2 were both monotone, and despite this were very effective at giving atmosphere and representing a change in mood. CMI's soundtrack is, once again, a step up. Each scene is complemented by a catchy, subtle, playful and piratey (if that's a word) tune. With a change in setting or mood, the music also adapts, adding to the entertainment and amusement that the game offers.<br /><br />The whole idea behind Monkey Island is to solve puzzles and problems in order to progress. This might sound easy, but is actually devilishly tricky in many places. Some may be put off by the level of logic and amount of thinking that goes into Monkey Island, but in reality this makes the game even more entertaining and fun, and also adds to the replay value. The option of "The Curse of Monkey Island" or "The Curse of Monkey Island: Mega-Monkey" (which involves trickier and more abundant puzzles) suits players of all abilities and also gives good cause to play the game at least twice. Whatever difficulty level you choose, you are guaranteed a different game each time you replay, with numerous speech options and other puzzles to solve that don't affect the outcome of the game, but are just there for fun. The most entertaining section of the game is Ship Combat, and the sword "fights" that follow. These were particularly well thought out and make the game completely worthwhile. Add to this a stupendous story that is non-violent and suitable for all ages which will keep you hooked and wanting more until the very end.<br /><br />Finally in conclusion, a uniquely special mention must go to the designers of this game. The way each complex puzzle and problem is thought out is simply astonishing. Whilst gathering up items and objects during game-play, you can't see how each one is going to help you progress, but with a little thought and perseverance solutions present themselves, and for that the designers of CMI must be highly commended.<br /><br />10/10 for the best game I have ever played (not an exaggeration)
| 1pos
|
When I was a kid I watched this many times over, and I remember whistling the "Happy Cat" song quite often. All the songs are great, and actually memorable, unlike many children's musicals, where the songs are just stuck in for no real reason. The scenes and costumes are lavish, and the acting is very well-done, which isn't surprising, considering the cast. Christopher Walken is very catlike, and doesn't need stupid make-up, or a cat costume for the viewer to believe he's a cat transformed to a human. And Jason Connery's so cute, as the shy and awkward miller's son, Corin, who falls in love with beautiful and the bold Princess Vera. This is a really fun, enjoyable, feature-length movie, where unlike most fairytales, the characters are given personalities. Some of my favourite parts are when Puss makes Corin pretend he's drowning; at the ball when everybody starts dancing a country dance, as it's "all the rage abroad"; when Walken is in the kitchen, dancing on the table (he's a pretty good dancer, too!); and when Vera tells Corin all the things she used to do when she was young, like pretending she was a miller's daughter. I'd recommend this film to children and parents alike, who love magic and fairytales. And it actually IS a movie you can watch together, as it won't drive adults up the wall.
| 1pos
|
for a lot of time I was looking forward to see this movie, here in Latinamerica japanese or any oriental movies have no distribution in theaters, we can find some of those movies in some underground stores, and I just found Avalon, I was expecting something good, but the only good thing in this movie is the first scene, the rest of the movie is boring and senseless, just plain stupid, with a lot of useless scenes, and a boring story. I am wasting my time even writing about this film. Sorry but is the truth.
| 0neg
|
It seems that no matter how many films are made on the subject, there is no shortage of stories that emerge from the Second World War. It stands to reason that a conflict on such a scale as global warfare would capture the imagination of filmmakers everywhere and provide them with ample material on which to base a story. Heading in a different direction than most mainstream movies about the war is Dark Blue World, a film that does not deal with the traditional major battles of the war, does not tell the story of many of its major figures, and does not even focus on soldiers of any of the major allied or axis powers. Dark Blue World instead ventures into the world of refugee soldiers fighting in exile for their occupied nations.<br /><br />The film does a marvelous job of portraying the challenges faced by Czech pilots flying under the British Royal Air Force, expressing the frustration that they felt both at the language barrier between them and the other fliers, but also at being restrained from achieving vengeance against the Germans until being re-trained.<br /><br />Dark Blue World also works quite well outside the arena of the war film as being a story about human relationships. A love triangle develops between the two main characters and an English woman that complicates the teacher-mentor relationship of the two exiled soldiers. This relationship is extremely well acted throughout, developing into almost a father and son relationship at many points.<br /><br />The aerial combat in the film is among some of the best and is also very interesting in exploring the cultural challenges mentioned above as the men struggle to fly their machines, fight the enemy, and relay commands and replies in an unfamiliar language. The tension and struggle of these scenes continues the tension between the men on the ground, just as the tension on the ground continues that felt in the air.<br /><br />This may not be a film for everyone. The hardcore war film buff may find its exploration of relationships a bit off-putting, but it is on the whole an excellent film regardless of the bellicose element or not.
| 1pos
|
This film is truly a sorry excuse for film making. The pacing is poor, the budget must have been depressingly low, and the acting is cut-rate (that is, except for Bela Lugosi). The audio at this point in time is also terrible, with so much extra noise in the background that it sounded to me as though a jet were taking off for the entirety of the movie. If these things bother you at all, don't watch this film.<br /><br />If you can get past this, however, you will find that the idea behind the film is a very good one. A German plastic surgeon (Bela Lugosi) was hired by the Japanese to operate on several Japanese agents and turn them into the likenesses of upstanding American businessmen whom the Japanese have kidnapped and killed. After completing his work, he was betrayed by the Japanese and thrown into prison. He later escapes and travels to America to seek revenge on his patients through a series of highly-publicized murders.<br /><br />It seemed as though Bela Lugosi was the only decent actor in the film, and, to be honest, the rest of the actors were completely forgettable and stodgy. The leading actress ended up being rather boring and stereotypical, while the police officer assigned to her case was the common, chauvinistic and always correct dominant male that is found in many films of this time period. <br /><br />I also found that the camera work was completely uninspired, often taking the exact same angles of the exact same rooms time and time again. After a while, this tends to drag the film down, setting a very slow pace for the "action," which is more or less non-existent anyway.<br /><br />To me, the idea is a fascinating one, and with a better writer, director, script, equipment, and actors it could become an excellent film. Sadly, these handicaps keep the film back for now, and I can't recommend it to anyone but the most open of movie lovers.
| 0neg
|
I remember when THE GOLDEN CHILD was released in 1986 it was universally panned by the critics , and I`m talking panned so badly that it more or less ended the glittering career of Eddie Murphy so I guess this movie has something going for it<br /><br />It gets off to a bad start where Buddist monks kneel in front of a child with a blank expression on his face . Bad guys enter the temple<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys chop up the monks<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys pull out giant bird cage and stick the child inside who now sits with ... Go on guess ? You do get the impression that even if they were taking him for a sleepover at Michael Jackson`s wonderland ranch he`d still give the same blank expression , this movie would be better titled THE WOODEN CHILD<br /><br />The title sequence starts and being a movie from the 1980s a pop soundtrack features heavily . Obviously this might have been cool and funky at the time but now in 2004 it seems very dated . Not only that but it jars completely with the somewhat bloody opening . In fact that`s the main problem ( And boy it`s a serious one ) with this movie - The whole mood seems to change from scene to scene so much so that sometimes it`s like watching scenes from totally different movies spliced together . I blame the director personally but it should also be pointed out that both the screenwriter and producer should share equal blame too . Did anyone know before shooting commenced what type of movie this was going to be ? It`s part fantasy , part martial arts , part buddy movie , part comedy and it`s all crap
| 0neg
|
It amazes me that anyone would find Pauly Shore entertaining: he is basically one joke that gets stale *real* fast. He has his little "California" jerk vocabulary and a basic stock of lame jokes. Mainly, he is just obnoxious.<br /><br />That said, I watched this movie because I was up sick and there was literally nothing else on but infomercials, otherwise I would have turned it off after 30 minutes. Anyway, the film could have been OK if Pauly could have just turned off his spiel and just played it as a comic actor instead of, well, Pauly. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm sure Pauly fans will like it anyway - but if you are not a Pauly fan, stay away from this crock of manure.<br /><br />I had to leave this comment after seeing that another user actually gave this film a 10/10! (Maybe it was Pauly!!) Personally, I gave it a 3/10 because they didn't have any mike-in-frame shots, didn't drop the camera, and the supporting cast was pretty good.
| 0neg
|
The 40 Year Old Virgin, is about Andy Stitzer, a forty year old man who works in an electronic store and doesn't have much of a social life and is very awkward around women. Some of his co-workers at the store invite him out one night and they discover that Andy, is still a virgin so they plan to help him lose his virginity. One day in the store Andy, meets a woman named Trish, who gives him her phone number and eventually Andy, works up enough courage to go on a date with her and they start to really like each other but Andy, is still very awkward when it comes to sex and he is going to have to tell this to Trish, much to his embarrassment if he can actually get up enough courage to tell her before things get awkward. The 40 Year Old Virgin, has good direction, a good script, good comedic performances by the whole cast, good cinematography and good film editing. The film stars and is co-written by Steve Carell, who does a very good comedic breakthrough performance and his writing for the film is very good too. I was very pleasantly surprised with this film. It is sweet, funny, entertaining, fun, enjoyable, clever, good natured and a good time. This film is just as good as this year's Wedding Crashers, and both films are two of the best comedies I have seen in awhile. The 40 Year Old Virgin, really showcases a lot of talent and it is put to good use and it works as a comedy and a romance and it is sweet and a lot of fun. One of the biggest surprises and one of the best comedies of the year.
| 1pos
|
Taiwanese director Ang Lee, whose previous films include 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'The Ice Storm', turned to the American Civil War for his latest feature. Based on a novel by Daniel Woodrell, it follows the exploits of a group of Southern guerrillas, known as bushwhackers, as they fight their Northern equivalents, the jayhawkers in the backwater of Missouri.<br /><br />As one might expect, there is plenty of visceral action, but the focus is on the tension that the war put on the young men who fought it - many of whom were fighting against their former neighbours and even family. Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) is such a man, or rather, boy, as he is only seventeen when the war reaches Missouri. He is the son of a German immigrant, but instead of following his countrymen and becoming a Unionist, he joins his lifelong friend Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) and rides with the bushwhackers. Despite a lack of acceptance because of his ancestry and an unwillingness to participate in the murder of unarmed Union men, he remains loyal to the cause. So does his friend Daniel Holt (Jeffrey Wright), a black slave freed by another bushwhacker and so fighting for the South.<br /><br />Lee handles the subject with aplomb, never rushing the deep introspection that the plot demands in favour of action and this lends the film a sense of the reality of war - long periods of boredom and waiting interposed with occasional flashes of intensely terrifying fighting. The action is unglamorised and admirably candid, recognising that both sides committed a great number of atrocities.<br /><br />The performances are superb, with Maguire and Wright both courageous and dignified. Up-and-coming Irish actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers is particularly chilling as a cold-blooded killer, while Skeet Ulrich is enjoyably suave and arrogant. Lee never flinches from the reality of war, but his actors do an admirable job of showing the good that comes from it - the growth of friendship, the demonstration of courage and, on a wider scale, the emancipation of oppressed peoples. Ride With the Devil is a beautiful and deeply compassionate film that regularly shocks but always moves the audience.
| 1pos
|
The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger, the "leader" of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another (except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo). D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden, Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl Barnes, who plays Hud's fiancée, has an amazing voice. <br /><br />The only problem I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are, they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it was made back then, because in the insanely "politically correct" world of today, they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very "watered down" version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect. <br /><br />In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking out.
| 1pos
|
People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.
| 0neg
|
I went through great efforts to get this movie after reading the comments on this site. I really don't have time to write reviews but I felt this was my duty as a sci-fi horror buff. This is only the second review I have written. The other was for Dracula 3000. Now to the point. This movie sucked. Plain and simple. I kept wondering if I was watching the same movie as those who wrote all those "lovely" comments. I have seen movies with bad effects, bad acting, bad sound, you name it and I've seen it. But this really sucked. I don't care how much it costs or didn't cost to make, movies like this and Dracula 3000 should be banned and the whole cast and crew arrested and jailed for time murder. By the way, Did I mention that this movie sucked. I mean really sucked. The plot was non exist and the acting was weak. It seems like the writer saw Pitch Black and got upset because he didn't think of a plot like that first so he decided to make his own ripped off version. But instead, the suck factor took over and possessed him. DON'T WATCH THIS. You'll have more fun if you pull down your pants and sit on burning coals.
| 0neg
|
I used to love Sabrina The Teenage Witch and have seen every single episode. I remember when I used to sit at 6pm every night and wait for it to come on Nickelodeon, however when Sabrina left high school the show began to go downhill. The best series has to be when she was friends with Valerie (I'm not sure which one that is). From there the next series (friends with Dreama) was still really good, but when she left high school it just didn't seem right. All the main characters seemed to have left, which meant that it didn't have as much of the old "sparkle", however the first series where Sabrina is in college is still relatively good and watchable, however when her aunt's leave and Sabrina moves into their house it just isn't right. She is no longer a teenager, so therefore the name of the show isn't right and without Hilda and Zelda and Josh the show just doesn't seem right, especially when Sabrina nearly marries someone that isn't Harvey. Thank goodness he came through in the last five minutes of the last episode to take her away. All in all I still love to watch the old episodes of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, but I think the writers took it too far and should have left it with Sabrina leaving high school. Because after that the show definitely lost some of it's magic
| 1pos
|
Having read some good reviews about this film I thought it was about time I go and see it. Well I don't know why I bothered. Basically this family is entrusted with a clue that leads to a whole big stash of ancient treasure, hidden by the Knights Templar during the War of Independence. Apparently it had to be kept out of the hands of the British at all costs. Firstly, why did said Knights move the treasure from Europe to America? How did Nic Cages character figure out that 'Charlotte' was in fact a ship? How do they figure out all the clues and riddles in about a minute? And how could two people suddenly become master thieves and steal what is probably the best guarded bit of paper in the world? These are just some of the plot holes in this inane bit of Hollywood action gone wrong. Cage has been in some great action movies - 'Face-Off' and 'The Rock' - so why has he lowered himself to this? Is he getting too old?! His character is pretty annoying really - Somehow this 'ordinary' guy steals the Declaration of Independancd, outruns thieves with guns, escapes from the FBI and generally seems invincible. The whole film doesn't really make any sense and all in all it was quite a disappointment.
| 0neg
|
** WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS! **<br /><br />First of all, I would like to say that I really liked this game. I got it for Christmas after two months of dropping hints to my parents. I am glad that I did that.<br /><br />First off, I would like to say that the single player was very good. The first level is probably one of the best in the game, when you are at a party in London, and some evil guys ruin it by kidnapping the Prime minister's daughter. Of course you have to rescue her, and it is quite a big level, but should probably take you at least five minutes. The best part, and I think also the funniest part, is when you are in the jet-pack, and people are rappelling down Big Ben. Just equip the jet-pack's most trusty rocket launcher and blast the clock faces and the enemies down. Pure fun!<br /><br />The rest of the levels are very good, but pretty short. There are four mini-levels you can unlock, and that is one of the let downs, because only the first two of them are actually fun, and the last two to unlock are just 'kill 25 enemies' objectives, I mean, c'mon! We got loads of points to unlock these missions and the last two bonus missions are really bad!<br /><br />The multi player, me and some of my friends agree, is very good and challenging, even if there are no bots. Halo didn't have any bots but that is still some fine multi player games! You can be a load of bad guys, and you go against each other, and you can also set traps, which is the best way of killing people without going into view of their character.<br /><br />Gameplay - 8.5/10 (levels can be quite repetitive and bonus missions could be improved). Graphics - 9/10 (there is the odd bad graphic, but that isn't extremely often). Multiplayer - 10/10 (needs no comment, just great, you get to drive in jet-packs and vehicles). Sound - 8/10 Replay value - 7/10 (the only levels I go back on are the Loondon level and Istanbul Part 1).<br /><br />I give this game: 8.5/10<br /><br />Could have a bit of improvement, but it's still good.
| 1pos
|
I'm so glad I taped this film when it came on BBC last month! It blew my mind, so gut wrenching and real. David Tennant is absolutely fabulous in this, even though his character isn't always that easy to like or identify with. The final scene where he plays the song just broke my heart, those eyes....<br /><br />I'm guessing that he made this film in between the Dr. Who series, and that makes it even more of an achievement for me. I just love Dr. Who and yet I saw absolutely nothing of him in Mr. Tennants portrayal of this man who knows that he has changed and struggles to create some sort of new identity and life.<br /><br />great little intense drama!
| 1pos
|
The basis for this dynamic docudrama is the true story of one of the most extraordinary card players ever.<br /><br />STUEY is a tight, cohesive biopic of a true poker Ace whose life is a one-way trip down the Highway to Hell with few detours.<br /><br />This dramatic feature stands wide apart from other films about poker. It represents a rare and earnest attempt to bring to the silver screen a true story of ultimate gambling compulsion. The complete obsession that annihilates any proximity of spirituality and nullifies any chance of redemption. This is the least likely movie a Vegas Casino executive would recommend. And it is the sole poker DVD you are likely to find on the shelves of Gamblers Annonymous.<br /><br />There are scenes in this movie that poker buffs are sure to refer to as some of the best gambling scenes ever. Stu reading his opponent's hand and, particularly, a Texas hold'em bluffing scene.<br /><br />Prophetically, early on in the movie we see a young Stu bullied out of his pocket change by a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums. Poker is for loners seeking revenge. It is a game of patience which bullies lack. 'You can't bully me!' may very well be an underlying sentiment of the punishing force that a champion poker player unleashes upon his adversaries.<br /><br />Conservatives will look upon this film as a cautionary tale of a soul lost in sin. They may evoke Mark Twain: 'The best throw at dice is to throw them away.' The young and liberal masses will inevitably have a more simplistic and sympathetic outlook. They may not have heard of Twain's quote, but will sure remember a remark made by Stu's stunned pal who learns from up-and-coming Stuey that he'd won a car from a local character in an overnight game. 'You tell'em to go to hell and they look forward to the trip'.<br /><br />The mosaic of Las Vegas vignettes that we see in STUEY will long linger in memory. Frank Sinatra, the most generous tipper? Forget about it! Nobody tips as extravagantly as a hot-shot gambler. And for Vegas visitors who may not know the impact of tipping on the quality of their stay, check out the scene of Stu checking in a Vegas hotel!<br /><br />'This is what i was meant to do, this is where i was to be. Movie stars in Hollywood, politicians in Washington and gamblers in Vegas.'
| 1pos
|
In 1996's "101 Dalmatians," Cruella De Vil was arrested by the London Metropolitain Police (God bless them) for attempting to steal and murder 101 puppies - dalmatians. All covered in mud and hay, she spent the next 4 years in the "tin can." Now, 4 years later, she, unfortunately, was released from the jail. I say, that's about 28 years - in dog years!!!!!<br /><br />So, in 2000, Disney decided to release a sequel to the successful live-action version of the classic film and it is hereby dubbed "102 Dalmatians." In it, there is a 102nd dalmatian added to the family (Oddball is the name, I think; I should know this since this was just shown on TV recently), and the puppy had no spots!!!!! Also, while Cruella (again played by Glenn Close) has escaped again, she wanted a bigger, better coat - made once again out of the puppies!!!!!<br /><br />I especially liked the theme song - I'm sure everybody loves the "Atomic Dog" song from the 70s or so. And now, we hear a bit of it in this movie!!!!!<br /><br />"102 Dalmatians" is such a great film that I keep on wondering - WHEN WILL THERE BE A "103 DALMATIANS?????" LOL<br /><br />10 stars
| 1pos
|
I thought this was an awesome movie. The theme song is sweet! :) Anyway, the only thing that somewhat bothered me was in the beginning, when everything should have been normal. It was very weird and unrealistic. The big cable company is mainly what I'm talking about. Apart from that, the movie was very creative. I think that all the acting was well done, the actors acted out their characters' personalities perfectly. Everything fit together well. It really is a shame that their isn't a soundtrack. That would have been great! Because this is a Canadian film, and because it is one of my favorites, I give this movie a 10 out of 10!
| 1pos
|
My children watch the show everyday that its on. Its a great program for younger children. However they need to stop showing re-runs and do some more actual shows and get rid of Rooney's and Deedee's YELLOW TEETH. Moe is the only Doodle bop with clean white pearlie teeth and the children notice these things and ask if the 2 don't ever brush their teeth? Does the show ever make its way to the United States and if so where can we find its schedule at. And one other thing if we might be able to add. Moe you need to stop hiding so much. Sometimes when you pop up out of no where you scare the younger children and whats with the pulling of the rope? What does that signify? other then getting wet all the time. They need to add newer things to their show instead of the same ole same ole. Kids loose interest that way.
| 0neg
|
i have to rate this movie at a 10. i'm sorry but i think it's classic comedy. then, if you're rating it to other Madonna movies...well, what? you wanna tell me it wasn't her best movie ever? didn't Mira Sorvino win an Oscar for almost the same performance not ten years later? please, this movie deserves much more credit than it gets. plus, i like to think of it as an A+ sociological study into the lifestyles of the 80's. remember when you could shoplift from Sam Goody and Cartier in the same day? remember when women wore bushy eyebrows proudly? so it was no "Last Emperor", it was still good. there are certain movies i'd be willing to watch everyday. three, actually, that pep up my day and make me smile. if you like "Who's That Girl?" then i'd also recommend "Party Girl" and "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion".
| 1pos
|
"Written on the Wind" is a Douglas Sirk's melodrama. Douglas Sirk was rediscovered by the "Cahiers du Cinema", Fassbinder etc.. that hailed him as a master director - I think that it is because of the sophistication of his cinematography - "Written on the Wind" offers luscious color images and gorgeous decors. But I ask myself: Is this enough to carry a film? The acting in "Written on the Wind" ranges from weak to fair (excepting Robert Stack - he is convincing as the weak & spoiled playboy). Lauren Bacall, normally a powerful presence in the screen, is miscast in this film. Dorothy Malone as the seductress, the care-free "femme fatale" is OK, but she lacks the strength for the role. Rock Hudson is efficient but vapid .<br /><br />The plot has very interesting ingredients. The main characters are: <br /><br />A rigid patriarch <br /><br />his alcoholic son Kyle (Robert Stack) (never loved by the disappointed father) <br /><br />his frustrated and nymphomaniac daughter Marylee (Dorothy Malone)<br /><br />Lucy (Lauren Bacall) - a woman of principles, formerly a secretary and now married to Kyle <br /><br />Mitch (Rock Hudson) - brought up together with Kyle and loved by the patriarch. <br /><br />Secrets beyond the door, a love triangle, frustration, fistfights, laughter, death etc. - well, when I read the story summary on the back cover of the DVD I thought that I was in for a treat. My mistake! Why? I'll try to explain: "Written on the Wind" takes itself seriously and tries to tell a dramatic story. As I said before the acting, in general, is not good enough - the intensity is lacking. There are many strong scenes in the story, but the actors just do an efficient job. I think that maybe with Italian or Spanish actors those scenes would have been explored fully - they would end (for us) in an explosion of laughter or tears .<br /><br />What remains to us is the beautiful cinematography of Douglas Sirk. For me this is not enough. If you want to enjoy a good melodrama, see "Aventurera".
| 1pos
|
Some people loved "The Aristocrats" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the "f" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way.
| 1pos
|
I have seen a lot of movies. In fact I love B horror movies, they are one of my favorite genres. However this "Garbage" (I refuse to acknowledge that this was given the honor of film) was the worst piece of crap I have ever had the torture of watching. I actually signed up on IMDb purely for the fact that I needed a way to at least voice how awful this "Garbage" was. I have watched "Films" (They at least deserve the honor) done in basements by High School students that were better written and directed. I have nothing but pity for the poor actors in this "Garbage" because they were just trying to earn a pay check. They will now and forever have this stain on their records like a virgin who was raped and given Herpes! If Writer/Director John Shiban has any dignity left at all, after obviously fellating countless people to get this made, he should never allow himself near a camera again and try applying his so called "Gifts" to something more suited for him....Like mopping the floor of a Peep Show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| 0neg
|
Wow! I have seen so many bad low budget films lately, but this one is great. The very realistic portrayal of police life in a city on the East German coast is a strong contrast to other crime movies or series. I loved the main actress and the absolute rejection of any prevalent cliché about the police. This film is realistic like a documentation and entertaining like a drama at the same time. A perfect tradeoff!
| 1pos
|
Maybe the target audience of this Disney Channel TV-movie will be pleased with it, but if any parents are watching along with the youngsters, they will clearly see that "cranked out" is written all over this production. Obviously it was no one's dream to make this movie, but rather, this was concocted in a board room somewhere, then produced with cold efficiency. There is some talent among the cast, but actors like Dabney Coleman and Jay Thomas don't get much of a chance to showcase their talent. The impossibly cute Elisabeth Harnois is engaging as the First Daughter, but Will Friedle is stuck once again playing another dumb character, though he's not nearly as moronic and annoying as in his "Boy Meets World" role. The background for this movie is Washington, D.C. and the White House, but there is no real "presidential" feel to the film and the Secret Service is made out to be little better than the Keystone Kops when it come to doing their duty. The Disney Channel presents a lot of original TV-movies and most of them are better than this.
| 0neg
|
Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and "find herself", and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.<br /><br />This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film.
| 1pos
|
If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words "The End"
| 0neg
|
My entire family enjoyed this film, including 2 small children. Great values without sex, violence, drugs, nudity, or profanity. Also no zillion dollar special effects were added to try to misdirect viewers from a poorly written storyline. A simple little family fun movie. We especially like the songs in the movie. But we only got to hear a portion of the songs ... Mostly during the end credits... Would love to buy a sound track CD from this movie. This is my 4th Bill Hillman movie and they all have the same guidelines as mentioned above. With all the movies out there that you don't want your kids to watch, this Hillman fella has a no risk rating. We love his movies.
| 1pos
|
Ossessione, adapted loosely (or if it is as loose or close to the version I saw of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange I can't be certain) by first time director Luchino Visconti, is no less outstanding with usage of mis-en-scene, music (both diegetic and non-diegetic), and the acting. I didn't know what to expect Visconti to do in his approach to the material, after seeing La Terra Trema and seeing how sometimes his political motivations snuck in a little bit. But this is a totally character and emotional based drama, bordering on melodrama (however, without the conventions that bog down lesser ones), and with the style in the finest path of the budding film-noir movement, Visconti creates a debut that's as involving as any other neo-realist film. Neo-realism, by the way, could rightfully be claimed as this being a forefather (along with De Sica's The Children Are Watching Us), which that would take shape after the war. Although love and romance is more in play here than in some of the more famous neo-realist efforts, it's dealt with in a bare-bones storytelling fashion, and it's laced with other familiar themes in neo-realism (the lower-class, death, desperation).<br /><br />Aside from the story, which is simply as it is described on this site, the artistry with which Visconti captures the images, and then layers them with objects (a shawl over Gino Costa's profile when in guilt), shadows and darkness that tend to overcome many of the later scenes in the film (usually over Gian and Giovanna), and the feel of the Italian streets in many of the exterior scenes. Domenico Scala and Aldo Tonti (who would lens some of Rossellini and Fellini's films) help in envisioning the look of Ossessione, which is usually moving in on a character, then pausing to read as much emotion on their faces, their voices and mannerisms lovely and ugly, sad and dark and romantic. I think I've just scratched the surface on how effective it was that the film itself was moving me along, even as I was in fear of the futures of the two leads. The two leads (Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai) portray all the compelling, truthful, and near-operatic emotions, and the key supporting actors are also without their attributes. <br /><br />It's a brilliant, crushing adaptation, and it points as a striking signpost of what was to come for Visconti in his career.
| 1pos
|
Do you get it? Like the car. These are the jokes, folks. Softcore Beach Blanket Bingo with aliens answers many of life's important question. What do the relatives of celebrities do for some cash? How does a hot tan alien wash herself? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Well, maybe not that one. Linnea Quigley, member of the Softcore hall of fame, provides some comic relief. Nikki Fritz, also a member, show her talents. Sarah Bellomo is not as bad as you might expect from a porn star. This is not erotic, except the shower scene, and not funny enough to make up for the rotten plot. The sequel has a couple of pleasant scenes as well with Miss Bellomo.<br /><br />P.S. The title is a good example of alliteration.
| 0neg
|
The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68. <br /><br />Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...<br /><br />
To rob a bank!<br /><br />Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!<br /><br />The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score
? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles<br /><br />To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.<br /><br />The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass<br /><br />Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.<br /><br />My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.<br /><br />I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.
| 0neg
|
I'm a 55-year-old fairly jaded gay white man. Since I don't watch TV, I watch at least 250 films a year, most on DVD. I keep notes on all the films I see and rate them. Since December 2003, I have seen only five films as great as EIGHTEEN. So, I've rated EIGHTEEN better than at least 700 other recent films. Mr. Bell is far too modest in his film commentary. EIGHTEEN is a Great Film. And, it also resulted in two "firsts" for me.<br /><br />I watched the film, the first time, and I was riveted throughout and weepy during the last half hour, something that's only happened to me three times before. (Five minutes into the film I knew it was going to be very good.) When Jason began reciting Whitman, I lost it, and then... The Kiss. Well, that is one of Film's great kisses, and that scene among Filmdom's most poignant and unforgettable. When Pip blows out the candle at the end and the credits rolled, I clapped. I cheered. I love happy endings. I wept.<br /><br />Then I watched the trailer and the TLA previews and thought, "Okay, is this $800,000 or so Indie really that Great?" So, I immediately watched EIGHTEEN again, something that's only happened three times before. And, EIGHTEEN blew my socks off yet again, even more so. Then I watched "The Making of EIGHTEEN" documentary and was completely charmed by the cast and Mr. Bell.<br /><br />So, I thought I'd watch EIGHTEEN again with the Director's Commentary. I have never before watched a film three times in one night. After the third time, at 3:00 AM, I knew I had just experienced a Great Film; EIGHTEEN now ranks #10 on my Top Twenty Films of all time. And, in the very small universe of great gay or gay-subtext film, there is Brokeback Mountain, EIGHTEEN, Mulholland Drive, and Maurice.<br /><br />Thank you Mr. Bell! EIGHTEEN is brilliant and fully-realized, with a magnificent cast, a wonderfully moving, understated score, excellent cinematography, an entertaining, touching, totally appropriate and hummable song. I can go on, but I won't gush too much more.<br /><br />This film should have received Oscar nominations, certainly one for Best Picture. The performances, without exception, were all wonderful. Ms. Gill's lovely, sultry voice was a surprising epiphany. And Sir Ian McKellen? 'Nuf said. Awesome.<br /><br />EIGHTEEN is the reason I slog through over 200 mediocre to utterly horrendous films (some in the $150 million plus range) a year, to find that one treasure, that one exquisite, magical, unique and enchanting, perfect "Faberge egg" enfolding an unforgettable heart.<br /><br />Finally (I promise), my second "first" -- I've never before posted a commentary on any film I've seen.<br /><br />Thank you again, Mr. Richard Bell! Breathtaking genius. Give this man $100 million for his next film! He made $700,000 US into one of the top 50 films of all time. If I had the cash, I'd grant him $75,000 a year living expenses and match any funds raised for his next film. Mr. Bell is already a great director at 31-years old. Can you imagine him at 45-years old?<br /><br />Wise and witty, tender and brutal, poised, poignant, understated yet edgy, chilling and thrilling, mesmerizing, haunting, unforgettable: EIGHTEEN, THE MASTERPIECE.
| 1pos
|
There are interesting pieces here of and about Bruce Weber's likes and dislikes. Maybe if a professional editor had put it together for Biography, I would have felt more satisfied. Instead, I spent $8 at a film festival on it. For an autobiography, almost nothing is revealed about Bruce Weber, other than he likes to look at photographs, shoot interesting people, especially beautiful teenage boys, and listen to jazz. The director of "Crumb" would have made a much more interesting and cohesive film.
| 0neg
|
This is easily one of the best movies of the 1950s. Otto Preminger directed only four or five really good movies and this is one of them. Frank Sinatra gives his best performance and the music score by Elmer Bernstein is dynamite. From the opening titles (by Saul Bass) to the hysteria of drug addict Frank going cold turkey, this is a riveting movie! With Kim Novak (giving a very good performance), Eleanor Parker (giving a very bad performance) as well as Darren McGavin as the reptilian pusher and Arnold Stang as Frank's grifter pal. Beware of bad prints: this movie is in the public domain so some copies are pretty rough.
| 1pos
|
"The Last Hard Men" is a typical western for the 70's. Most of them seem to be inspired by Sam Peckinpah. Also this one, but Director Andrew McLaglan is a John Ford Pupil and this can be obviously shown in many scenes. IMO the beginning is very good. In a certain way McLaglan wanted to show the audience a travel from the civilization to the wilderness. In the third part there are some illogical flaws and I complain a bit about Charlton Heston. He has to play an old ex-lawman named Sam Burgade but he is in a fantastic physical shape. I never got the feeling that he really has problems to climb on a horse or on a rock. For me he didn't looks very motivated as he usual do in most of his epic movies. Same goes to the beautiful Barbara Hershey who is playing the sheriff's daughter. Maybe both had troubles with the director or were unhappy with their roles. Hershey and Coburn are not showing their best but they are still good. If the scriptwriter had John Wayne in their mind as Sam Burgade? Also Michael Parks as modern sheriff is a bit underused in his role. On the other Hand there is James Coburn as outlaw Zach Provo. Coburn is a really great villain in this one. He is portraying the bad guy between maniac hate and cleverness. His role and his acting is the best of the movie.<br /><br />Landscapes and Shootouts are terrific. The shootings scenes are bloody and the violence looks realistic. Zach Provo and his gang had some gory and violent scenes. What I miss is the typical western action in the middle of the movie. I would have appreciated a bank robbery or something similar. Overall it's an entertaining western flick. Not a great movie but above the average because of a great Coburn, a very good beginning and some gory and violent scenes.
| 1pos
|
People talk about how horrible the script was, and how horrible the animation was, but Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer really is a Japanese Anime aimed towards children. If you look at the anime today it's done in the same style, and it's immensely popular. I don't think this movie was ever intended to be viewed by adults. Just as I don't think it was ever intended to be serious. The very things that people seem to hate about this movie are the things that I love. Rainbow Brite is one of the best cartoon characters ever created in my opinion. She's smart. She's funny. She cares about the enviorment. She cares about her friends. This movie can teach so much to young kids. My little brothers even liked this movie. I have to say this movie taught me a lot when I was a kid. When it came out on DVD I was first in line to buy it. It's a great kids movie. So what if it's not perfect, nothing is really perfect when you look closely enough at it.
| 1pos
|
OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.<br /><br />We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.<br /><br />they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen.
| 0neg
|
I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.
| 0neg
|
Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)<br /><br />One saving grace was a song performed at the "talent show" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called "I'm A Heat Seeking Missile". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a "so bad it's good" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. <br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10
| 0neg
|
I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances.
| 1pos
|
This is one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.<br /><br />Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant "Golden Girls" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.<br /><br />Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.<br /><br />This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's "heroine."<br /><br />As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really "care," about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.
| 0neg
|
This is a great movie to look at, since it so nicely directed by Andrzej Wajda but at the same time I wished the movie would had some more depth in it, in terms of its story. It's an historically relevant movie about the last days of the French revolution but yet the movie forgets to focus on the character's motivations making the movie perhaps a tad bit too shallow to consider this a brilliant and relevant movie to what.<br /><br />Somehow it doesn't make the movie any less great to watch though. It's made with passion and eye for detail. every aspect about the movie is good looking, such as its settings, costumes and camera-work.<br /><br />Also the story still works out as powerful, though at the same time it could had been so much better and more powerful with a just bit more character development and insight historical information. Guess if you're completely familiar with the French Revolution and the stories of Danton and Robespierre in particular, this movie will be a perfect one for you to watch.<br /><br />It's somewhat typical for a French movie to tell a story slowly and subtle, without ever stepping too much in detail. Often this works out charmingly but in this case the movie could had really done with a bit more depth. Other than that, this movie is still one fine example of French cinema, despite the fact that it's being directed by a Polish director and stars lots of Polish actors in it as well.<br /><br />Gérard Depardieu is great in his role, though the movie also decides to concentrate a lot on many other different characters. The movie perhaps has a bit too many characters but each and every performance is a great one, so this doesn't really ever become a big complaint, other than that it slows done the story a bit at certain points.<br /><br />A great movie that could had been brilliant.<br /><br />8/10
| 1pos
|
First of all, I apologize for my English. <br /><br />Everybody from ex-Yugoslavia who isn't some extreme Serbian radical will agree with me. This movie, shows Serbian side, and only Serbian side. No Serbian crimes were represented. Luckily, everyone can see that this movie was made by Serbians, so there is no neutrality. All ''professionals'' who were interviewed are not professionals at all. Some guy only read a book written by some radical Serbian, the other one is genocide denier etc.etc.<br /><br />Even Slovenians were accused in this movie.And the whole war in Slovenia lasted for few days, and only because Slovenians were lucky.There weren't many Serbs in Slovenia, and YNA couldn't reach Slovenia trough Croatia (after Croatia-Serbia war started). Every Slovenian is outraged by all accusations in this movie. <br /><br />Every reasonable Croat will agree with one thing: The independence was too early. Perhaps all major conflicts could be avoided. However, mentioning WWII and some unrelated things was truly pathetic attempt to justify everything. Just imagine Japanese throwing nuclear bombs at Seattle and Washington, and saying that was justified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You will find no evidence about strangled YNA soldier, and murdered Serbian civilians near Vukovar. But you can find the tape with reporter committing that his claims about Serbian civilians near Vukovar were lies. All over the internet. And the director forgot to mention the whole bombing of Vukovar by YNA (now on Serbian and Montenegro side-and 100% full of Serbs and Montenegrin) And let's not start about the Chetnik movement. At the beginning, it was simply a resistance movement. But director somehow forgot to mention collaboration with the Nazis, including Ustashe, ethnic cleansing, and fighting again the Yugoslav partisans. There are thousands of other things, but all of it can be easily checked. There are many misleading things in this movie. Only few of all accusations are true. Every Croatian is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />I believe that I don't need to mention Srebrenica genocide denial, the genocide that has too many evidence. Imagine the movie about holocaust denial. This movie is the same. And according to this movie Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo bombed themselves. Every Bosnian Muslim is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />Somehow director forgot to mention the short occupation of small piece of Macedonian (FYROM) land by the Serbs. <br /><br />Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, and Macedonians never entered Serbian borders. If you are not Serbian and you actually started to believe some things from this movie, know that Serbs have some kind of propaganda that Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians are actually Serbs who made up their history. So...<br /><br />Even 50% of Serbs will say that this movie is ''little'' extreme and pro-Serbian. <br /><br />And Serbian radicals are very, very pleased with this movie (there is about 40% Serbs who vote for radicals).<br /><br />I think everyone understands my points in here. In this so called documentary is very little truth, and my advice to everyone is: Inform yourself before watching this movie. After that, you will only laugh at all pathetic accusations.<br /><br />Watch real, neutral documentaries about death of Yugoslavia.
| 0neg
|
What often gets overlooked in Agatha Christie's stories is her progressive, anti-conservative attitude on a number of issues - from the role of women to the effects of tradition to people's belief in the supernatural. In "Nemesis", you can spot a lot of those subtexts - but you can also find a good old-fashioned intriguing mystery that keeps you in the dark for most of its length. Also lifting "Nemesis" above other series entries ("They Do It With Mirrors", "4:50 From Paddington", etc.), is the fact that in the crucial moments before and after the revelation of the killer you can actually feel the suspense. And finally, Jane Booker is welcome to guard my body any time. (***)
| 1pos
|
I have to agree that the movie is not the best I've ever seen, but I would like to make mention that the actors portraying Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey were the actual Dorsey brothers. As actors, they were wonderful musicians. The movie, based on their famous split, would have been better had professional actors played the parts. Many movies made during this time frame took advantage of the popularity of Big Bands. Most often, the movies were not that good because musicians are not actors by trade. Most of the movie-going audience didn't go to see Tommy or Jimmy Dorsey playing themselves; they went for the plot and the music. I've never been much of a Dorsey fan, but the music is good even today.<br /><br />I have to comment on a previous post regarding the actors who played Mom and Pop Dorsey and that their accents would be considered extreme by a Dublin audience. Arthur Shields and Sara Allgood were actually Irish actors, both born in Dublin. You might remember Mr. Shields as the Reverend Mr. Playfair in The Quiet Man and Ms. Allgood as Mrs. Monahan in Cheaper By The Dozen.
| 0neg
|
This game was terrible. I think they worked too hard on the visuals and didn't do much with the gameplay, which is the most important part. I mean, the visuals look incredible, but is the game really "fun"? NO! I mean it's like "hey let's jump off buildings" and all I'm doing is holding up and A/X. The game play just isn't there, and I don't agree with what Ubisoft did, because they had this hot girl (the producer of the game, Jade Raymond), and they were like "OK we've got this hot girl, let's pimp her" and if you go to gaming websites, you're not gonna see gameplay stuff of Assassin's Creed, you'll see her face with a microphone and it'll be like "We interviewed Jade Raymond about her favorite cookies!" It's like man, shut the F*@K UP WHO CARES?! Apparently...a lot of people do, because they bought the game and like it...I mean compare this game with Super Mario Galaxy. A Wii game that really doesn't abuse the Wii Remote, but STILL is very innovative and delivers in the most important part, GAMEPLAY! They were able to do a bit of everything with Mario Galaxy, the graphics were still stunning, the music in the game was orchestrated and sounded amazing, and THAT'S a game that deserves game of the year. NOT Assassin's Creed, man, it doesn't even deserve to even be a NOMINEE for Game of the Year. The hype around this game where it was like "oh it's the next generation of gaming"....really? I think not! So let me get this straight here, because I think the people liking this game are only liking it because they're Jade fans, so I'll tell you guys, JADE WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH YOU OR ANYTHING IF YOU LOVE OR DEFEND THIS GAME! If you want a REAL game on the PS3, get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, if you want a REAL game for the Xbox 360, get Call of Duty 4 (and a ton of other games too), and if you want a REAL game just in all the systems? GET SUPER MARIO GALAXY! I know this comment will be hated by many, but seriously, pressing two buttons for doing all this cool stuff, is that REALLY a fun game? The only reason why other games make it more complicated is because after it'll end up being more innovative and fun. And this game just isn't it.<br /><br />1.3/10 A LIVING HELL!
| 0neg
|
Just saw the movie, it's actually pretty good. The trailers'd left me an impression of either yet another Dujardin one-man-show-turned-film (à la _Brice de Nice_) or an expensive, stupid French comedy. Surprisingly, it's neither. Secret agent OSS 117 is stupid, but at least he sort of knows it, whereas I've always found that James Bond was stupid but acted like a smart arse. Dialogue is witty with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humour that one would expect from a British rather than a French movie. The women and the music are beautiful. A refreshing trip into the past, when the bad guys were ex-Nazis or Soviet brutes, cars were shiny, and France had colonies!
| 1pos
|
While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?<br /><br />As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But "Shoot or be Shot" doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.<br /><br />While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire "violence" with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.<br /><br />Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like "This is stupid".<br /><br />Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request "INSANE". He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who "shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film" and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.<br /><br />If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner "art" film, see "Free Enterprise" instead, it is a much better film.
| 0neg
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 6