text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Yes, I am a romantic of sorts who likes musicals and comedy and this fit the bill! Julie Andrews gives a mesmerizing performance at the beginning and end of this film with the "Whistling in the Dark" production number. The sedate-to-outrageous number that she performs in the middle of the story when she believes that Rock Hudson has been seeing a dancing/call girl is eye-popping and will certainly make you giggle.<br /><br />I only wish that this film could be found in video or DVD as I would surely purchase it in a heartbeat for my home library!
| 1pos
|
THE PLOT: A trucker (Kristofferson) battles a corrupt sheriff (Borgnine) by getting his fellow truckers to band together and form an unstoppable convoy that stretches for miles and soon creates a national media frenzy.<br /><br />THE NEGATIVE: The film's setup is weak and the ending even weaker. It has all the good-ole-boy/trucker clichés without adding anything new in the process. It ends up making SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT look brilliant and inspired. Kristofferson is much too laid back for a leading man role and cannot carry the picture. Borgnine's character is portrayed awkwardly. At the start he is made to look like a real jerk of a sheriff who overacts to a minor contrivance that starts the whole thing rolling. Then at the end he is made out to be a little more sympathetic and even secretly siding with Kristofferson, which doesn't work at all. In either case Jackie Gleason is a much better actor for this type of role. The worst part about the movie though is director Peckinpah's attempts to throw in a 'serious message' into this silly action flick that does nothing but slow it down and bomb in the process.<br /><br />THE POSITIVE: The only good scene in the whole film is the fight sequence inside the truck stop restaurant. Director Peckinpah puts a funny spin to his trademark 'slow motion' violence and the result is amusing. Unfortunately he starts putting all the action into slow motion during the rest of the picture until it eventually becomes tiring. McGraw is always a pleasure to look at, but unfortunately she is given very little to say or do.<br /><br />THE LOWDOWN: If you've read the synopsis than you have essentially 'seen' the movie. The song that this movie is based on is pretty good, but the movie adds nothing to it and should never have been made. This is all very uninspired stuff for such a maverick director.<br /><br />THE RATING: 3 out of 10.
| 0neg
|
This film is about a deadly poison that is contained in small glass globes that is used to kill. This is apparently done to hide an espionage ring intent on stealing plans for a new American bomber. Now much of this plot was repeated in other Chan films, THE JADE MASK and THE DOCKS OF NEW ORLEANS. Additionally, it was first used in MR. WONG, DETECTIVE--all had the exploding glass globes--a plot element that obviously has been overused. It was interesting in MURDER OVER NEW YORK, but by these later films it was rather passé.<br /><br />Fortunately, the rest of the film was fresh and the plot worked out very well--with a nifty conclusion where, of course, the culprit reveals himself. However, no plane could fly the way this one did--especially in 1940. Such extreme dives and rapid ascents were pretty silly out of this already obsolete plane.<br /><br />By the way, in a small role as a porter you'll see Frank Coghlan Jr.--the same actor who played Billy Batson in the CAPTAIN MARVEL serial. According to IMDb, Mr. Coughlan is 93 years old and retired from the film industry.
| 1pos
|
Spoiler alert although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can
It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.<br /><br />Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.<br /><br />The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.
| 0neg
|
Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.<br /><br />1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10)
| 0neg
|
My grandmother bought me this film when I was 5 (I've always love scary movies) and even then I enjoyed it. The atmosphere is awesome and the story original and entertaining. I especially love the scenes where the RV is under attack in the desert. The rocks are actually convincing for such a low-budget flick. The acting is above average for these kinds of films and the music is eerie. This is definitely an uder-rated gem. I recommend it to anyone who likes these strange films from the late seventies, early eighties such as "Alice, Sweet Alice", "Poor Pretty Eddie", "Nightmare", "Hospital Massacre", and "Return of the Aliens, the Deadly Spawn". Definitely a classic!!
| 1pos
|
Having avoided seeing the movie in the cinema, but buying the DVD for my wife for Xmas, I had to watch it. I did not expect much, which usually means I get more than I bargained for. But 'Mamma Mia' - utter, utter cr**. I like ABBA, I like the songs, I have the old LPs. But this film is just terrible. The stage show looks like a bit of a musical, but this races along with songs hurriedly following one another, no characterisation, the dance numbers (which were heavily choreographed according to the extras on the DVD) are just thrown away with only half the bodies ever on screen, the dance chorus of north Europeans appear on a small Greek island at will, while the set and set up of numbers would have disgraced Cliff Richard's musicals in the sixties!Meryl (see me I'm acting)Streep can't even make her usual mugging effective in an over-the-top musical! Her grand piece - 'The Winner Takes It All' - is Meryl at the Met! Note to director - it should have been shot in stillness with the camera gradually showing distance growing between Streep and Brosnan! Some of the singing is awful karaoke on amateur night. The camera cannot stop moving like bad MTV. One can never settle down and just enjoy the music, enthusiasm and characters. But what is even worse is how this botched piece of excre**** has become the highest grossing film in the UK and the best selling DVD to boot? Blair, Campbell and New Labour really have reduced the UK to zombies - critical faculties anyone???
| 0neg
|
From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.<br /><br />Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.<br /><br />The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.<br /><br />It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.<br /><br />Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.<br /><br />Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.
| 0neg
|
the Germans all stand out in the open and get mowed down with a machine gun. the Good guys never die, unless its for dramatic purposes. the "plot" has so many holes its laughable. (Where did the German soldiers go once they rolled the fuel tank towards the train? Erik Estrada? Please!) And the whole idea, hijacking a train? How moronic is that! The Germans KNOW where you are going to go, its not like you can leave the track and drive away! What a waste. I would rather bonk myself on the head with a ball peen hammer 10 times then have to sit through that again. I mean, seriously, it FELT like it was made in the 60s, but it was produced in 88!! 1988!! the A-Team is more believable than this horrid excuse for a movie. Only watch it if you need a good laugh. This movie is to Tele Sevalas what Green Beret was to John Wayne.
| 0neg
|
I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour.
| 1pos
|
Dr. Chopper starts shortly after teenager Nicholas' (Robert Adamson) mum has died, he is still cut up about it but every cloud has a silver lining & in this case it appears that his mum owns a log cabin at Lake Tatonka the self proclaimed 'friendly place for happy people' that she didn't tell him about. So Nicholas together with his girlfriend Jessica (Chelsey Crisp) & three friends, Jimmy (Butch Hansen), Reese (Chase Hoyt) & Tamara (Ashley McCarthy) head out there for a fun weekend. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan, the cabin turns out to be little more than a run down shed & their neighbours turn out to be Dr. Chopper (Ed Brigadier) & his two nurses who go around killing anyone they meet to use them in horrible experiments...<br /><br />Going straight-to-video/DVD Dr. Chopper was edited & directed by Lewis Schoenburn & this film seems to be having a hard time here on the IMDb with some pretty harsh reviews, while I think Dr. Chopper as a horror film is pretty worthless I don't think some of the criticism I've read is entirely justified. The script which takes itself very seriously is credited to Ian Holt (whether he likes it or not...) who has a role in the film as Detective Crocker according to the IMDb cast list although I can't remember any character of that name, maybe he was one of the cops at the start? Anyway, the basic story is alright I suppose although it's a tad dull & lasts for too long, it's typical slasher fare with some sort of evil character running around bumping off our annoying American teen cast, you know the drill by now. Besides some brief & undeveloped nonsense about Dr. Chopper using body parts to replenish his own deteriorating body there's not much story here & the script seems to exist solely to invent situations for girls to take their tops off, there's the inevitable sex scenes, there's a sequence where some girls have to complete a sorority house initiation topless & there's even a couple of lesbians here as well one of whom is seen without her full compliment of clothing. Oh, & when I say topless I mean they aren't wearing any tops but they all keep their bras on so you may want to bear in mind there isn't any actual full frontal nudity in Dr. Chopper at all. So there you have it really, it's an average story that has a mildly surprising twist at the end which is wasted, is populated with poor clichéd dumb character's that exist only to showcase some cheap gore scenes & girls in bras. To be honest I expect a little bit more from my films but then again maybe I'm just being picky.<br /><br />Director Schoenburn does OK actually, this is by no means the worst looking film I've seen although it still looks cheap. There's no style here, I didn't think it was scary & there's no atmosphere either. The gore is restrained & restricted to some dead bodies & severed limbs, there's nothing new here or any particularly convincing special effects. Dr. Chopper is also one of those films where character decisions & motivations are ridiculous.<br /><br />Technically this is a little rough around the edges but is reasonably well made on what was probably a really low budget, the forest locations are suitably isolated although the cops office looks like someones front room & the two nurses outfits at the start look like stripper outfits. The acting is alright, it could have better but I've certainly seen worse.<br /><br />Dr. Chopper indeed features a doctor who rides around on a chopper motorbike but unfortunately that just isn't enough to satisfy me, despite it being a reasonably competent production the lack of any real gore, nudity or a decent plot sinks it without trace.
| 0neg
|
Movies are something you see on Saturday night and forget by Sunday morning. Motion pictures are works of art that stick with you forever. Mishima falls into the latter category. This is the type of thing that should win Academy Awards, a brilliant, visual peice of film that is both depressing and uplifting. Instead of doing a straightforward look at the life of Yukio Mishima, director Paul Schrader interweaves three adaptations of the author's stories into a look at his past and final day on Earth, the day he tried to lead the Japanese military into rebellion in the name of the Emperor. Failing to do that, he commits ritual suicide in an ending that hits you like a ton of bricks. The three short story adaptations allow a look into what led him to this and are presented in an experimental way that makes them appear to be filmed stage plays. Ken Ogata is magnificent as Mishima. Despite his eccentricities, he comes off as very sympathetic, a man who is quite willing to die for his beliefs and does. This makes the ending that much more devastating and the sense of loss more meaningful. Of the three story adaptations, Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House and Runaway Horses, it is the last that is the strongest and most emotional. It also is the story that most closely matches Mishima's mood in his final years and illustrates what truly led him to the events of November 1970. This review cannot be complete without a mention of Philip Glass' striking musical score. Not since 2001 has a film score been such a perfect compliment to it's visuals. Paul Schrader crafted one of the most beautiful movies of the 1980s or any other decade for that matter. Have the hankies at the ready because the ending will leave you in tears. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters reminds you that sometimes film can still be an art form and as art it is brilliant.
| 1pos
|
First off, let me say I wasted Halloween movie night by watching this garbage. Second, let me inform you that the current DVD available by Shriek Show is not uncut, so you gore hounds will be very upset. Third, that one scene is the highlight of the film and since it's been cut, well, you see where I'm going.<br /><br />I know a lot of horror fans dig this movie. It is atmospheric, shot in the woods with some very nice scenery, waterfalls and such. But after the opening kill, which has a very brutal shot of a machete being jammed through a hunter's crotch, you get no real brutal kills after that. And, with a slasher movie, you sort of want that. At least, I do. The director and co. do nothing new with the killer in the woods idea, several of this type of movie were all made right around the same time in the very early eighties. The only thing this has going for it is that you don't hate the actors as much as you might in other films. They are sort of likable. The kids have a reason for being there: one of them owns a deed to some property on the mountain. But what is not explained is why his family has property there. There is no cabin or house, so why buy property in East Jesus, especially if you aren't a hunter or whatnot? Well, I'm sure some people do buy land for camping purposes, but that just seems unusual. Anyway, two squealing backwoods inbreds show up and start stalking the campers and picking them off one by one. And, as I said before, you get pretty much nothing in the way of decent deaths after the machete kill in the beginning. The ending has a sort of off the wall kill by Connie, but even that isn't enough to save this from being almost equal with the completely forgettable film, The Forest, which is mind-numbing.<br /><br />If Shriek Show had been able to get a real uncut print, then this review might have been a little more forgiving, but this is the day and age of uncut/unrated DVD releases of old obscure films for cine-hounds like me. When you slight us, you get the crud review. Sadly, the presence of the great fatherly George Kennedy is the only highlight of this movie to set it apart from the other garden variety trash that was churned out back in the day.
| 0neg
|
This movie is amazing because the fact that the real people portray themselves and their real life experience and do such a good job it's like they're almost living the past over again. Jia Hongsheng plays himself an actor who quit everything except music and drugs struggling with depression and searching for the meaning of life while being angry at everyone especially the people who care for him most. There's moments in the movie that will make you wanna cry because the family especially the father did such a good job. However, this movie is not for everyone. Many people who suffer from depression will understand Hongsheng's problem and why he does the things he does for example keep himself shut in a dark room or go for walks or bike rides by himself. Others might see the movie as boring because it's just so real that its almost like a documentary. Overall this movie is great and Hongsheng deserved an Oscar for this movie so did his Dad.
| 1pos
|
I recently watched Spirit and enjoyed it very much, I've seen it about 4 times now on HBO and will buy the DVD. Those who gave negative reviews would probably think that `Vanishing Point' was just another car chase movie and `Thelma & Louise' was just another chick flick. Although the conclusions of those films are darker I feel the themes are somewhat related; that freedom and individualism are very important and that there is usually someone wanting to take it away from you. The other common trait of these movies is the caring, thoughtful `guardian angel' types who help the main characters to overcome adversity.<br /><br />Another review here mentions how this film relates to the theme of civilization invading someone else's home. All one has to do is look around at the dwindling open areas around us to see that.<br /><br />I thought the animation and the story were amazing, the animators really got the horses to look, act and move naturally. Spirit's emotions were very clear as the story progressed (yes I'm aware they do humanize the horses a bit, but this is fiction). In a couple of action scenes you feel caught in the current of the rapids and the heat from a forest fire. In other more quiet scenes (which are most of the time) you're allowed to savor the backgrounds. One of the big things that make the story really work is by not going the talking, singing animals route. Doing so would take away from the story's power. Instead the flow of the story is told by occasional narration by the main character, further punch is added by the fantastic soundtrack. Another plus is that they weren't afraid to give the story somewhat of a dark side (which really made this film watchable to me). This isn't prevalent through the entire movie though, and the conclusion is fitting and uplifting without being sappy.<br /><br />Those who appreciate horses will really like this movie, but I think it's a bit more than a horse movie. I don't feel this would be a good movie to take children to if they're brought up on the inane fare that's offered up today. But if they're the thoughtful sort that can handle compelling stories like The Lord of the Rings and Black Beauty they'll likely love this movie. Hell, I'm 35 years old and STILL love that stuff.
| 1pos
|
Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.
| 0neg
|
I really liked this film - not so much for the story (which was okay, but was a bit slow-moving in spots) but moreso for the incredibly beautiful scenery of Greece and the Greek isles! Susan Sarandon is utterly engaging as the carefree love interest of John Cassavetes - a man "on the edge". But the scenery! Oh oh oh!
| 1pos
|
This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.<br /><br />Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him.
| 0neg
|
The main problem with "Power" is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere. <br /><br />Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with "12 Angry Men" and "Fail Safe". It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman. <br /><br />3/10<br /><br />* / * * * *
| 0neg
|
After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, "We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it" seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, "I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip" with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The "reasoning" behind each plot turn and new "clue" is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for "never shutting up." She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a "Dr." title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, "Don't you ever shut up?" and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy....
| 0neg
|
OK, I don't want to upset anyone who enjoyed this film but it was a really bad movie. Just the way the scenes were edited and the acting, it made me cringe at some points. I really tried to enjoy it but it was like a student film, they must have had the smallest budget. I really liked the story line to an extent and the characters were likable but the film on a whole was just awful. Also, why is it that in almost every film with lesbian characters one of them has to either commit suicide or die or turn straight?!?! This is so sending a wrong and unrealistic message. I gave it 3 stars and everything considered I think that was very kind of me. Only watch this film if you want to laugh at how bad it is.
| 0neg
|
I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been.
| 1pos
|
Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, "Ahh.." The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her "lawyer", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.<br /><br />This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery.
| 1pos
|
When you have two tower house of performers pitched against each other, the least you can expect is the superb camaraderie and that is the case in this film where we have a 64 yrs old Amitabh Bachchan romances a 34-yr old Tabu. Wait! In fact that is all there in the name of plot therefore instead of "cheeni" it is the content that is "Kum" in this Adman turned Writer-Director R. Balki's maiden effort..<br /><br />Trust the two senior actors to bring the house down with their wise-cracks and bitter-sweet moments when love happened in this unconventional pair, and that is all you find in slow but refreshing first half. The locales of London as captured in rainy season are captivating. By the end of first half, romance completed and mission accomplished. There is not much left to be said. Therefore in the second half a strange opposition comes in the form of girl's father to the extent that he goes for a Satyagrah is really a test of patience. There is an equally strange climax about how he gives in. The result, second half is dry, flat with no energy. There is a subplot with a girl child dying of cancer, not making much impact. Nonetheless, the film is recommended for its fresh approach and the performances.
| 0neg
|
What an awful show. Science Fiction fans seem to watch anything anymore regardless of quality. It shocks me that something exceptional like Firefly lasts one season, while garbage like the Battlestar Galactica remake spawns a spin off. This spin off is pitiful in every aspect of the show. The acting is juvenile and uninspired. The characters are cardboard clichés of everything that has ever been in a bad Sci-Fi series. The story is bad. The dialog is worse than a prime time soap opera. The direction is shoddy and the sets are awful. Caprica is a waste of film, a waste of time and a waste of effort. This is one spin off that should have never been made.
| 0neg
|
"Deliverance" is one of the best exploitation films to come out of that wonderful 1970's decade from whence so many other exploitation films came.<br /><br />A group of friends sets out on a canoe trip down a river in the south and they become victimized by a bunch of toothless hillbillies who pretty much try to ruin their lives. It's awesome.<br /><br />We are treated to anal rape, vicious beatings, bow and arrow killings, shootings, broken bones, etc... A lot like 1974's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," to say that "Deliverance" is believable would be immature. This would never and could never happen, even in the dark ages of 1972.<br /><br />"Deliverance" is a very entertaining ride and packed full of action. It is one in a huge pile of exploitation films to come from the early 70's and it (arguably) sits on top of that pile with it's great acting, superb cinematography and excellent writing.<br /><br />8 out of 10, kids.
| 1pos
|
Sam (Thomas Cavanagh) and Gray (Heather Graham) are devoted siblings who share an apartment and a love of many things -- ballroom dancing, 1940s movie musicals and, much to their surprise, an attractive woman named Charlie (Bridget Moynahan). Historically heterosexual, Gray is confused by her new feelings.<br /><br />Gray Matters proves to be one of the blandest films I have ever seen. It's dull, predictable, unfunny, poorly acted and poorly written. Nothing about it felt real and everything was very cheesy. Also, this isn't really a romantic comedy with a special twist but more of a "coming out" movie. Sue Kramer tried to make the first half cute with the romantic stuff and the second half serious with the actual acceptance and coming out part. Unfortunately, she failed miserably. The first half was largely unfunny and only Heather Graham was able to hold it up a little. Then, the film took an awkward tone and got all serious. The serious scenes were handled poorly and all of the emotions just felt phony.<br /><br />I guess I would have enjoyed the film a little more if the relationships between the characters felt more authentic. The brother and sister relationship was very weak and they didn't really appear to be that close. Their relationship just didn't feel very natural. Also, the relationship between Tom and Bridget felt very unnatural. If two people are going to get married after only knowing each other for less than a week, then you would expect to see a little more excitement but the characters talked about getting married in Vegas in the same manner of asking a waiter what the specials are. There was a lack of excitement in the film and it was hard to get involved with the movie with such unmotivated characters.<br /><br />The acting was mostly weak which was a bit surprising given the decent cast. Heather Graham gave the only good performance in the movie. She was funny and had a few charming scenes but it's too bad that all of her co-stars were complete duds. Bridget Moynahan was very weak and her performance ringed false on every level. Also, it seemed like she was reading her lines. Thomas Cavanagh was pretty wooden and he showed nearly no emotion. The chemistry between Thomas and Heather was non existent and that damaged the film because their relationship felt phony. I can usually rely on Molly Shannon to be funny in a supporting role but here she was just annoying. Sissy Spacek had about two scenes and she was annoying in both of them. Finally, Alan Cumming just had an embarrassing character and his performance wasn't very good. Overall, Gray Matters is a lame film and it isn't worth watching. Rating 3/10
| 0neg
|
"Chips" is an excellent blend of music, light comedy and drama with a picture perfect performance by Peter O' Toole and and effortless romantic supporting performance by Petula Clark. O' Toole is able to show the shy, uncommunicative teacher that wishes so much to be loved by his students and is only able to express his love when he married Katherine (Clark). She brings him the world "What a lot of flowers" and he is forever changed. He becomes the beloved headmaster of Brookfield through tragedy but knows he could only have achieved his goal through Katherine's love. The songs (with the exception of the Music hall number) are all "thought-songs" coming from character's emotions and thoughts and, the more you listen to them, the more beautiful they become - "Walk through the World with Me" and "You and I". O'Toole's finest moment is the final speech he gives to the students (it was the reason for the Oscar nomination). As a teacher, we question what "book" learning ever gets through - but, as Chips says, we did teach them how to behave with each other and that is what really counts. Beautifully filmed, perfectly orchestrated by John Williams and one of the most moving films about love and how it can change you. "Did I Fill the World with Love?" the boys sing their school song. By the end, Chips realizes he was able to do it - but only cause Catherine was there.
| 1pos
|
i really liked the first 2 seasons. because a lot of good characters disappeared later on. like most shows are kinda slow at first then get better in later seasons, but this is the absolute reverse. jenny from the 1st season and Valarie from the 2nd season were Sabrina's friends, i really didn't care for the others, jenny and Valarie were her coolest friends. i think for some reason, the producers wanted us to not like her college friends for some reason, they were so cruel to Sabrina. but my favorite episode from season 1 is cat showdown and my favorite episode from season 2 is witch trash, that is the funniest episode. i also thought it was funny how Libby was popular but she was always jealous of Sabrina, and never seemed to have a real boyfriend but was always wanting to be with Harvey. i just wished they could have made more better ones. i also liked how the first 2 seasons, during the opening credits Sabrina would say a few words while wearing a costume, like in the pilot episode where she's in the witch costume, i liked how she said "this is so not me" and later on she kept trying to change herself to something else is what i think, but this is a really cool show. it is kinda like the andy griffith show in a way because it good at first but once it turned color and barney fife left, it was longer good. but i still like to watch it, but the only reason i watch later seasons is because of sabrina. what i meant about the opening sequence is: the opening titles of seasons 1-3 shows Sabrina in front of a mirror posing with several different costumes and outfits as the cast members' names quickly flash on the bottom of the screen. At the end, Sabrina would say some sort of pun that related to the outfit she is wearing, then disappear. the opening sequence of season four includes the characters in bubbles. the opening credits of seasons 5-7 features Sabrina at various locations around Boston
| 1pos
|
This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.<br /><br />All those who have actually studied the case knows different.<br /><br />First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.<br /><br />Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").<br /><br />A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.<br /><br />The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.
| 0neg
|
Black Snake Moan is uproarious. It is over-flowingly rich, fantastically orchestrated, strange and cumbersome, unique and visionary. In continuation of Hustle & Flow, Brewer paints his portrait of the American South almost as a mythological land one would expect to see in a Fantasy or Ancient Greece epic. And yet as far high above us his movies hover, they are still rooted; rooted in the deepest, darkest soil there is.<br /><br />As in traditional fairy-tales, Brewer paints his portrait in Black Snake Moan using extremes and exaggerations. Sharp and stark character traits, when coupled with such extreme acts as chaining a half-naked white girl to a radiator in an attempt to redeem her of her sins, exaggerate and emphasize the metaphor the same way such extreme visual techniques such as some characters having colour in Pleasantville strengthened the metaphor in that fairy tale film. But Brewer doesn't begin his film with "once upon a time"; in this film and also in Hustle & Flow, Brewer presents us with a different fairy tale; a dark, Gothic fable of sex, prostitution, and ultimately, redemption. These themes run through the film's veins like blood and resonate and bloom in its dark, brooding setting.<br /><br />But despite these harsh extremes, Brewer treats his characters like humans, and creates extremely well-executed, three-dimensional characterizations in Lazarus and Rae, particularly emphasized with their relationships with Lazerus' friend at the pharmacy, Angela, and Rae's mother.<br /><br />The acting is, all-around, quite perfect. One gets the feeling that both Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson were born to play these roles. Their characterizations are so intense and so severe; it's even more of a challenge for the actors to keep their heads on and craft realistic characters. And they succeed admirably. Samuel L. Jackson in particular utterly disappears into his character, which serves as a polar opposite to most of the character's he's played before. With films like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Shaft, and others, he has crafted for himself a typecast of the "ultimate bad-ass". In Black Snake Moan Jackson plays an old, broken, defeated and earthy character quite unlike anything he's done before. And frankly, it's just fantastic. What comes as quite a surprise, though, is the casting of Justin Timberlake, and more specifically, the fact that he comes across as quite tolerable. Sure he doesn't have much screen time, but like what Brewer did with Ludicrous in Hustle & Flow, he actually gets Timberlake to act and do what he is meant to do, and not come across as totally unconvincing and irritating.<br /><br />But what is really so incredibly great about the movie is the atmosphere Brewer creates. The rural Southern locations work to his advantage in creating a dark, dirty, grimy, crusty, rugged kind of texture to the entire film, which more than fits in with the film's thematic and metaphorical aspects. And by utilizing all sorts of elements such as the rising sound of cicadas when Rae gets her itch, or a raging thunderstorm that increases and intensifies as Lazarus plays his "Black Snake Moan" blues number for Rae, Brewer truly manages to create almost a fantasy world, an undermined mythology to the rural Southern setting. And it works so utterly fantastically to craft Brewer's unique vision.<br /><br />And one can't talk about a Craig Brewer film without mentioning the music. In Hustle & Flow, he utilized a soundtrack of down-and-dirty, street-wise hip-hop music to emphasize the atmosphere and the vision. In this film, the music works even better at polishing off and fully representing the unique atmosphere. It is a rural blues soundtrack, but it's the dirtiest, rawest, grittiest blues you've ever heard. And it sounds just absolutely fantastic.<br /><br />In all, it can be said that had this movie been a simple tale of an old, broken, lonely, god-fearing black blues singer redeeming a young white woman who was sexually abused as a child and now suffers from nymphomania, there may have not been very much to write home about. But this film is not about the plot, and not even about the characters, as well as they are crafted in the film regardless. No, this film is about the vision and what a unique vision it is! It is about the atmosphere, the mythology, the setting. It is about anger, fear, redemption, and most importantly, the blues. And it's all wrapped up in a unique, entertaining, stylized and impeccable ribbon. Brewer has guaranteed himself a spot on the most promising up-and-coming directors list, and with such a solid follow-up to a great debut film, Hustle & Flow, he will definitely be on my radar for future projects.<br /><br />It also must be mentioned that the film has one of the most fantastic and unique titles I've heard yet.
| 1pos
|
Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:<br /><br />Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.<br /><br />Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.<br /><br />Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.<br /><br />Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.<br /><br />Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.
| 0neg
|
This is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called "horror" shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons.
| 0neg
|
As I read the script on-line, I thought "Capote" needed a trim. Having just seen it on PPV, I can tell you it wasn't trimmed, it was butchered like that poor family! Example: in the script, Truman dubs Shawn "Adorable One"; here, he is "Mr. Shawn".<br /><br />Bad enough the amateurs behind this movie de-flame Capote and bash his circle (are we to really believe they thought so little of Nelle, they mangled her little opus like an obnoxious in-joke?), they turn Perry Smith into this oh-so-sensitive victim, even as he's shown dispatching the Clutters. It's one thing to fudge the facts, it's another to drop the ball: the executions were carried out between 12:45-1:19 AM, April 14; Truman is shown at the prison 22 HOURS LATER!<br /><br />I was totally underwhelmed by the "acting". Keener doesn't even try to sound like an Alabama native. The way Cooper kept shouting "Alvin!", I was waiting for the Chimpmunks to show up! Hoffman gives us not the charming gadfly, but a pathetic suck-up who sees an horrific act as his ticket to the big time. When Hoffman whines about being "tortured" by the endless appeals, I wanted to give him a shotgun so he could do us both a favor and blow his brains out!
| 0neg
|
This movie feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.<br /><br />The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...<br /><br />Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...<br /><br />THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...
| 0neg
|
"The Notorious Bettie Page" (2005) <br /><br />Directed By: Mary Harron <br /><br />Starring: Gretchen Mol, Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, & David Strathairn <br /><br />MPAA Rating: "R" (for nudity, sexual content and some language) <br /><br />It seems as though every celebrity nowadays is getting a biopic made about his or her life. From Ray Charles to Johnny Cash, biopics are very posh right now. "The Notorious Bettie Page" is the latest of these to be released on DVD. It features Gretchen Mol as the world's most famous pin-up model, Bettie Page and was filmed mostly in black and white with certain excerpts in color. Unlike "Ray", "Walk the Line", and "Finding Neverland", however, this movie is not going to be one to watch out for at the Oscars this year. This movie lacks the emotional resonance displayed in other biopics and most of the more dramatic moments in Bettie Page's life are either completely ignored or only merely suggested. This does not mean, however, that it is a bad movie. In fact, "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a thoroughly entertaining and fulfilling movie--a solid work of cinema. This film focuses more on Page's exciting career and the thin line between sexuality and pornography. It is filmed with fervor and care and Mary Harron's direction captures the look and feel of the time period as most filmmakers only dream about.<br /><br />Everyone knows Bettie Page (played by Mol). Whether you know her as an icon
or a simple porn star
you know her. She is a woman who had a very profound impact on American culture only by revealing more skin than deemed appropriate at that particular time. Now, most people know her as one of America's first sex symbols--a legend to many models, especially those of Playboy and other adult-oriented magazines. She lived in a time when showing just an inch of flesh below the waste could have someone arrested and Page's bondage-style photos were just the thing to push the American public into an uproar. In fact, the photos launched a full-fledged senate investigation about common decency and the difference between harmless films and porn.<br /><br />The performances in "The Notorious Bettie Page" are absolutely wonderful with Gretchen Mol standing out. Her performance as Bettie Page is simply brilliant. I understand that, when she was announced for the role, many people were skeptical. Her name is not one that immediately leaps to my mind when I think of great performances. Now, it will. She completely aced the role and drew me in with her vulnerable and yet deeply engaging performance. David Strathairn is fresh off of last year's "Good Night, and Good Luck", in which he gave one of 2005's best performances. Here, he gives yet another fine performance
even though he is slightly underused. I was shocked at how very limited his screen time was
but quality over quantity is always the most important aspect of any good movie. The only performance I have seen from Lili Taylor was that in "The Haunting" (1999). While most people ignored the movie, I found it to be an enjoyable, if not completely shallow, horror movie and I also have always thought that Taylor was perfectly credible as the emotionally-distraught Nell. Here, Taylor gives yet another credible performance. She gives a very subdued performance and delivers the perfect performance to compliment that of Gretchen Mol.<br /><br />After everything was said and done, I realized that "The Notorious Bettie Page" cannot be compared to other biopics, such as "Finding Neverland" and "Walk the Line". It is incomparable to these because it tells a story of a woman and her career, from the beginning to the end. Her personal life is briefly implied, but it is really her impact on the world that becomes the high point. We watch the film knowing that Page will eventually bare all and we know the impact that her decisions will have
but we are rarely shown the impact that they will have on her personal life. She is a woman that never looked back and could constantly reinvent herself. After all, she was an adult model turned Christian missionary. This movie does not over dramatize anything. It could have included fictitious moments of Page sobbing hysterically and begging God to forgive her. It could have shown Page running and screaming through the rain, trying to escape the ghosts of her past
and yet it does not. "The Notorious Bettie Page" tells a simple story and that is something rare by today's standards. Fortunately, it is quite refreshing.<br /><br />Final Thought: "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a relaxing movie with absolutely amazing cinematography.<br /><br />Overall Rating: 9/10 (A)
| 1pos
|
This movie was just heckled by MST3K and with good reason. First and foremost because it is a "cop" movie starring Joe Don Baker, who we all know is about as good a cop actor as Michael Jackson is a country western singer.<br /><br />All the typical cop movie plot devices rear their ugly heads, bar fights, children hostages in shoot outs, bad acting, lame police chiefs, bad acting, revenge/justice, endless goons , and of course, bad acting. Don't watch this without an MST3K filter folks.
| 0neg
|
While most movies that pit humans against horrendous extra terrestrials end up being cheap imitations of the 'Aliens' series, Pitch Black stands as a fine piece of Sci-Fi, and an excellent movie all around. Perhaps my favorite aspect of the film is the lighting. This movie beautifully employs many different colors, shades and intensities of light which set the mood and lend a unique feeling to the film itself, something different than the 'normal' movie lighting we are generally subjected to. Vin Diesel brings his character to life in an excellent manner, skillfully avoiding the routine portrayal of the hardened criminal. After all, the film is about Riddick's (Diesel's character) personal journey, so thankfully Vin doesn't drop the ball. The remainder of the cast (with the exception of the talented and gorgeous Claudia Black) were unknown to me but all turned in marvelous performances, animating the diverse characters with unique quirks and mannerisms. Pitch Black is a perfect example of making a great film with out the resources of an excessive budget. The special effects are more than adequate, but at the same time they are by no means the sole focus, as in many high budget 'blockbusters'. It's a great movie because it uses Science Fiction as a medium to tell an engaging, provoking story, rather then telling a mediocre story to use the flash of Science Fiction.
| 1pos
|
This is the kind of film that might give you a nightmare, besides that it's a lot of fun.<br /><br />Hardware Wars is the only good spoof on Star Wars, other films like Spaceballs have failed. This is the only good spoof film I have ever seen, it doesn't rip-off Star Wars, it makes fun of it, and that's what spoofs are supposed to be.
| 1pos
|
After watching Awake,I led to a conclusion:director and screenwriter Joby Harold made Awake with the intention of laughing at the spectator,for the simple fact the movie is full of ridiculous elements.Awake has a lot of plot holes and it is full of absurd and ridiculous elements(for example,the hospital uniform the spirit of the main character uses...did the ghost of a doctor leave it in the floor ?).The concept behind this movie is slightly ingenious but all the plot holes and the absurd things make of this a stupid and crappy film.With the exception of the great Lena Olin,all the actors bring bad performances.Hayden Christensen has zero expressions and the same applies for Jessica Alba.The extraordinary actor Terrence Howard is enormously wasted on his role.Awake makes a laugh of the spectator.It's so ridiculous and full of absurd things that it's impossible to take it seriously.My recommendation is:skip this crappy movie.
| 0neg
|
Following their daughter's brutal murder,Julie and Allen escape the city to find solace and grieve in a solitary cabin on a remote mountain.Allen's intentions are good,he wants his wife to get out of her depression by resuming her photography.Julie stumbles across an ancient prison and sees the perfect creepy,decaying setting for her photography.But when the photos are developed they are full of dead people-and Allen quickly discovers the tragic history of suicide in their new mountain."Dark Remains" is a pretty decent indie horror flick.It offers some genuine scares and plenty of tension.The acting is fairly good and the cinematography is great.7 out of 10.
| 1pos
|
This is something new.<br /><br />There's a coup d'etat and a couple of irish documentary filmmakers are right inside of it.<br /><br />A democratically elected president who uses his power to bring literacy to his people and encourages them to read the constitution is being slandered by the private media openly as dictator, mentally unstable, new hitler, etc. without repercussion from the governments side (like, say, silencing them via bullets and other traditional dictatorial methods). Oh, and they still claim that they are being suppressed, of course.<br /><br />See how the media gloats about their own role in the coup d'etat on TV after they toppled the government with the help of rouge generals (how much more stupid can you get?? ).<br /><br />And see how the people of Venezuela march to the palace, holding the constitution in their hands, and reinstall their elected government.<br /><br />This sounds like a Hollywood fairytale, but it happened for real, against the explicit wishes of the USA. The documentary is a historical masterpiece, shot from the center of the action, acute and totally embarrassing for the prime supporters of the coup: The good, democratic, freedom loving, benevolent USA (who still channel large amounts of money to Chavez' political opponents).<br /><br />Also highly entertaining and exciting. 10 points.
| 1pos
|
The Standard bearer of all movie serials, the definite good guy - Flash Gordon - versus Bad Guy - Ming the Merciless. Though the special effects seem awful by today's standards, for 1936 they were top notch. But the essence of the story is the battle between Earthman Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe) versus Emporer Ming of Mongo (Charles Middleton). Crabbe and Middleton are terrific in their parts. And the supporting characters playing Dale Arden, Dr. Zarkov, Princess Aura, Prince Barin, Vulcan, and the rest are all very good. This serial is far superior to the 1980 movie, basically because Crabbe is much much superior to Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon.<br /><br />This serial is the standard bearer for all movie serials. No question about it.
| 1pos
|
Yeah, I made it all the way to the end. It was pretty hard though.<br /><br />Sometimes I was wondering if there was even a director on set. The acting...well, I don't even know what to say. I thought the girl who played Emily tried her best with the boring, sometimes wacky and sometimes predictable dialog. <br /><br />I know that it was low budget but the hollow sound and the lighting unfortunately made it look and sound like a 100-minute-long audition tape. <br /><br />I'm not even going to talk about the ending...<br /><br />The best thing about the movie was the music.<br /><br />That being said, I do not recommend this movie to anyone. Even for lesbians who don't have many movies to watch overall, this is nothing to waste your time on. If you're looking for a sad lesbian themed movie, check out The Children's Hour, Lost and Delirious or High Art. Those will all leave you depressed and gloomy but you won't have to suffer cinematic hell in the process.
| 0neg
|
Wow...sheer brilliance.<br /><br />Turning a thriller/suspense/horror into comedy.<br /><br />After watching this, I never laughed so hard at a horror movie before...a ridiculous plot with 3 characters that were just insanely developed - either not written in depth or too much depth.<br /><br />If you want to watch an absolutely written horror movie with stupid dialog, messed up plot, useless scenes, wasted characters, bad sound and lousy development overall, then this is the one to watch.<br /><br />Be sure to keep focused for the classic "food processor" scene and the totally inept police investigation scenes.<br /><br />This is a remarkable new low in screen performance and writing and to sit through it for the entire duration makes you either stupid, daring or brave.
| 0neg
|
I'm not quite sure why, but this movie just doesn't play the way it should. It should be humerous and fun, but instead is just boring. I think a large part of it is because they way over played the "gadgets." The old cartoon it is based on is much better.<br /><br />3/10
| 0neg
|
I just got back from a screening a couple of hours ago, and I was very happy with the movie when I left it. It's very intense, and the closest I've come to crying in a movie in quite some time. That is a credit to Adam Sandler, who delivers a magnificent performance on many levels, and who probably deserves an Oscar nom for it, were it not coming out so early in the year. Don Cheadle gives his usual superb performance playing the straight man to Adam's disturbed.<br /><br />There is some humor, but most of it is really only funny in comparison to the tearjerking moments, as Adam deals with his loss and Don struggles to help him. Adam plays two levels very well... when he is mentally stable he is funny and likable, but when he is, well, less stable he's powerful and dark.<br /><br />I recommend it for anyone who likes intense mental dramas about difficult friendship and loss.
| 1pos
|
I have seen The Running Man several times as I am a Stephen King fan and have all his movies but now it is even better because up until 2 days ago I didn't know about this website and I didn't realize that the Paul Michael Glaser that was involved with this movie was the same Paul Michael Glaser that I grow up watching on Starsky and Hutch television show. For me this is a pleasant surprise because I can't tell you how many times I cried when Starsky or Hutch got hurt. The episode where Starsky (Kill Starsky) almost died I cried so hard My dad had to turn away from the show. What to you expect of a kid at age 12. Now, I intentionally look for films and programs involving Paul or David Soul and anything that Stephen King has his hands on I'm so there!!!!!!!! Just got to say Happy birthday Paul!!!!!
| 1pos
|
Take a look at those faces alongside the entrance to the jail. They're not the faces of Hollywood extras. Somebody in production was really smart to take filming to Oxford, Mississippi, because you can't get that kind of authenticity from a studio backlot. Scope out the narrow dusty roads, the frozen earth beneath, and the skeletal trees just barely hanging on. No wonder those faces look hard and unforgiving; they're just reflecting the soil from which they spring. Old man Lucas (Hernandez) better fear for his life, but then he springs from that same hard earth.<br /><br />The movie works because it tells a good story that neither preaches nor sentimentalizes and even has some suspense. Old man Lucas is not very likable. He's a victim and we sympathize, but he's also haughty and unfriendly. Wisely, the script refuses to sweeten him up. That way we're forced to recognize the effects of racism and injustice on even the less sympathetic. The script also wisely avoids dealing directly with racism since that tends to become preachy and less effective. Instead, we're shown how easily prejudice can convict an innocent man and condemn him to a horrible death. So, it's through our common instinct to see justice done that the effects of racism are exposed, a much more effective pathway. It also makes the actions of the sheriff and the lawyer more understandable since they are otherwise part of the Jim Crow system.<br /><br />Note how the movie doesn't attack segregation. It's doubtful that old man Lucas would want to mix with whites anyway and there's no hint that even lawyer Stevens (Brian) wants to cross the color line except to see justice done. No, the possibility of reconciliation lies in the future as symbolized by the kid (Jarman) whose head is not yet filled with "notions". He's not exactly friends with Lucas, but he has glimpsed the common humanity of being befriended after falling into the frozen creek. The last line of dialogue also shows him siding with his uncle, the lawyer, instead of his more hidebound parents (the dinner table scene is important and easily overlooked). The lawyer might not join a future civil rights march, but the kid might. That's the movie's realistically hopeful side.<br /><br />There was a bunch of racially themed movies during this brief 3 year period, 1949-51, (The Well, No Way Out, Home of the Brave, Lost Boundaries). Even famously detached MGM got into the mix with this little gem. Unfortunately, the McCarthy purges in Hollywood put an end to "problem" films that might not serve Cold War ends. Even so, each of these is worth catching up with, not only because they're good movies, but because even with the passage of 60 years and Jim Crow, they're still relevant.
| 1pos
|
Alfred Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Who Knew Too Much," is usually not considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films ever. I prefer it over "Vertigo" and "Rear Window."<br /><br />Like "North By Northwest," it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to make sure he gets his son back and protect his family.<br /><br />While the original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really creepy villain. <br /><br />Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to see it over and over.
| 1pos
|
The movie wasn't all that great. The book is better. But the movie wasn't all that bad either. It was interesting to say the least. The plot had enough suspense to keep me watching although I wouldn't say I was actually interested in the movie itself. Janine Turner and Antonio Sabato Jr are both gorgeous enough to keep you watching :)They have a few cute scene's that should appeal to the romantic's. Overall I'd give the movie a 7 or 8. It wasn't bad, Just a little lacking plot wise.
| 1pos
|
Bette Midler is indescribable in this concert. She gives her all every time she is on stage. Whether we are laughing at her jokes and antics or dabbing our eyes at the strains of one of her tremendous ballads, Bette Midler moves her audience. If you can't see it live (which is the best way to see Bette) then this is the next best thing. An interesting thing to look at is how incredible her voice has changed and matured over the years but never lost its power. Her more "vocally correct" version of "Stay With Me" never loses anything in spirit from THE ROSE or DIVINE MADNESS, Here it is just more pure and as heartfelt as ever. I will treasure this concert for a very long time.
| 1pos
|
This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.
| 0neg
|
This is a slightly uneven entry with one standout sequence involving an over-the-hill gang reminiscing in the diner that once - thirty years previously - was their hideout; one ho-hum duologue between two ageing rock musos; a noirish kidnap turned on its head and an opening sequence (plus epilogue) involving heist artist wannabe Edward Baer and current 'hot' property Anna Magloulis which has its moments. No movie in which Jean Rochefort appears can be dismissed lightly and here he shines as one of the over-the-hill quintet, indeed the film is worth seeing for Rochefort alone but each of the sequences has something to offer and it's definitely worth a look.
| 1pos
|
While it does crack the odd good joke, the humour is generally quite dry with members of the panel frequently pulling faces or resorting to coarse language and waiting on the crowd to applaud lame enough jokes.<br /><br />Unlike what an other comment says I don't think this is the best RTE have ever made, its really dry and sarcastic. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, there are few truly funny intelligent gags that would make you genuinely laugh out loud. People seem to be convinced by the comedians well known names rather than by judging the quality of the gags which aren't really that good. Overall its mediocre with some good laughs to be had but often it can be fairly mediocre. Its not as good as Jasper Carrot or Dave Allens stuff. I find Benny Hill funnier.
| 0neg
|
The Snowqueen is one of the best love stories I have ever seen: much better and deeper than Luhrman's Romeo&Juliet or Spielberg's Titanic. Gerda's love impresses me every time, her search, her battle is exceptional. Gerda becomes a strong, loving woman throughout the movie. Kay is the poisoner of dark forces: the temptation. This story encourages me to fight like Gerda for the ONLY ONE, for the love of my life, for Mister Right. Patience is one of the keywords of this movie. I cry every time when I realize all the suffering of Gerda and Kay. And I wish that it ends soon... Snowqueen tells although my life, I deeply identify with the story and the characters. Thanks at least for Hans Christian Anderson and the director.
| 1pos
|
Duncan Roy's writing and direction is really, and regularly, below par. Actually it sort of stinks. AKA is almost as bad as his recent (horrible, self-serving) remake of Dorian Gray - absurd, contorted dialogue among the 'upper class' characters, at once idiotic and pretentious, amateurish, stilted to its core. Characterisiation and script - and sometimes the acting - is creaky like a school play...but worse, there's a sort of peacock self-certainty about the direction which is just soul destroying when the director clearly hasn't grasped...he's just no good. Diana Quick must be cringing with embarrassment. DR you should just get out of film...seriously.
| 0neg
|
The brilliance of this movie is that even a competent dentist is pretty scary. It's one of man's primal fears. This movie is the nightmarish image every kid has to go through in the waiting room. Corbin Bernsen gives a surprisingly non-lackluster performance as a crazed dentist who I guess tries to kill people but he only works on their teeth so it's not really working out. In a particularly gory scene we find so-so actor Earl Boen having his teeth completely destroyed with drills and whatnot, which I guess is the absolute worst you can do when you're a killer dentist. It's a typical Brian Yuzna situation, not well written but there's gore. The plot is shoddy and at times seems to be made up on the spot but hey, it's a killer dentist movie, we've all thought of it but they did it first.
| 1pos
|
Time line of the film: * Laugh * Laugh * Laugh * Smirk * Smirk * Yawn * Look at watch * walk out * remember funny parts at the beginning * smirk<br /><br />Unfortunately, this movie has a good concept that it grinds to the ground.
| 0neg
|
This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.
| 0neg
|
Mona the vagabond lives on the fringes of French society, in a life without meaning, purpose or direction.<br /><br />I watched this because of all the stellar reviews, but I'm afraid I must have missed something. The character of Mona has little or no personality while drifting through life being rude to people, getting high and contributing nothing to anyone's life. She's not interesting or exciting. She's just useless.<br /><br />I've seen and known enough people like that: there is no secret meaning to what they're doing. They are just lazy bums. I wouldn't want Mona anywhere near me, as she tends to steal anything that isn't nailed down and leave her friends in the lurch. Sure she's enigmatic - because there isn't anything to her. Lots of junkies, winos and bums I've seen are enigmatic; I wouldn't want to see a film about them either.<br /><br />Possibly there is something there that I totally missed. Otherwise I'm assuming that all the reviews are from people who assume anything done by a French female director is high art.
| 0neg
|
John Voight plays the title character in this movie based on author Pat Conroy's (Prince of Tides) autobiography. A fine teacher film, it tells the story of a naive Pat Conroy, a young English teacher whose first assignment is in an elementary school on a rural island. The only white man on the island, he must battle internal and external pressures as he attempts to instill education and values in children who for generations have been systematically denied such things. A solid performance that really makes you think.
| 1pos
|
"The Devil in the Dark" is William Shatner's favorite episode. It is also one of my favorite episodes. The program is pure Star Trek because it deals with one of the series' main themes: the respect for other life forms. I do not think one could get a clearer example of one of the show's most interesting ideas. In this episode, Kirk and his crew have to confront a monster that is killing miners on a distant planet. The story is an excuse to explore the right that humans have to destroy creatures that are a vital part of the environment. Today's concerns with environmental causes make the show more relevant now than ever before. It is extremely well written and performed with gusto by our beloved cast. One memorable sequence involves Spock joining with the mind of the monster. Plenty of tension between Spock and Kirk (they want to solve the problem using different methods) adds to the fun. Shatner and Leonard Nimoy do some of their best work here.
| 1pos
|
Although this film is set amongst the sophisticated English upper classes it is a simple story of a couple torn asunder. It has a slightly dated air, being an adaptation of "A Way Through the Wood", a 1950 novel by Nigel Balchin (once hugely popular and now forgotten). Julian Fellowes, who despite an academy award for the script of "Gosford Park", has a somewhat anachronistic persona himself, wrote the script and directed (the latter for the first time). With the DVD version I saw there is a most illuminating audio commentary by Julian. His primary focus was on getting his characters right, and by and large he has succeeded. In this he was helped by two outstanding performances from Tom Wilkinson as James, the stitched up City lawyer, and Emily Watson as his attractive wife Anne. He also kept it short; the running time is only 80 minutes.<br /><br />James and Anne have a town house in Chelsea and a comfortable former vicarage in Buckinghamshire. Anne is some years younger but they are childless. Outwardly they seem happy, but James, one of nature's moralists (unusual for a city lawyer), is a control freak. Just down the road is the aristocratic the Hon. William Buel, who is not one for middle-class morality, and he is more than happy to take advantage. But there's a complication, a road accident, in which an elderly cyclist is knocked over in a country lane by a ruthlessly driven Range Rover just like the Hon. Bill's. Soon James, Anne, Bill and the victim's widow (who happens to be James' and Anne's cleaner) are drawn in to a conspiracy to conceal what really happened. The primary focus is on the corrosive effect of all this on James and Anne's relationship.<br /><br />The third person in this ménage a trios, Bill, is played by Rupert Everett. From the point of view of casting, his languid, superior manner is right for the part, yet somehow he doesn't quite get there. Partly this is because he is supposed to be sick for some of the time and he looks well when he is supposed to be sick, and vice-versa. The part seems underdeveloped. It is interesting that John Neville as Bill's father who has only one significant scene manages to establish his character beautifully in the time he has.<br /><br />The world of five star hotels and superior restaurants is nicely evoked. As Julian Fellowes says in the audio commentary, these people are able to convince themselves that the Edwardian age still exists. At bottom though, the film is about what draws a couple together and what tears them apart. Nigel Balchin was going through a marriage break-up when he wrote the book, and Fellowes has made a good fist of conveying the atmosphere. As he says, his is a fairly free adaptation, but the central theme is the same.
| 1pos
|
... Brian? what the hell were you *on* when you signed to do this?<br /><br />I saw this recently at a festival, and it was greeted by howling laughter throughout. By the time the credits rolled, tears were streaming down the faces of many of the audience. <br /><br />The plot is a clunky melding of 'E.R.' and 'The X-Files'; as cynically aimed at the TV audience as is possible to get without being sued. The sequences involving the abductions are hilarious- both Yuzna's staging of the 'floating from the bed' and 'Screaming Mad George's pathetic plastic aliens drew gales of disbelieving, derisive laughter. <br /><br />Limp, camp and stupid. My only hope is that it was an aberration- As awful as 'Return of the Living Dead 3' was good.<br /><br />Steev
| 0neg
|
(Chances are, I'm gonna spoil Valuable Plot Points while writing this and because I can't determine and don't really care what YOU think is a Valuable Plot Point, then if you are thinking of watching this film and have an issue with learning such things, then I suggest you hop right on to the next review.) You know, I don't mind the cult films being filed under the "cult" section. And people who believe it can go there and get their fill of the "reality". I mean, is it too much to ask that the overtly pseudo-Christian propaganda films be filed with the other Special Interest movies? <br /><br />I couldn't have been more flabbergasted had Pat Robertson made a porn movie. (or would that be "flubbergasted"?) <br /><br />It was bad enough that there was an egregiously insufficient count of kicking and punching in this. It was bad enough that the same story has been done repeatedly in much better ways. It was bad enough that it wasn't filed under Special Interest, with other cult films. It was bad enough that it somehow is receiving nods for being "realistic" as if we live in the world where towns get possessed by the "debbil" and the really profound and nasty evil ISN'T done by human beings -- usually in the NAME of religions based on the god of Abraham. It was bad enough having to simply shut the thing down because people were complaining so loudly that it was awful.<br /><br />No, the really BAD part was when one of our guests stood up after we finally had to just turn the damn thing off, and declared "I for one would like to see something really violent or pornographic now, just to get that OUT of my head. Preferably both, if you have it." And we had just MET her.
| 0neg
|
This is one of the most enjoyable teen movies I have ever seen (and that I wished was released to video). It was released the same year as another great comedy in which Tim Matheson played a role "Animal House" (Which is probably why it was overlooked). <br /><br />One of the most memorable parts of this film would definitely be the soundtrack, which could have and should have been a formal label release. The soundtrack features a lesser-known 70's act named High Inergy whose song "We are the future", played a marquee role in the movie's Prom scene. I remember purchasing the group's album "Steppin' Out" as a kid mainly because of the look of the girls and not necessarily for their musical talents. <br /><br />The closing song is one of the best ballads I have ever heard, and I can still hear it in my head. I wish I knew the group's name so that I could look for it somewhere in cyberspace.<br /><br />If you liked films such as "Over the edge" and "Rich Kids", I think this is one that you will enjoy as well.
| 1pos
|
This is a plot driven movie and extremely entertaining. Nothing startling or original within the plot, but crucially, it moves along at a great pace and therefore keeps your attention. I didn't really notice the acting which I guess is a good thing. John Mills was fine but did seem to take everything in his stride somewhat considering how his life was falling apart around him. He would be clumped on the head, stand up 20 seconds later, dust himself down and carry on as if nothing had happened. A minor quibble in a film with a strong story, authentic locations and a plot that continually keeps you guessing right up to its conclusion.
| 1pos
|
Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia "Rayanne" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno.
| 0neg
|
I don't think it really matters too much what the plot of this movie is about, the main thing you'll notice is the extreme amateurishness of the entire production. The acting is what you'd get if you chose people at random off the street. The sound is really annoying - a medicine cabinet closes with all the gusto of a gunshot going off in your ear, while at the same time the dialog is perhaps one-fifth as loud. Miscellaneous on-set noises dominate the soundtrack to a huge degree, with dialog taking a distant back seat. The theme music sounds as if it was about a quarter done when the movie was released, as large portions of the film don't have any music at all. Camera-work can best be described as a gnarled mess, with close-up shots where a medium angle would be much better, cameramen walking around and jostling the camera every which way, absolutely no attention paid to framing any scene, they just shot everything from whatever position it was most convenient for the cameraman to stand. If the cameraman was a foot taller than the actors and you end up looking at the tops of everyone's heads, well, so be it. Editing is just a butcher job; Everything is tossed together in the most abrupt manner possible, nothing flows or transitions in any sense of the word. I don't know if this was shot on video or perhaps a rented camcorder, I tend to think it was the latter. <br /><br />I only made it about three-quarters of the way through this thing before I turned it off, I just got so annoyed at the low quality of the production I couldn't take it anymore. It's like a ninth grade audio-visual class project.
| 0neg
|
No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.
| 1pos
|
After a string of successful 'a man and his monkey films', which included the seminal "Every Which Way But Loose", "Every Which Way You Can" and "Peter's Friends", the genre fell on hard times. In an effort to rejuvenate this once celebrated area, director Frank Marshall brought Michael Crichton's acclaimed novel to the big screen.<br /><br />Think 'Gorillas in the Mist' meets 'Tron' minus the box-office clout of Bruce Boxleitner. This is one mans doomed love affair for his talking monkey. Not helped by bad accents (Tim Curry struggles with a Romanian), a baboon of a screenplay, hungry hippos, skydiving primates and Bruce Campbell. Ape-Sh*t.
| 0neg
|
Mel Torme and Victor Borge, in their younger years, serve to make this film interesting - and especially viewing a young Sinatra, on the sunny side of 30, and definitely conveying that this was his "yes, I'm a popular singer, but hardly an actor yet" stage. Michele Morgan is an annoying, inane presence, and Jack Haley is an actor whose appeal has always been totally lost on me. Leon Erroll is silly, as always, but overall pretty funny. 7 stars of a potential 10 is about the right "grade," because with the combination of its positive aspects, along with the lack of much of a story, and a silly one at that, and the fore-mentioned annoyances - it is overall average at best. Most of the fascination is from the viewing of the three entertainment icons in their early years.
| 1pos
|
Originally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.<br /><br />The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard "uses" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.
| 0neg
|
Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.
| 0neg
|
This is only somewhat attractive for fans of "bad movie" entertainment. It is more worthwhile for students of 1970's pop culture: the fashions, the furniture, the attitudes, and that great "women's lib" moment of the early 1970's, when it was still fresh and novel for a self-employed, independent woman to exist.<br /><br />"Superchick" (Joyce Jillson) had a monetarily rewarding if stultifying career (after all, what is a flight attendant but a waitress at 30,000 feet -- that goes for the male ones too), she slept around with multiple men, could protect herself and others (with karate) and wasn't tied down to anything. This is the kind of emancipated woman that scared the juices out of anti-feminists, those retrograde idiots who believe that no woman is complete without a husband.<br /><br />The "sexy stewardess" was a potent archetype of the late 1960's to 1970's, (geez, even on "The Partridge Family," I remember swinging bachelor Ruben Kincaid constantly hooking up with stewardesses) and from that point of view, this silly film is an important pop culture time capsule of the pre-AIDS, free-love, women's lib, swinging Seventies. The plot is quite awful though. And for those cavemen in the audience, there are few bare breasts to look at.
| 0neg
|
This is one of the greatest films ever made. Brilliant acting by George C. Scott and Diane Riggs. This movie is both disturbing and extremely deep. Don't be fooled into believing this is just a comedy. It is a brilliant satire about the medical profession. It is not a pretty picture. Healthy patients are killed by incompetent surgeons, who spend all their time making money outside the hospital. And yet, you really believe that this is a hospital. The producers were very careful to include real medical terminology and real medical cases. This movie really reveals how difficult in is to run a hospital, and how badly things already were in 1971. I loved this movie. P.S. - I noticed that the incompetent, wheeler dealer surgeon played the head of the firm in LA Law. The young doctor played in Lou Grant. I also noticed that the registration nurse has appeared since in Becker and other shows.
| 1pos
|
OK so there's nudity, but hey, there's free porn on the internet for whomever likes it. And its just silly how they forced tits into every frame. I mean i was embarrassed, not from the nudity but from the far-fetchessness of the producers/writers of this piece of crap.<br /><br />The movie is NOT funny at all, its just extremely predictable all the time. There is no plot, no dramatic content at all. This is way waay worse then the other pie-films and they arnt that great either:) If you're really drunk or maybe a 13 year old buy who are really obsessed with tits this might be acceptable, otherwise not. <br /><br />May it forever roth align with crap of the same magnitude with regards Erik the questmaster flash MC
| 0neg
|
We really enjoyed Grey Owl: a simple tale well told in classic Attenborough fashion: a little over-romanticized, with archetypes, humor, and a stress of dignity and values.<br /><br />Beautifully shot and told at a nice pace this is the true story of Archie, an Englishman who turned native Indian, and went to live and trap in Canada.<br /><br />Solid performances from all makes this film with a message easy viewing.<br /><br />Two of the stars of the film are without a doubt the cutest we have ever seen - and the message is a good one with its ecoleanings. It must have been great to meet or read Grey Owl in the 1930s, a unique character and this is a fitting film tribute.
| 1pos
|
The original Road House was a classic cheesy 80s movie, which although it didn't have anywhere near award worthy writing or acting, was a very enjoyable and popular film, largely due to the presence of star Patrick Swayze and the great supporting cast, along with some excellent fight scenes and eye candy.<br /><br />16 years later, and MGM / Sony attempts to re-create the magic which left us all quoting one liners and reciting the three rules of bouncing... with a movie which quotes all the original's best one liners and recites the three rules.<br /><br />Were this an amateur fan made film, it would be seen as a loving homage to one of the most popular of Swayze's movies. As a professionally made film, it falls flat on it's face right into the DVD Bargin Bin, with its continual reuse of lines and plot from the original movie becoming more of an annoying sign of lack of originality rather than cool references to the original.<br /><br />Having said that, with new lines such as "I'm gonna kill you just like I killed your father" no wonder the screenwriters decided to rehash much of the original script.<br /><br />I knew this was never going to be anything special, being a Straight to DVD Sequel, but I had at least hoped that there might be a couple of new ideas and fresh things included to live up to the Road House name, but what you get is simply just a 2006 remake of the same film, with a little narcotics added in.<br /><br />Were I the director, I'd have removed all references to the first film so as not to tarnish the original and it's characters. As it is, we got Patrick Swayze's character now supposed to be dead (killed off screen in a lame way by Jake Busey) and his brother and son now the main characters, who strangely enough have completely different surnames.<br /><br />My favourite part was that Dalton's 'son' drove the same car his father did, a genuinely cool homage, although it was later ruined by having the car meet its end EXACTLY the same way as its predecessor did. That's a good example of how this film goes too far in including sequences and ideas from the '89 movie.<br /><br />Also of course who can forget the legendary moment where Wild Bill promises to kill Shane "just like I killed your father" and then proceeds to attempt to dispatch him in a completely different manner. Amazing writing there. I see Schaech is listed as co-screenwriter. Stick to acting, or preferably, nothing.<br /><br />Overall though, this is an OK film if there's nothing else to watch and you want to turn your brain off for an hour and a half, or if you haven't seen the first Road House, but hardcore fans of Swayze's classic will be totally disappointed almost to the point of feeling insulting at how much of a rip off this movie is of the first. As someone once suggested as an alternative subtitle for this film, "Even Jeff Healy is glad he won't be seeing this one!" Stick to the original Road House and relive the good old Swayze days!
| 0neg
|
There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to "be a family again," then we don't WANT them to "be a family." What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?<br /><br />THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as "interesting." This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as "cool cause it's so far OUT, man!"). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's "the emperor's new clothes," the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .<br /><br />There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no "hidden meaning" anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like "Visitor Q." Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS "Visitor Q" is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this. <br /><br />There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's "cool." They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually. <br /><br />Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's "Cool" when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half!
| 0neg
|
I bought this DVD from Walmart for cheap, thinking it would be a typical, crap straight-to-video monster junk, but it turned out much better than expected. There isn't really any criticism to say about it... it's obviously low budget, but that just adds to the cheesy old fashioned fun. It's very cool and entertaining.<br /><br />There's everything: horror, sex, a great plane crash and good characters. And I'd say it's pretty original, cuz it really doesn't come off as any other movie I've seen. It has it's own unique look, which I liked very much, that's why this film deserves credit. I look forward to seeing more of these awesome movies from "The Scare Master", Brett Piper, whom I've never heard before this one.<br /><br />The DVD menu is really creative with groovy music playing over it, so it's perfect just to keep it on when you're not yet ready to sit down and watch it. It also includes some special features, which are really interesting. But we never get to see the director or hear him in the commentary, must be shy. This comes out of Edgewood Studios in Vermont, USA. I highly recommend it to all horror buffs, you'll love it!
| 1pos
|
Many funny scenes about the people that you don't normally pay attention to in a movie and what they have to do to get work and what happens once they do. Lou Myers was very funny as Half-Step Wilson. Any guy that has a tight group of friends can relate to many of the non-movie related scenes scattered throughout the movie.
| 1pos
|
By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.<br /><br />Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.<br /><br />The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.<br /><br />The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.<br /><br />I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.<br /><br />Better luck next time.
| 0neg
|
Written by science fiction veterans Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. This space fantasy is aptly directed by Robert Parrish. Experienced American astronaut Colonel Glenn Ross(Roy Thinnes)agrees to a manned flight to the far side of the sun. The mission is to be controlled by Jason Webb(Patrick Wymark)and his Euro Sec Space Agency scientist John Kane(Ian Hendry)will accompany Ross. The two will explore a newly discovered planet that is in the same identical orbit as Earth...except it is always hidden on the other side of the sun. Ross is the only one to make it back to earth and has a very incredible story to tell. Special effects may be better than the story line. Nonetheless fun to watch. The cast also includes: Lynn Loring, Loni von Friedl, George Sewell and Herbert Lom.
| 1pos
|
This movie has a very simple yet clever premise - an unemployed man trying to steal from a convenience store, and the store clerk catches him in the act... the thief runs away with the store-clerk right after him. All the while, the store clerk is in trouble with a low-rank Yakuza chinpira (gangster). Along the chase for the thief, they catch the eye of the Yakuza who's been looking for the convenience store clerk. The story then moves into high gear in the form of a Tom & Jerry (cat & mouse), but is added with the dog chasing after the cat. The entire 2nd act of D.A.N.G.A.N. Runner (can be translate to English as "PINBALL RUNNERS") is about the chase, and the chase goes on & on to the point that by the end of the 2nd act, the bum forgets why he is running away, and the Yakuza don't remember which of the 2 guys he is chasing, nor does he remember why they're running away from him.<br /><br />Similar to SABU's later film POSTMAN BLUES, the bulk of the film is simply all chase and action, with plenty of physical comedy and dark humor injected to keep the audience engaged. What falls short is the ending, to which the chase stops when the three men run out of steam, and into one of the most chaotic Mexican stand-offs you'll see on film that looks almost as if Sabu was paying homage to Tony Scott's TRUE ROMANCE (written by Quentin Tarantino).
| 1pos
|
With a cast of stalwart British character actors and pleasing photography of 1950s Britain, I had hoped and expected to be more entertained by this film. Unfortunately I found myself glued to it for the wrong reasons - I couldn't quite believe how awful it was. I must have watched thousands of old films and am always ready to make allowances for them being products of their time, but this was really hard going.<br /><br />As others have noted, a major problem is that it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: a gentle romantic comedy, a slapstick comedy or a musical. I was a bit gobsmacked when Jeannie Carson suddenly broke into song about 15 minutes in! It's not believable on any level, either the storyline itself or the fact that Daisy never appears to have an ounce of menace in her at any time. Other aspects which defied credibility included the casting of suave Donald Sinden as a songwriter (a songwriter for God's sake!), the fact he has Diana Dors for a fiancée and doesn't appear to have the slightest interest in her (I mean, Diana Dors! Come on!) and a ludicrous scene in a song publisher's office. The whole thing's silly in the worst possible way.<br /><br />If I had to pick a favourite scene it would be the one at the very beginning with that wonderful actor Wilfred Lawson - after that everything went downhill in a big way.
| 0neg
|
Why bother, ITV? Admittedly, Mansfield Park is the most difficult of the novels to "get," and Fanny is certainly the hardest to like, but... If one is going to take it on, then have the courage to risk being true to the book and its rather complicated spirit. And for heaven's sake, have the guts to cast Fanny as she was written: A prissy, good-hearted, sweetish, whiner! Mrs. Norris wasn't nearly as awful as she should have been. And what the heck happened to Portsmouth? The contrast between Fanny's rather dubious family and family home and the splendors of Mansfield is key to, well, so many aspects of Fanny's refusal of Henry, her uncle's rejection, Henry's near transformation to a good person, etc., etc. Again, given the complexity and challenges of the novel, why did they bother? It's beyond me...
| 0neg
|
I first heard of this one while searching the 'Net for reviews of another Italian giallo/horror effort, the contemporaneous THE PERFUME OF THE LADY IN BLACK (1974; whose R2 SE DVD from Raro Video, by the way, I recently acquired) where it's referenced as being in a similar vein but also just as good. Having watched FOOTSTEPS for myself now, I can see where that reviewer was coming from in that both films deal with the psychological meltdown of their female protagonist. Stylistically, however, this one owes far more to Art-house cinema than anything else in particular, the work of Alain Resnais and Michelangelo Antonioni (and, specifically, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD [1961] and THE PASSENGER [1975] respectively); accordingly, some have accused it of being "deadly boring" an epithet often attached to such 'pretentious' (read: cerebral) fare! <br /><br />Anyway, the film involves the quest of a woman (Florinda Bolkan) to determine her movements in the preceding three days of which she seems to have no recollection. Following a series of cryptic clues, she travels to the 'mythical' land of Garma (nearby locations, then, bear the equally fictitious names of Muda and Rheember) where she encounters several people (including Lila Kedrova as an aristocratic regular of the resort) who ostensibly recall the heroine staying there during her 'blackout'! Most prominent, though, are a young man (Peter McEnery) and a little girl (Nicoletta Elmi, from Mario Bava's BARON BLOOD [1972]) the former always seems to happen on the scene at propitious moments, while the latter apparently confuses Bolkan with another woman (sporting long red hair and a mean streak!).<br /><br />While essentially a mood piece, this is nonetheless a gripping puzzle: inevitably, vague events transpire at a deliberate pace and where much of the film's power derives from the remarkable central performance (which can be seen as an extension of Bolkan's role in the fine Lucio Fulci giallo A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN [1971]). However, there's no denying the contribution of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who provides any number of sweeping camera moves and an effective color scheme adopting orange/red/blue filters to create atmosphere and coming up with a saturated look for the disorientating, bizarre finale) and Nicola Piovani's fitting melancholy score (the composer is best-known nowadays for his Oscar-winning work on Roberto Benigni's Holocaust-themed tragi-comedy LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL [1997]).<br /><br />With this in mind, it's worth discussing how FOOTSTEPS was presented in the version I watched: well, being apparently hard-to-get in its original form (I can't be sure whether it's uncut here or not, except to say that the film ran for 89 minutes while the IMDb lists it at 96), this edition is culled from a fairly battered English-language VHS (the dubbing is surprisingly good, given the international cast) with burnt-in Swedish subtitles to boot (besides, the DivX copy froze for a few seconds at a crucial point in the story around the 82-minute mark)! Still, we do get a welcome bonus i.e. a 9-minute 'Highlights From The Soundtrack' in MP3 format.<br /><br />I realize I haven't yet mentioned the moon mission subplot, to which Klaus Kinski's presence is restricted: incidentally, around this same time, he had a similarly brief but pivotal role in another good arty thriller with sci-fi leanings (and also set in a distinctive location) namely, LIFESPAN (1974). As I lay watching the film, I couldn't fathom what possible connection this had with the central plot
except that Bolkan mentioned a recurring dream about a movie she had once seen, though not through to the end, called "Footsteps On The Moon" (a somewhat misleading alternate title for the film itself) amusingly, she at first recalls the picture as being called BLOOD ON THE MOON (which, of course, is a classic 1948 Western noir with Robert Mitchum and directed by Robert Wise!). That said, I took this 'diversion' in stride as merely one more outlandish touch to the film (given also Bolkan's former employment as a translator at a conference discussing Earth's future) and certainly didn't expect the astronauts to turn up on Garma's beach at the very end to pursue the female lead, where the sand then turns ominously into the moon's surface
! <br /><br />The film's plot will probably make more sense on a second viewing though, to be honest, this is best approached as a visual/aural experience and one shouldn't really expect it to deliver a narrative that's in any way clear-cut and easily rationalized! For the record, the only other Bazzoni effort I'd managed to catch prior to this one was the middling straight giallo THE FIFTH CORD (1971), starring Franco Nero (which I had recorded off late-night Italian TV); some time ago, I did get hold of his Spaghetti Western rendition of "Carmen" titled MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE (1968) also with Nero and Kinski as a DivX (after I'd already missed a matinée broadcast of it)
but the conversion had somehow proved faulty and, consequently, the disc wouldn't play properly!
| 1pos
|
Ringmaster, Jerry Springer's pathetic excuse for wasting film that should be recycled as toilet paper recently destroyed my confidence in the art of film. First of all, it was made. Second of all, people went to see it. Third, some people voted it the best movie they have ever seen. If a monkey could make a movie, i'm 100 percent sure that it would be 1 billion times as good. Most crappy movies have their moments, (even Godzilla had a few cool special effects) this film's moment was when I left the theater nauseated. The only thing that possibly could've made this movie any worse would be if Jerry Springer was the star. If I want to stare at crap for an hour and a half, i'll take a dump in a can. If anyone didn't utterly despise this movie, I pity you, and your children, and your children's children's children; however, contrary to Springer's beliefs, I clearly don't condone children having sex.
| 0neg
|
This is the kind of movie which shows the paucity of French cinema when it comes to making thrillers.The director's desire to "sound American" is so glaring that you will not be fooled a minute,unless you have not seen a serial killer movie since "Peeping Tom".<br /><br />Two male cops (or one and a half,more like,as you will see),horrible murders,a plot more complicated than complex.Charles Berling is not lucky with the genre(see the astoundlingly dumb "l'inconnu de Strasbourg" a couple of years ago).The scenes with his pregnant wife -which are supposed to be a counterpart for the otherwise noir atmosphere of the rest of the plot-are among the worst ever filmed.Add a steamy love scene between them and a gory autopsy to get a PG 12 and thus to attract the huge adolescent audience.A violent and absurd conclusion,followed by a silent epilogue who could make a nice commercial for the côte d'azur,it's really the silence of the lame.
| 0neg
|
Totally brain-dead actioner made in the Philippines. This belongs to the mode of Filipino movies which tried to pass themselves as American films on the international market. After a rather dull beginning, the movie takes off and never disappoints again. It is actually a rip-off of the worst movies Chuck Norris ever made : an American prisoner in Vietnam is brainwashed by the soviets who implant a microchip in his brain so he is programmed to kill the Pope, then the President of the USA. One of his old buddies (played by B-movie stalwart Max Thayer) is sent to stop him. Utterly ridiculous action scenes, putrid acting (Nick Nicholson's performance as the evil soviet commander is a must-see!)and implausible plot make up for one of the cheesiest action pictures ever bestowed in the general public.
| 0neg
|
Realty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.
| 0neg
|
This movie is chilling reminder of Bollywood being just a parasite of Hollywood. Bollywood also tends to feed on past blockbusters for furthering its industry.<br /><br />Vidhu Vinod Chopra made this movie with the reasoning that a cocktail mix of "Deewar" and "On the Waterfront" will bring home an Oscar. It turned out to be rookie mistake.<br /><br />Even the idea of the title is inspired from the Elia Kazan classic. In the original, Brando is shown as raising doves as symbolism of peace.<br /><br />Bollywood must move out of Hollywood's shadow if it needs to be taken seriously.
| 0neg
|
Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.
| 0neg
|
This is definitely one of the greatest Disney movies ever made. It's a real pleaser to anyone. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry, and it'll put you into suspense.<br /><br />Basically, what Homeward Bound is about is three household pets who are sent to live on a farm while their owners go on vacation. They don't know what is going on, and desperately wanting to go home, they escape from the farm and try to find their way home through the wilderness.<br /><br />This is one of the last movies that Don Ameche starred in. He provided the voice of Shadow, the old, wise and friendly golden retriever. Also starring in this movie was Sally Field providing the voice of Sassy, the Himalayan cat. But seriously, what this movie is all about is Chance! Voiced by Michael J. Fox (my all-time favorite actor), Chance is basically all you'd expect from a dog, lovable, playful, energetic and goofy, and every time I crack up when watching this movie, it's because of Chance; it's like the comedy never ends! <br /><br />This movie is also very sad at times. It sometimes reminds people of the times they've been alone or when they lose their pets.<br /><br />One scene that always puts me in suspense is the scene where the trio is trying to escape from the pound; I especially feel shocked at the part where Chance gets his collar caught in the fence and almost doesn't make it. The movie had other suspenseful moments, but none to me seem more suspenseful than that one.<br /><br />Overall, it's a wonderful family movie. If you enjoyed this movie, you'll probably enjoy the sequel too. I give this movie a solid 9 out of 10!
| 1pos
|
Over-powered mobile suits that can annihilate entire armies - Check! Weapons that hardly need to be aimed and still annihilate everything - Check! Mobile suits based on angels - Check!<br /><br />OK - its a Gundam series. This one, Gundam Wing, has good character development, real-world complexity, interesting ideas and some pretty eye-candy.<br /><br />With characters, the initially weak Relena Dorlan (later Peacecraft, then back to Dorlan) gets stronger and more independent (although is still absolutely besotted with Heero Yuy, the series main character). The aforementioned Heero, initially a cold, hard butcherer, becomes more and more human, while still remaining in-character. And seeing the lost Millardo Peacecraft (whos nomm de guerre is Zechs Marquise) float between OZ, freelance, and command of White Fang shows how some people can really lose themselves in their own creations.<br /><br />The complexity of the political and military situation is also quite good - reflecting how the real world works. However, in 49 half-hour episodes, it does become a bit of a liability in that this complexity isn't used to its full potential.<br /><br />The ideas at the core of the series - the necessity of fighting, the desire for peace, etc - are ones that resonate even today. In retrospect, the series was ahead of its time, what with the "War on Terrorism" and all. But its exploration of these ideas, the monologues, especially those of Treize Kushrenada, is an incredible dramatic piece, forming some of the best writing in the series.<br /><br />But that sometimes good writing is also sometimes extremely poor, which dramatically causes it to lose some of its edge.<br /><br />In terms of eye-candy, which is what this one has in bucketloads, everything from the mobile suits to the battleship Libra (No not the tampons you idiot!) is wells designed, and explodes in big balls of orange (which is bad, because better animation would've had better explosions). But who cares?! Stuff explodes, and thats all that matters.<br /><br />In short though, the sheer complexity of the series means that if you miss out on a few episodes, you've missed out on a lot. The poor writing can leave you cringing, and sometimes the animation makes you go "WTF?!?!" But this is made up for in its classic animation style, its scale, sparks of incredible dialogue, and its more mature exploration that one expects of such Japenese animations.
| 1pos
|
This movie would had worked much better if this was the first Critters movie, this is a low-budget movie with only two (2) Critters shown on-screen. Why this looks like a fail is because this is the last Critters movie and it's so low-budget that it seems the director made the whole movie with his own pocket money. However, I did like this movie, I compare it mostly with the third movie (which were bad). Critters 4 have a more serious tone in it, the first half of the movie (even without seeing one Critter yet) you have a scary feeling watching it, too bad they didn't "milk" out the Critters, I mean even if they only had two (2) puppets they could still have used them on-screen a lot more. The Critters also have different deaths in this movie which made this a little special, especially at the end with the frozen Critter. Ug has a promotion in this part and is different in this movie which took me by surprise. Lastly I liked this one because it also has some kind of conclusion to the series, so at least we won't see a Critters 5 anymore. Oh, one last thing, I missed one scene in this movie, we never see a Critter shoot a spike from its back, maybe these puppets didn't have that feature, but I was very disappointed not seeing that (in Critters 3 we see a lot of spike shooting, which was the only good thing I liked about that movie).
| 1pos
|
In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.<br /><br />Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.<br /><br />In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+
| 1pos
|
The House of the Spirits is a gripping tale of family intrigue, South American politics and super-natural powers. Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons bring Isabel Allende's novel to life with all its passion and suspense. This, in my view, is one of the best films of the 1990s. Jeremy Irons as Esteban Trueba ages and mellows very believably, while Meryl Streep in the role of Clara maintains her gentle, loving warmth throughout her relatively short life. Winona Ryder and Antonio Banderas make a handsome couple struggling for family acceptance in a racist culture. Glenn Close, as Esteban's sister, gives a very moving performance. The countryside of Portugal is a reasonable substitute for a non-tropical Latin American country. Settings of Clara's home and Esteban's ranch are effective and the period US cars add nicely to the post-war atmosphere.
| 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.