text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes...
| 0neg
|
"True" story of a late monster that appears when an American industrial plant begins polluting the waters. Amusing, though not really good, monster film has lots of people trying to get the monster and find out whats going on but not in a completely involving way. Give it points for giving us a giant monster that they clearly built to scale for some scenes but take some away in that it looks like a non threatening puppy. An amusing exploitation film thats enjoyably silly in the right frame of mind. (My one complaint is that the print used on the Elvira release is so poor that it looks like a well worn video tape copy that was past its prime 20 years ago.)
| 0neg
|
OK I went to this website before I watched this movie, read the comments, got pumped, - cause they where all pretty good for a B-flick - watched it and was completely disappointed. The main characters wannabe lone rebel straight out of the mid-west act was sickening to the stomach, and don't even get me started on the two cops, I mean there's a bloody door right there in plain view, check it out! The plot was completely predictable, the editing was rather limited, I swear the editor was even dozing off near the end when he was cutting this movie, and the direction was clouded by bad cinematography. Now please don't get me wrong, I love B-flicks, some are really good.<br /><br />Want to watch a good B rated flick???<br /><br />Dave recommends<br /><br />" High Tension "<br /><br />http://imdb.com/title/tt0338095/
| 0neg
|
I must admit, at first I wasn't expecting anything good, at all. I was only expecting a cheesy movie promoting Gackt's and Hyde's image, but I'm glad to say it has much more to offer.<br /><br />Yes, the acting is not that great, but it doesn't suck either, all the cast's well disciplined and they bring enough strength to their characters. Effects lack consistency but action scenes are satisfying enough.<br /><br />What really hooked me up was the essence of the storyline, although it merges fantastic elements, it also displays a crude reality. The developing of the characters, their doubts and their feelings really got on to me and I think that's the key of this movie. It puts you to think and it does well transmitting all the angst.<br /><br />It fulfills any expectations for a good drama. I would definitely recommend it to everyone.
| 1pos
|
I've read every book to date in the left behind series, and the movie hardly does any of them justice. Sure, I've seen worse movies, but this was incredibly disappointing. This movie would have made a good MST3K episode. The script was a horrible adaptation of the book, and it felt like the actors were reading their lines, instead of actually saying them. The characters were stiff and unlikeable. The effects were cheesy, and looked terribly fake. The ending was awful. First of all, it didn't even go all the way through the first book. Second, it made no sense. If you hadn't read the book, you'd have no idea what was going on. It had to have been the most cheesy, film student-like ending I've ever seen in a movie. I'm upset that I actually paid money for this movie. If by some miracle, it does get wide release, they ought to totally overhaul it and let Hollywood take over. Those two wannabe film producers, and the wannabe director should leave movie making to the professionals.
| 0neg
|
Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!
| 0neg
|
The Railway Children was on TV again this weekend, and I had forgotten how good it was.<br /><br />If I have a criticism, it is that the episodic structure sometimes shows a little too clearly, there being little narrative flow from sequence to sequence. The charm and beauty of the film are such that this matters very little, however.<br /><br />I won't revisit the comments of others, other than to add my vote for the final scene on the platform as being possibly the single most emotional scene in the history of British cinema: as a cynical old git passing through middle age rather too quickly I, too, find I cannot even think of that moment without being hit with a severe case of "I've got something in my eye." In fact, it's not just something in my eye, it moves things around inside me, too, with that beautiful happy pain we sometimes feel.<br /><br />And Jenny Agutter was exquisitely beautiful in this film, standing with one foot in childhood and one in young womanhood, and bringing qualities of both to her portrayal of a girl having to grow up rather too quickly.<br /><br />Plus a quick plaudit for Bernard Cribbins. Regarded mostly as a lightweight actor, he deftly created a Perks of great humanity.
| 1pos
|
The horror. The film about the Nazis - the Germans. The murderers of babies, young girls rapists ... For that they regret? What are they interested in doing thousands of miles away from Germany? You do not come to mind is? Fascists are now good Samaritans? Think, killed, tortured, 27 million people. No, of course, they do not want. They were forced to Hitler, he gave each of them, and forced to kill: every fourth inhabitant of Belarus peace, all Jews, Gypsies ... Killing the Slavs. The facts: At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when taken prisoner by fascist (German), they were defiant and brazen. We kill you all, and so on. Since 1943, when they were taken captive, they suddenly became anti-fascists and peaceful peasants who were forced to Hitler, and personally. For such films should be put to prison for life for the glorification of fascism. <br /><br />If you want to see what they did, yet went to Stalingrad, then watch the movie "Come and see" (1985).
| 0neg
|
Boring children's fantasy that gives Joan Plowright star billing but little to do. Sappy kids pursue their dreams. Frankie wants to be a ballerina and a baseball player (yuk) while best-friend Hazel runs for mayor---she's 13! Totally pedestrian in every way, plus the added disadvantage of syrupy performances by the girls as well as the baseball boys. Certainly a lesser effort for Showtime---no limits?
| 0neg
|
OK, so in any Wile E. Coyote-Road Runner cartoons, we know that WEC is going to set up all sorts of traps for RR, but always maim himself in various ways. That certainly happens in "Beep, Beep". Predictable? I guess that it is, but when you think about it, these cartoons show how the more you try to harm someone else, the more you get harmed; sort of like how Daffy Duck always tries to undermine Bugs Bunny's integrity but Bugs sees around it.<br /><br />Overall, this is another classic from the Termite Terrace crowd. Sometimes, I think that if we really had wanted to ease Cold War tensions, we could have just let the Soviet Union see Looney Tunes cartoons; I'm sure that they would have loved them. Another great one.<br /><br />PS: I learned on "Jeopardy!" that Wile E. Coyote's middle name is Ethelbert.
| 1pos
|
I really enjoyed this movie. Most of the reviews have been bad, but most critics think a movie should be like an idea drama. This movie has a little bit of drama, but the rest is just clean fun and very entertaining. Forget about Julia Roberts being a Pretty Woman, Emma Roberts is a beautiful young lady and there is more to her than just that. Emma was so much fun to watch in the role of Nancy Drew. It is good to see a new face. I believe she will go far.<br /><br />Nancy Drew may not be based upon the books, but the story is still good. There is also a good blend of other character actors and supporting actors like Pat Carroll, Barry Bostwick, Rachel Leigh Cook and Chris Kattan - not credited. I'm surprised Disney did not release this movie. Some people may not like this movie because it does not contain sex, violence, and cursing. This is a good family film which is rare in this day in time. So take your family, see this movie and judge for your self how good it is. I can't wait for the sequel.
| 1pos
|
The DVD version released by Crash Cinema was very poorly done. The mastering engineer must have been either drunk, asleep or not even in the room while it was being done. It looks like it was mastered from about a tenth generation copy and about halfway through the film, the audio synchronization disappears. The dialog is about 10 or 15 seconds behind the audio. If you're thinking about purchasing this DVD, please save your money. I remember seeing this film at the theater back in 1973. Also, the VHS copy of this film under the title of "When Taekwondo Strikes" looks better than the DVD, but the remaining several minutes of the movie are "missing". Where is the original camera negative?
| 0neg
|
This Was One Scary Movie.<br /><br />Brad Pitt Deserved an Oscar for this.<br /><br />A traveling novelist (played by David Duchovny of the X-Files fame) and his girlfriend pick up two hitch-hikers(Juliette Lewis and Brad Pitt) on their way to California. <br /><br />On their way they stop at infamous serial killer murder scenes to photography the scenes for an upcoming book Duchovny's character is working on, little do they know that the most disturbed serial killer in the history of the country is sitting right next to them in the same car.
| 1pos
|
Lily Powers works at a speakeasy until her father dies.She then goes to New York to work at an office building.There she notices that if she wants to get any higher she has to give the men what they want.And what men want is her...well, you know.Alfred E.Green's Baby Face (1933) is a movie of high sexual content.For a movie of that era, anyway.This was one of the last Pre-Code films that were made.Barbara Stanwyck gives a very sexy performance as Lily.Other actors of this film include George Brent (Courtland Trenholm), Donald Cook (Ned Stevens), Alphonse Ethier (Adolf Cragg), Henry Kolker (J.P.Carter), Margaret Lindsay (Ann Carter) and Theresa Harris (Chico).The young John Wayne is seen as Jimmy McCoy Jr.This movie deals with a brave topic and it does it good.Baby Face is historically significant movie and therefore good to watch.
| 1pos
|
Our family (and the entire sold out sneak preview audience) enjoyed "The Guardian". Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher gave convincing performances as the fictional helicopter rescue swimmer characters Ben and Jake. After seeing this movie, you can't help but imagine how difficult it must be to graduate from the USCG helicopter rescue swimmer school and one day take part in real rescues.<br /><br />Even though this is a fictional movie, it delivered rather convincing virtues of team spirit, dedication and bravery exhibited by all the members of the actual U. S. Coast Guard.<br /><br />The special effects used to create the rescue scenes were incredible. You actually felt like you were taking part in a real rescue.<br /><br />I feel the movie could have been made without the "Hollywood" bar scene (when you see the movie, you might agree) since the real Coast Guard does not condone such behavior. <br /><br />Very entertaining, very action packed, definitely worth seeing. Thank you, U. S. Coast Guard and the REAL helicopter rescue swimmers, "So Others May Live". I'd highly recommend this movie to everyone.
| 1pos
|
Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.<br /><br />This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.<br /><br />Blah. Blah. Blah.<br /><br />This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.<br /><br />There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.<br /><br />But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.<br /><br />In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.<br /><br />Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.<br /><br />That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.<br /><br />But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.<br /><br />Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.
| 0neg
|
If you haven't seen Eva Longoria from the TV show "Desperate House Wives" then you are missing out. Eva is going to be one of the biggest Latina stars and you'll be seeing her in the theaters soon. This was Eva's first film and she does a fantastic job acting. She was 24 when she shot it, and looked hot then. As for this low budget film, it's pretty good for the first time director, who has another soon to be released movie "Juarez, Mexico" currently playing at many film festivals across the United States. In fact, it appears that it may have a limited theatrical release from some news. What would be nice to see is a "Snitch'2" with a higher budget.
| 1pos
|
For starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly "next to nothing" budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another "art film" commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German...
| 0neg
|
I have to finish watching a movie once I start, regardless of how bad it is. This movie was agonizing to sit through. The "sparkling" bullets, the reporter with "ninja" like moves, the way the bad guys shoot hundreds and hundreds of bullets and only seem to hit innocent bystanders, the predictable outcome and all the bad acting was just horrible. Like the girl who finds the reporter in her friends apartment and goes from "what the heck are you doing in here (holding a bat)" to "hey, you're cute, wanna @#$%!???" in like 1.2 seconds.... Just bad.... Save yourself an hour and forty minutes and go play with your kids (or dog)!
| 0neg
|
There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.<br /><br />Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.<br /><br />Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?<br /><br />The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.<br /><br />The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.<br /><br />The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.<br /><br />There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.<br /><br />Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel.
| 0neg
|
The clever marketeer is he is, Jess Franco naturally also cashed in on the huge temporarily success of psychedelic spy movies like Mario Bava's ultimately sensational "Danger: Diabolik!". Franco is the ideal man to shoot a similar film, as he could freely insert as much sleaze, kitschy scenery and absurdly grotesque plot twists as he wanted to. And he partially understood this very well, as "The Girl from Rio" revolves on a man-hating organization, led by a funky dressed lesbo, that plots to turn all men into obedient slaves! Unfortunately (for them, at least), the diabolical plans conflict with the daily business of a feared crime syndicate boss, played by George Sanders. All the right ingredients are well-presented, yet this is a surprisingly weak and unsatisfying adventure movie. The plot is rich on imagination, but seemingly only on paper, as the action is quite tame. The film is also very colorful...but not too bright and especially shocking was the total lack of vicious sex. There's a bit of nudity, sure, but too few according to normal Franco standards. All the characters are sick in the head, so the least I expected (or hoped for) were more perverted undertones or frenzied themes. Franco obviously had a bigger budget as usual to work with, and I must say he spends that money well on more convincing set pieces and talented cast members. Particularly the veteran actor George Sanders ("Village of the Damned", "Psychomania") is one of the best players ever to appear in a Franco production. Too bad even he can't save "The Girl from Rio" from being a huge letdown. A legendary Euro-smut filmmaker like Jess Franco could and should have done more with this concept. Shame, shame, shame...
| 0neg
|
For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.
| 0neg
|
A lot people get hung up on this films tag as a "children's film", and that it certainly is, though it is one made for adults. Takashi Miike uses the fantasy genre, particularly, the children's fantasy genre, as a springboard into the wild territory that is the Great Yokai War.<br /><br />The setup is simple a boy is selected to play the "hero" in this years annual festival, only to discover his role is much more real than he could have imagined. What follows is a hallucinatory, grotesque, whimsical, and often funny journey through the world of Japanese folklore, but wait there's also an evil Villain on the lose who wants to destroy the world. However, the villain here, is not a mere demon, it is the demon-spirit of the accumulated resentment of those things which humans "use" and "discard". Usuing a chamber made out of pure liquid hate/resentment, the villain transforms the vibrant colorful Yokai spirits into soulless ten foot tall makeshift robots which chainsaw for arms and eyes like burning coals(those whove played the video game, Sonic The Hedghog, might remember a certain Dr. Robotnik performing similar procedures to the cute and cuddly's who Sonic had to then "liberate").<br /><br />The hero in this film is actually the least interesting character, essentially playing the straight man, in a world gone suddenly mad. Though he does go through the typical heroes trials he more often than not cowers, as do many of the Yokia themselves, who seem truly defenseless against the murderous robots, some spirits being umbrellas with eyes, talking walls, or creatures whose soul purpose in life is to count beans...of course in this magical world of Miike's Yokai war even beans take a magical power when one believes in them.<br /><br />In several ways this film subverts the normal conventions of children's fantasy, as few, if any, of the characters are heroic, their victory being a combination of happenstance, almost arbitrary faith, and a desire to party. The Yokai spirits, only rally together and lay siege the villains hideout, after they mistake the end of the world invasion of Earth for a great Yokai festival, and even then only to dance and party. Also the film ends not with the usual celebratory all's well that ends well fantasy ending, but with a final scene, showing our hero years older, with an adult job, now unable to see the Yokai spirits of his youth, who then despondently turn to the villain, who being a spirit can never really die. This ending, with it's Yokai spirit who is the spitting image of Pokemon's Pikachu, warns us not just of leaving behind our childhood selves, but of the horrors of over-consumption. The villain is resentment caused when humans no longer have reverence for the world and the objects around them(in Japanese folklore nearly every object has some kind of spirit), and so when they are used and discarded as we in consumer societies do without reverence, they become soulless vengeful machines, not unlike those seen in modern video games, suggesting that though our imaginations and myths do not ever really die, but can become deformed.<br /><br />This is one of the first scripts Miike has contributed to, and I believe it shows, as there's a tightness conceptually that sometimes gets swept under the rug by his exuberance for visual playfulness. Though I've focused mostly on the story (since lots of users here seem to write it off), I do want to say that visually it's a kaleidescope of CGI, stop animation, costume, and live puppetry, that works remarkably well. There's a dreamlike quality to a lot of the film, and the Miyazaki comparisons are warranted, as are the NeverEnding Story and Labrynth comparisons, though this film is sharper and more adult than either. The Yokai are beaten, brutalized, and turned into machines of living hate, who I believe even kill a few humans, a deformed aborted calf with a mans face is born and dies in the films grotesque opening, while a sexual undercurrent, the women with the long neck licking the face of our boy hero, or another characters persistent memory of touching the thigh of a young scantily clad water spirit as a boy, seem to linger a bit too long for most western tastes, especially when considering this is a "children's film". However these are slight enough to catch adult attentions while minor enough, not to traumatize any children to bad. Grims fairy tales, before revisions, did much worse, far more often.<br /><br />All and all this is one of Miikes most accessible and engaging ventures yet, with enough visual drama and great performances(the Yokai spirits have a humanism and an absurd humor to them, thats laugh out loud funny at times) to appeal to audiences of all ages, and a steady conceptual undercurrent strong enough to draw in an adult audience who have presumably brought their children or else come out of a sense of nostalgia for the long lost fantasy films of their youth. The latter group the film seems to address the most fervently asking that they not just continue passive consumption of the world around them, but show reverence to those spirits within them which seemed so much closer to reality in childhood. Another beautiful, funny, and truly original film from a thrilling director who hasn't come close to his apex. Instant classic.
| 1pos
|
ccmovieman-1 must be, as the reviewer in the New York Times who preferred the Janis Joplin Big Brother and the Holding Company album to the just released Beatles'"White" album was called, either evil or insane. National Velvet is a great film. Elizabeth Taylor's performance is fantastic, and I fail to discern even a trace of accent, much less too much of one. Her performance is very natural, authentic and unbelievably charming. The rest of the cast is superb, especially Rooney and Revere. <br /><br />As far as the dialog being hokey or sentimental, I suggest cc has dined too long on a diet of irony and has lost the ability to discern genuine straight-forward emotion and human interaction. There was a time when people actually did think and talk in such a manner. Not that this film doesn't have a slight hint of the magical permeating through it. That is the reason to tell the story. One might as well criticize the Wizard of Oz, King Kong, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, The Black Stallion ( the other great horse film ) or a thousand other films for having action and dialog that seem richer than real life. No my friend, National Velvet endures because of its belief firmly in itself, with tongue firmly not in cheek. Something today's jaded filmmakers find nearly impossible to recreate.
| 1pos
|
It's as if the editor and screenwriter only had 40 minutes of real running time. This is supposed to be a remake of a Chinese film, which is obviously far superior to this trash. It's clear that some brainless Hollywood suit or writer decided that this movie would be mano a mano, man against man, instead of just letting the story play out with the personalities of the characters that were built in the first 40 minutes. At this point in the film, the characters just don't act like regular people and not even like their own personalities. It makes little sense. It's quite clear why this film flopped. It's just not believable at all and that's too bad - it started out with promise. Don't be fooled.
| 0neg
|
Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.<br /><br />1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.<br /><br />I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.<br /><br />every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.<br /><br />The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.<br /><br />Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.<br /><br />The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.<br /><br />There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.
| 0neg
|
I really refused to see this movie. I refused to go with the school and I refused to go with my parents. Just by looking at the trailer it looked stupid, to me anyway. One of my friends wanted to take me to the movies that day and he offered me 2 choices, "The Dukes Of Hazzard" or "Wallace And Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit." It took me 17 minutes to decide. Time was running out. I had to choose. It came up on the screen "Few" as in a few tickets left. By the time we had to line up and get our ticket, only one of us could go in. I desperately wanted Nicholas to go in to see it. But he forced me. I crossed my arms and was very moody and disappointed that I was going in to see this childishness. I walked in, sat in the only seat that was available and prepared for the movie! must say I was very surprised that I sat through that MASTERPIECE! It was amazing. I don't know what I was complaining about. The Clay Animation was by far the most best i've ever seen in my life. The story was brilliant. About a rabbit disrupting and crashing a carnival that had been planned for over 500 years. Basically Anti Pest Control are protecting the people who are competing in the Vegetable Competition. Anti Pesto known as Wallace And Gromit (Who are in charge of this business) try to keep all the rabbits away from the Vegetable carnival. I wont say anymore. It's just too good to tell. I'll admit that the whole idea of a Were-Rabbit is ab-it unbelievable and ab-it childish, but Nick Park adds substance to it which what makes everyone love it. I mean, there wont be a 10 foot rabbit on the loose and there definitely wont be 8 foot werewolves as said in " Dog Soldiers." Then again, Were-Rabbits and WereWolves aren't actual creatures. But either way, it worked out very well. <br /><br />The jokes also were more grown up. The kids wont get some of the jokes. It goes way above their heads. It had a lot of British jokes in there. If you love British humor, this is the movie for you.<br /><br />I also loved the cast and the voices. Everything about the movie is so incredibly well done. The direction and pacing was absolutely...FANTASTIC! I recommend this to fans of the old Wallace And Gromit shorts (And no, I haven't seen them yet), and I recommend it to fans who liked "Shrek" and "Shrek 2 and most importantly, I recommend it to the people who love Clay Animation. Cracking good movie! 10/10
| 1pos
|
"The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".<br /><br />Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.<br /><br />The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.
| 0neg
|
The first word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin plot (Wont comment further on this part) and a plot which a lot of movies from this genre is following. This makes the movie so bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN!!!!!!!!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.<br /><br />The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen.<br /><br />Conclusion: The movie is as bad as the movie about the killer ants! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.
| 0neg
|
Adam (Eric Jungmann) and obnoxious best friend Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to a wedding. Along the way they pick up sexy hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Then, for no reason, a monster truck keeps trying to run them off the road...and maybe kill them. Who is doing this and why?<br /><br />Pretty good horror film. Its energetic and full of flashy direction which gets you right into the action. It's also a horror comedy. Most of the humor is infantile and REALLY gross but actually somewhat funny. Also this movie really piles on the gore at times--but that's a GOOD thing! The acting is OK--Jungmann overplays his nerd role a bit much; Urich is stuck with the hopeless role of the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed best friend--but pulls it off; Brooks is good too in a limited role.<br /><br />BUT I could see the "twist" ending coming long before it happened and logic totally disappears at the end (especially the rescue). Still, this is a gory, sometimes funny and sometimes scary horror movie. I give it a 7.
| 1pos
|
Okay, okay, maybe not THE greatest. I mean, The Exorcist and Psycho and a few others are hard to pass up, but The Shining is way up there. It is, however, by far the best Stephen King story that has been made into a movie. It's better than The Stand, better than Pet Sematary (if not quite as scary), better than Cujo, better than The Green Mile, better the Dolores Claiborne, better than Stand By Me (just barely, though), and yes, it's better than The Shawshank Redemption (shut up, it's better), I don't care WHAT the IMDb Top 250 says. <br /><br />I read that, a couple of decades ago, Stanley Kubrick was sorting through novels at his home trying to find one that might make a good movie, and from the other room, his wife would hear a pounding noise every half hour or so as he threw books against the wall in frustration. Finally, she didn't hear any noise for almost two hours, and when she went to check and see if he had died in his chair or something (I tell this with all due respect, of course), she found him concentrating on a book that he had in his hand, and the book was The Shining. And thank God, too, because he went on to convert that book into one of the best horror films ever.<br /><br />Stephen King can be thanked for the complexity of the story, about a man who takes his wife and son up to a remote hotel to oversee it during the extremely isolated winter as he works on his writing. Jack Nicholson can be thanked for his dead-on performance as Jack Torrance (how many movies has Jack been in where he plays a character named Jack?), as well as his flawless delivery of several now-famous lines (`Heeeeeere's Johnny!!'). Shelley Duvall can be thanked for giving a performance that allows the audience to relate to Jack's desires to kill her. Stanley Kubrick can be thanked for giving this excellent story his very recognizable touch, and whoever the casting director was can be thanked for scrounging up the creepiest twins on the planet to play the part of the murdered girls.<br /><br />One of the most significant aspects of this movie, necessary for the story as a whole to have its most significant effect, is the isolation, and it's presents flawlessly. The film starts off with a lengthy scene following Jack as he drives up to the old hotel for his interview for the job of the caretaker for the winter. This is soon followed by the same thing following Jack and his family as they drive up the windy mountain road to the hotel. This time the scene is intermixed with shots of Jack, Wendy, and Danny talking in the car, in which Kubrick managed to sneak in a quick suggestion about the evils of TV, as Wendy voices her concern about talking about cannibalism in front of Danny, who says that it's okay because he's already seen it on TV (`See? It's okay, he saw it on the television.').<br /><br />The hotel itself is the perfect setting for a story like this to take place, and it's bloody past is made much more frightening by the huge, echoing rooms and the long hallways. These rooms with their echoes constantly emphasize the emptiness of the hotel, but it is the hallways that really created most of the scariness of this movie, and Kubrick's traditional tracking shots give the hallways a creepy three-dimensional feel. Early in the film, there is a famous tracking shot that follows Danny in a large circle as he rides around the halls on his Big Wheel (is that what those are called?), and his relative speed (as well as the clunking made by the wheels as he goes back and forth from the hardwood floors to the throw rugs) gives the feeling of not knowing what is around the corner. And being a Stephen King story, you EXPECT something to jump out at you. I think that the best scene in the halls (as well as one of the scariest in the film) is when Danny is playing on the floor, and a ball rolls slowly up to him. He looks up and sees the long empty hallway, and because the ball is something of a child's toy, you expect that it must have been those horrendously creepy twins that rolled it to him. Anyway, you get the point. The Shining is a damn scary movie.<br /><br />Besides having the rare quality of being a horror film that doesn't suck, The Shining has a very in depth story that really keeps you guessing and leaves you with a feeling that there was something that you missed. HAD Jack always been there, like Mr. Grady told him in the men's room? Was he really at that ball in 1921, or is that just someone who looks exactly like him? If he has always been the caretaker, as Mr. Grady also said, does that mean that it was HIM that went crazy and killed his wife and twin daughters, and not Mr. Grady, after all? It's one thing for a film to leave loose ends that should have been tied, that's just mediocre filmmaking. For example, The Amityville Horror, which obviously copied much of The Shining as far as its subject matter, did this. But it is entirely different when a film is presented in a way that really makes you think (as mostly all of Kubrick's movies are). One more thing that we can all thank Stanley Kubrick for, and we SHOULD thank him for, is for not throwing this book against the wall. That one toss would have been cinematic tragedy.
| 1pos
|
This program would be useful for training hardened felons basic human emotions. Beyond this purpose, the show has no value other than to fill bandwidth that would otherwise go unutilized in the electromagnetic spectrum. I feel a greater sense of suspense and anticipation listening to a computerized voice chip endlessly droning out the products of a random number generator. Fortunately, the helpful and frequent music cues will tell viewers how they're supposed to feel, in case they are unable to fully internalize the predictable and shallow plot line. I did find Amy to be a superficially positive character, as she is a role model to young women that they can serve in traditionally male fields. Unfortunately, her totally subjective approach to the law is guided solely by whatever capricious personal guidelines Amy elects to employ, resulting in Amy's trials more closely resembling appeals to the personal mercy of a tribal despot than a true administration of justice. This show is unpalatable in any amount, although this is to some extent mitigated after two episodes by the brain's god-given filtering processes, by which the show will thankfully leave the same imprint on the viewer's memory as a television tuned to a dead channel at maximum volume.
| 0neg
|
This brings back so many childhood memories. (I'm not old, I'm 19) It's brill. The trains, the old house, the fallen runner, the really scary landslide (well it is when you're 6), the drama if the children can stop the train, or will it crash? This is a children's film without a doubt, but it offers great harmless no blood/guts/guns etc for children. And it's got Bernard Cribbins in it, who's cool. 8/10
| 1pos
|
When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead.
| 0neg
|
This will be somewhat short. First, don't listen to the critics, as it is not as bad as most say it is!! Sniper uses a classic movie formula, which many dismiss immediately as flawing the movie. While sniper does not reflect the 100% truth about how our country's Military Snipers work, it does give those who know nothing about the Professional Sniper a glimpse into the world of the Sniper. And yes, the movie has many flaws, but what movie doesn't? There are many good scenes and good acting by Tom Berenger. I have to say the 2 worst scenes are at the beginning of the movie with Billy Zane in the Helicopter followed by Zane in the Marine's bar scene. The best scene in Sniper is with Berenger in the middle of a field with the opposing force sweeping it!! Also there are plenty of good shots of the jungle and some classic shots using the camera as though you are looking through a riflescope. And yes, the Sniper Motto is `one shot, one kill'. Judge Sniper for yourself!!<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
Has the drama, suspense, and character developments you would enjoy if you like drama that engages you and entertains as well as educates.<br /><br />The writers know their material and it shows. The direction is always engaging and not blase, and the acting terrific. Why this show didn't win any awards tells me the "powers that be" in Hollyweird don't know drama or much else for that matter. <br /><br />There is a plot twist in this episode at the end was a complete surprise and was very well played out. I'm glad it wasn't used as a shock scene for any climatic end to this series which would have been more typical and dull. Rent this series at once! Let's hope its brought back from celluloid extinction.
| 1pos
|
I saw it in a posh movie theater where the audience is usually white, educated, and urban. The showing I attended had a sprinkling of African-Americans, and it made the difference in audience-reaction between the two groups a wonderful social commentary on the state of race relations in this country. Basically, the white folks were AFRAID to laugh or laughed nervously at the funny bits --and there are many! -- because they'd be "laughting at Blacks", while the Blacks also stayed pretty silent because many couldn't laugh at themselves in front of the whites. <br /><br />I, on the other hand, being Asian (and thus belonging to neither group), had a great time viewing this satire of rap culture and its egos/trappings/values/pseudo-philosophies. The cast is talented and does at great job becoming the characters portrayed. The songs are too funny to be believed.<br /><br />This film is one of the best pseudo-documentaries to come along, including "A Mighty Wind"
| 1pos
|
Nothing like this was seen on TV at that time and probably never will again. From the first image of that police light blinding you and from there you heard the words: "Police Squad - in color", you were schocked to see that this in no way was an ordinary sitcom.<br /><br />Also to kill off a "Guest Star" and then never refer to him again, where had you ever seen that before. Then the actual show started and if you did not pay attention, you would miss several jokes in the background. Don't pay too much attention to one thing or you would be sorry. This was the show that video recorders were made for, way before Married with Children or The Simpsons.<br /><br />The stories did in no way make sense and the dialog was sometimes so weird that you had to think about it for 5 minutes before realising that it was a joke.<br /><br />The characters Frank Drebin and Ed Hocken came right out of Dragnet and they were absolutely straight (no funny accents or expressions) but instead there were puns and twisted sentences played absolutely deadpan. Only once as I can remember, were there a segment played for silly laughs - a scene involving a trip to a dentist, suction and a whole lot of saliva.<br /><br />There were some tedious moments - like the informer Johnny and an appearance by some celebrity. That was strictly a one-joke moment but they had to use it in all six episodes. Oh, well. Everything can't be perfect. The important thing is that the rest of the time you were knee deep in tears of laughter.<br /><br />Leslie Nielsen was fortunate that this revived his career when they put the Frank Drebin character in 3 features but it must have been an Achilles heel as well. Can you remember seeing him in anything except Naked Gun type work since? And don't count the awful Mr. Magoo reworked for live action. He probably made a lot of money, though.
| 1pos
|
Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.
| 1pos
|
It's not surprising that the majority of higher-rated votes were submitted by females aged 45+. This is the timeframe in women's lives when they become the caretakers of aged and ill parents. I lost my mother, from complications of cancer, in June, and went through most of the same emotions portrayed by Zellweger in this film. Yes, it made me cry, but the tears were real, the characters were real, and the plot development extremely accurate. Kudos to the entire cast and crew for a wonderful portrayal of life and death, and the promises of tomorrow.
| 1pos
|
I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel and thought it was wonderful, especially since it was based on a true man. Pierce Brosnan was very good as the loner English man who took on the persona of the half breed Grey Owl. The photography was beautiful.<br /><br />This movie made me do more research into this character Archie Belaney known simple as Grey Owl. I want to read as much as I can about him. At the time I did not know Richard Attenborough had directed it. But I am not surprised. I like all his movies whether he is acting or directing. I gave it the highest rating. However, I would have liked to have seen more in the movie about WHY he took on this persona as it only showed the two aunts who raised him and his room in their house.<br /><br />You can't go wrong with this movie if you are like me and enjoy a beautiful story without hearing foul language and contrived special effects every few minutes.
| 1pos
|
This movie I've seen many times. I read the book , Englar Alheimsins which was written by Einar Már Guðmundsson who received the Scandinavian book awards for the work. The movie does not start on the same place as the book starts. It happens in Reykjavík and the main character, Páll is young and having a good life with his girlfriend. But as she breaks up the relationship with him, he starts to get some headaches which make him annoyed and angry. And soon he starts to have big mental problems and then the movie begins. Soon he is puted in the Icelandic Mental Hospital called "Kleppur" and there you get to see some great characters like Viktor who thinks he is Hitler and Óli who thinks that he writes all the " The Beatles" songs and sends them to them with mind transporting. Ingvar E Sigurðusson who has the role of the main character Páll does is so work so well that it leaves you breathless. Also the music in this movie is mad by SIGURRÓS and just for the music's cost you should see the movie. Overall a great movie meant to be seen.
| 1pos
|
This movie is excellent and I would recommend renting it for anyone whose local video store owns it. Or, even better, you could buy it because chances are you're going to watch this over and over. I can remember watching this movie as a kid and it was great back then. But after watching it again yesterday I've found it to be amazing.<br /><br />A good blend of comedy (although not as great as "Mr Magoo"-another one of my favorites) and action. This deserves 10/10 and I'm hoping that they will make a sequel soon (fingers crossed). If you do babysitting or have to look after young children for anything then I'd recommend renting this movie as it will keep them entertained for hours :).
| 1pos
|
Surely the Gershwin family realizes this is one of America's greatest opera. You have thousands of fans of this opera waiting for it to be released on DVD. Please don't be so stubborn, give us a break. Think of the joy and wonder you can bring to a starved public for quality music, by releasing this great GEM. Don't wait until the film is beyond repair. The cast is first rate, the music is just awesome, we need beautiful music in today's world. It may never be filmed again with such a great cast again. With today's home theater systems,wonderful sound systems and need for great music, I'm pleading with the Gershwin family to reconsider and release this awesome movie. Thanks So Much
| 1pos
|
Although THE FLOCK has some pretty good acting by veteran Richard Gere, and some okay shots that might harken some back to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS days, the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere.<br /><br />The film is about Erroll Babbage (Gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. His office thrusts upon him his replacement, Allison Lowry (Claire Danes, STARDUST), who quickly discovers that Babbage is obsessed with his job. And that job ain't very fun. He monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. Allison goes with Erroll on many calls to check up on his "flock" of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. But Erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren't. He taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. Erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants' pasts. It is this "good justification" that challenges the audience on some level, letting us see how brutal Erroll is and yet how out-of-touch he's become (by being too close to his job).<br /><br />When a teenage girl goes missing in Erroll's "area", he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. But how could he know? Is Erroll that good at his job? Allison challenges him and Erroll pushes back. Their battles become as fierce as Erroll's need to find this missing girl.<br /><br />Although the set-up for the story was okay, it didn't have any umpf! I will give credit to Richard Gere, however, who plays the Erroll character very well. Battling retirement. Worried about everyone who's near his flock. Disgusted with those he's responsible for overseeing. Disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. Quite a change in character portrayal for Gere. But beyond him there's not much else. Some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. But that suspension has limits. The biggest push against those limits is the destruction of EXTREMELY vital crime scenes. Someone as meticulous as Erroll would KNOW that moving a body would be a huge no-no. Or trampling through a crime scene. Or moving evidence. It went beyond and hurt the film to no end.<br /><br />The other damaging part of this film is that we never get into Clair Danes' character, Allison. She's almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and we're never privy to what her intension might be: Will she stay or leave? Will she end up like Erroll if she does stay? This isn't a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground, but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.
| 0neg
|
I haven't for a long time seen such a horrible film. I hoped that at least Adam Sandler could be funny... hopeless. Seems, like some teenager have written it's script and he's daddy pushed this so far, that someone agreed to shoot it. (Movie)World could be better place without this, whatever it is.
| 0neg
|
Smallville episode Justice is the best episode of Smallville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's my favorite episode of Smallville! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
| 1pos
|
Christopher Boyce (Oscar-Winner:Timothy Hutton) gives up on being a priest and he's returning home for an uncertain future. When his best friend Daulton Lee (Oscar-Winner:Sean Penn) is a drug dealer, who's always gets in trouble and enjoys taking drugs a bit too much. When Christopher gets a job by working in a top secret government place titled "RTX". Boyce and Lee both have wealthy families, which they hoped to make it out of their own. When Boyce decides to take secret documents out of curiosity, which these documents are supposed to be destroyed. He decides to sell these secret documents for a cheap price for the Soviet Union with the help of his best friend. But both of them never knew how far they will go for sealing documents for a living and since they are both amateurs. Both of them have betrayed their country for top secret information.<br /><br />Directed by the late Oscar-Winner:John Schlesinger (The Believers, Eye for an Eye, Midnight Cowboy) made an interesting character drama about two young men taking the wrong path in life. Oscar-Winners:Hutton and Penn are both extraordinary good in the film. The movie is even occasionally funny and quite disturbing at times. David Suchet nearly steals the show as the man, who works for the Soviet Union. This picture has a familiar cast in the supporting roles. It was quite underrated, when it was first released. Despite some great reviews by some of the top film critics. This picture is actually based on a true story. There's some flaws in the storytelling, like these two leads characters but overall, it's a movie worth seeing. Based on a novel by Robert Lindsey. Screenplay by Oscar-Winner:Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Hannibal, Schindler's List). (****/*****).
| 1pos
|
What a terrible sequel. The reason I give this film two stars instead of zero because it's a movie that has violence and gore and critters, yet it is planned out poorly. And this god-awful sequel was done by none other than BUM-BUM-BUM-BUM!!!!!!!!! Mick Garris! The bonehead that brought you the remake of The Shining which nearly got Kubrick to nearly roll in his grave when he discovered it was actually made. Garris is also the man that brought you the sad sequel of THE FLY, THE FLY, which was a wonderful movie, but Garris's movie nearly ruined John Getz career. Anyway, if you really want to see the crappy critters trilogy in order, don't. That's the mistake I made, rent the first one or the third one or better yet DON'T STOOP TO THAT LEVEL AT ALL! This movie sucked so bad that I can't believe it, please avoid this crap. Shame on you, Mick!
| 0neg
|
A young couple decides to runaway to sunny California. They never reach their destination as they decide to pull over at the Rest Stop.<br /><br />After a fight with her boyfriend, Nicole Carrow insists on pulling in to a rest stop. When she is ready to leave, she exits the bathroom to find her boyfriend has disappeared with their car, leaving her trapped on the back roads of Texas with only an abandoned camper van to keep her company.<br /><br />Rest Stop is one of those cheap and tacky horror movies that could become a cult classic. Will Rest Stop become a cult classic you may ask? Well the three elements that you need to become a cult classic are gore, sex and artistic merit. Rest stop has bucket loads of gore, and while I do not want to give too much away, it contains oodles of blood-soaked nastiness. This movie has everything from the bad guy running over a cop's legs with his car several times to him making use of a pneumatic drill on a girl's leg. At times, it can be about as bloody as a film can get. It also has a gratuitous and yet somehow quite intimate love scene in the opening minutes of the film. Therefore, the sex is covered. Now the hard one does it have any artistic merit? You never get to see the bad guy's face you see glimpses, profiles, shadowy silhouettes. He is a faceless, relentless, monster, which alone scores highly on the artistic merit scale. The movie has very few characters in it apart from the main protagonist Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander). Since she spends a large part of the film on her own, she cannot reveal her thoughts in the course of a conversation, but must speak them aloud so that we, the audience, know what she is thinking. At times, this can be slightly irritating; however, it is a brave step by the writer (John Shiban) and it does work for the majority of the film. As an audience knows, being completely alone and isolated from civilisation is frightening enough even when you are not being chased by psychotic killers.<br /><br />So, will Rest Stop become a cult classic? It probably will because along the gore, sex and arguable artistic merit, it also has plenty of chills, an interesting and inventive plot and gives rise to a lot of shouting at the screen as the main character does plenty of things you should definitely not do when running from a psychotic killer. (What fun are horror movies if you cannot complain about the stupidity of the victims?)
| 0neg
|
Code 46 is one of those scifi movies where the government controls who you are allowed to love, and in fact will punish you if you try to procreate with the wrong person. The haves and the have-nots live in completely separate territories, the powers that be can remove your memories, etc. We've seen this stuff before, but that's OK- no movie is 100% original. This kind of premise is always fun to contemplate. Unfortunately, just imagining such a future is more interesting than actually watching Code 46. The characters are boring and rarely say anything interesting. Maybe that's commentary on a dehumanized future, but it's still dull to watch. It's sloooow.<br /><br />At times the imagery is nice, but usually (coupled with its "evocative" soundtrack) just looks like a glorified perfume commercial. Code 46 also sometimes uses the kind of television camera-work that I find annoying. You know, two characters talk as the camera artlessly "floats" on one side. Two seconds later it's floating on the other side of them in a vain attempt to keep your attention.<br /><br />My friends liked this movie. If they tried to get me to watch it again, I probably would not do so unless they agreed to pay me $50.
| 0neg
|
Crossing the Bridge: the Sound of Istanbul received one of the most rapturous applause from the audience when it ended and very deservingly so. I did not expect too much from a musical documentary but the movie proved to be much more than that. It was also a visual documentary of Istanbul with stark contrasts of old and new, western and eastern, poor and rich, modern and traditional. Black and white photographs of old Istanbul by world famous Armenian photographer Ara Guler were exceptional. But of course main theme was music, and by God, what a variety of it! It was in a way similar to Bueno Vistas Social Club; the love and the respect of the interviewer -Alexander Hacke here replacing Ray Cooder- for the musicians exuded from the screen and engulfed us all. The music was mostly very interesting. The jazz session by a group of Romany gypsies in a small Western Turkish town was mind blowing. I will not be surprised if the travel agents start getting group booking requests for Kesan after the movie is released. But I most loved Muzeyyen Senar who looked amazingly elegant in a sort of burlesque way and whilst tipping her "Raki" declared courageously: "My voice and I are 86 years old!" Well done Faith Akin. I bet there are many more Turkish musicians who are feeling left out: Go for Volume II please.
| 1pos
|
Although films about Edgar Rice Burroughs famous Rousseauian hero Tarzan have been seen by movie goers for almost a century now, this is the definitive version of the story. Greystoke is the actual story of the origins of Tarzan as set down by Edgar Rice Burroughs way back in the second decade of the last century. I've been assured by experts.<br /><br />Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes are probably the most filmed fictional heroes in history. I've no basis in fact for saying that, just a gut feeling. The most popular Holmes was Basil Rathbone, the most popular Tarzan was Johnny Weissmuller. And films that they made with both those characters will be criticized no end by purists.<br /><br />But Greystoke is the real deal, a faithful adaption of Burroughs first story concerning the origin of his hero. I can't think of another film which shows that Tarzan learned French before English, but that is shown here and it's only natural since it was a French survivor of a massacred safari played by Ian Holm who discovers Tarzan who has been raised by the apes since his parents who were shipwrecked on the African coast died there after his mother gave birth.<br /><br />His parents were in fact the son and daughter-in-law of the Earl of Greystoke and the surviving Earl, played by Ralph Richardson is of course overjoyed to learn he has a grandson. Of course there are others who don't welcome the new heir back in society. <br /><br />One who doesn't is Andie McDowell playing of course Jane. She does not communicate with Tarzan in answer to his grunts and monosyllabic commands. Tarzan speaks a concise English, French, and understands the language of the apes as well. As for the language of love, Tarzan and Jane need no lessons.<br /><br />Greystoke earned three Oscar nominations for best makeup in regard to the apes, best adapted screenplay and a posthumous nomination for Ralph Richardson for Best Supporting Actor. It should also have rated a nomination for cinematography of the jungle scenes in Cameroun and the scenes of the British Aristocracy in several landmark places like Hatfield House and Blenheim Palace.<br /><br />For Burroughs purists, Greystoke is the real deal.
| 1pos
|
Nowhere near the original. It's quite accurate copy bringing nothing new to the story. But the directing is very poor. Basinger is weak - without good directing. Baldwin is simply just a second league compared to McQueen. I watched it just out of curiosity, being a huge fan of Peckinpah's masterpiece, and I got what I thought. Almost a B movie with second rate acting and directing. I wasn't even disappointed, I just don't know what they were trying to do. This remake doesn't try to play with the original material, it's not a tribute and indeed it lacks some really good actor of its era.<br /><br />It reminds me of a bad xerox copy of wonderful photograph.<br /><br />This is a complete waste of your time. Save yourself 2 hours or watch the original (again:)))
| 0neg
|
Was it really necessary to include embarrassing footage of non-participants in a documentary. And why all the silly dog scenes, and then repetition of all the same silly dog scenes? This film starts with a great promise - to expose the international politics and the business of wine. It got off to a great start and included all the right characters. But the production is a mess. Points started and developed most of the way, then never finished or left with dangling ends. Very poor and disorienting camera work and editing. They should have used subtitles for the British mumbler from Christie's.<br /><br />Too much fluff and not enough fact for a documentary.<br /><br />Probably honored at Cannes because of the US bashing (although in my opinion there was too little of it).<br /><br />We left at the 2:00 hour mark - I have no idea how much longer it ran on.
| 0neg
|
I mean let's face it, all you have to do in modelling is pose for photos. The judging is so over the top with it's criticism. The show however is entertaining, especially with Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, J Alexander and the supermodel herself Twiggy. I've watched season 5, 6, 7 and in the middle of season 8. It looks like American Idol gone sexy but I'm a guy and I only watch it because of the hot girls posing in their bikinis! The show can be quite boring, when it comes to judging, Tyra tends to go on and on and it's really off-putting. Anyway would I recommend it? Yes, Would I recommend it to women wanting to go into the modelling business? No.
| 1pos
|
Two actors play rival gangsters in three films, the final of which is a sci-fi film, that nods strangely to William S. Burroughs, Philip K. Dick, and anime all at once. The robots are actually called "replicants", a reference to Dicks Blade Runner(several visual allusions to the film can be found as well) and the bad guy is a psychotic gay mayor obsessed with limiting procreation through use of a compulsory drug for "heterosexual love is fleeting, and homosexual love is eternal"....martial arts fights ensue, a first for the dead or alive films. The hilarious climax involves the two leads morphing into a winged robot with a gigantic phallus for a head, who personifies "destruction", which has been the path of both characters thus far, their individual minds and later literal heads functioning as something like testicles. The film ends with the mayor f*&%ing his free jazz playing boy lackey as the robot apparently tears down a wall around them, the last words of the mayor "Oh f*&%", followed by a quick fade to black. Part of me felt cheated, part of me confused, but mostly I was just laughing. A lot of the film is quite boring though, the best scenes bookend the film while the rest is far too slow. Takashi Miike has always mined the sexual motifs beneath male violence in action films, and this film with the exception of "Gozu", reinforces this theme more than any other. Sex and violence are two pretty basic themes, but like Cronerberg(who the jazz interludes may be a homage to ala Naked Lunch)Miike is able to show where the two connect, to hilarious an oddly cohesive effect.
| 1pos
|
beautifully constructed, "Traffik" tells the story of narcotics usage and commerce from multiple points of view. From a policeman view, from a politician view, from an addict view, from a smuggler's view, and from a farmer's view. In a carefully contructed storyline, one gets the impression on how everything is inter-related. From beautiful on-location shots in the poppy fields in Pakistan, to downtown Karachi, to the entry points airports of Frankfurt and London, to the delapidated buildings where the smuggling takes place, one sees the massive dimension of narcotics consumption.
| 1pos
|
I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.<br /><br />I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more.
| 0neg
|
A masterpiece.<br /><br />Thus it is, possibly, not for everyone.<br /><br />The camera work, acting, directing and everything else is unique, original, superb in every way - and very different from the trash we are sadly used to getting.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix creates a deep, believable and intriguing Esther Kahn. As everything else in this film, her acting is unique - it is completely her own - neither "British" nor "American" nor anything else I have ever seen. There is something mesmerizing about it.<br /><br />The lengthy, unbroken, natural shots are wonderful, reminding us that we have become too accustomed to a few restricted ways of shooting and editing.
| 1pos
|
I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.
| 0neg
|
Boy, this was one lousy movie! While I haven't seen all of the Burton/Taylor collaborations, I can say with confidence that this is the worst. This rich but ill woman (Taylor, of course) owns this beautiful island in the Meditteranean, ruling over a put-upon staff when she's suddenly visited by this traveling poet, who mouths platitudes. In fact, the whole film is just a talk fest, with much of the talk making no sense. Even in 1968, no one could make heads or tails of this pretentious nonsense, and the passage of time makes that even more clear. If it weren't for the beautiful cinematography and scenery, it would deserve a negative rating. The only thing this film is good for is its unintentional laughs at the expense of the stars.
| 0neg
|
This film really got off to a great start. It had the potential to turn into a really heartrending, romantic love story with cinematography that recorded the love between "Harlan" and Tobe in long, poetic and idyllic scenes. It really didn't need to be anything more than that, and for a moment there I became excited that someone was finally making a beautiful film for its own sake, another timeless classic, a modern myth perhaps. Why, oh why, then mess it up halfway through by making the lead character (Norton)another psycho? Maybe I'm missing the point, but do we really need another film about psychos? Or is this need in Hollywood to portray the sick side of human nature indicative of a more general malaise in the movie industry? For a moment there, I was going to make a mental note of the director's name; now I'm left feeling indifferent. At least it should be added in the film's defense that all the actors seemed to invest in their roles. Also, Evan Rachel Wood is really lovely to look at and a good actress with lots of potential.
| 0neg
|
First, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.<br /><br />So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act "too stupid to live". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clichéd characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.<br /><br />All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters.
| 0neg
|
Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance.
| 1pos
|
...scratch it. Just as African's created rhythms with the jawbone of an ass and Virgin Islanders welded oil drums into ear pleasing steel bands, so did urban DJ's itch to scratch in the pursuit of new methods of creative expression. "Scratch" is a wholly unnarrated documentary which will take you to the heart of the hip-hop/rap movement and explore the genesis of turntablism, the art of scratching vinyl, and the ultimate DJ/MC contempo entertainment expression. The film reveals some surprisingly intelligent and articulate "Scratchers" with startlingly unique abilities in concert and competition where the beat meets the street. Good stuff for anyone interested in grass roots or ghetto gutter movements in sound art. (B)
| 1pos
|
When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.<br /><br />This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.<br /><br />The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.
| 0neg
|
I couldn't help but feel that this could have been a bigger movie than it was. The screenplay is highly intelligent and it just seemed that it could have been opened up in a way more reminiscent of Seven. Not by changing the story - I think mainly through the cinematography. The cinematography was the only thing that I found to be holding back the film. On the other hand, the pacing was absolutely on point. Whoever worked on the editing really did their job well. And I thought Bill Paxton did a great job of directing. Now away from the technical stuff...<br /><br />This movie threw me for a loop. SPOILER AHEAD!!!! All along, I really felt that Bill Paxton was crazy and then when Adam finally took the FBI agent to the Rose Garden to show him where the bodies were buried and revealed who he was, I got thrown for a loop. I had suspected the first part of the twist but what really threw me was when he touches the agent and sees the agent murder his mother and the fact that the agent too (without any words spoken, simply by touch) sees it again with Adam and asks him how he knew. My dilemma was not that it was yet another twist thrown in but the almost ungraspable idea that this man and his father were not crazy but actually picked out 'bad guys' so to speak, knowing their sins and crimes already. I don't endorse an eye for an eye so I didn't leave the film being able to believe that they were doing God's work. Instead I chose to believe that they were both clairvoyant and that the father had gone off the deep end one day from it and through the things that he subjected his sons to, disturbed them permanently also. That was my interpretation but the vexing thing about the film was it's like a house of cards and a never-ending circle and what is the correct interpretation of the disturbing events you've sat through. It's definitely one of those movies where I'd love to be able to meet the writer so I could just ask him what the real meaning was to it all. Were they crazy and psychotic? Were they simply telepathic and took license because of it? Or did they have some sort of appearance from God? And if so, was it God or the Devil disguising himself as God. My friends and I found ourselves talking about it all night trying to figure out what was what and what the filmmakers had thought was the answer when they made this movie.<br /><br />A definitely perplexing and thought invoking film with some very disturbing but certainly not sensationalistic elements to it. It's not a perfect film, but it definitely is it's own thing. Great directorial work and acting by Bill Paxton and the child that played Fenton was extremely good. I hope he doesn't end up relegated to the child actor syndrome as he seems to have a lot of promise. I gave this movie a good vote for the majority of the components that make a film, but I would have voted higher if wasn't for the feeling that something (although I can't pinpoint what) was off and if it hadn't have been, the movie would have gone to an even higher level. Still, a definite recommend, especially for those that are inquisitive.
| 1pos
|
The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them!
| 1pos
|
After searching for 6 months, I finally found this DVD. All I can say is it was damn well worth the wait! "Rush in Rio" may very well be the greatest rock DVD in existence. I'm not joking. It's incredible! All the fuss about the sound being crappy is true, however it doesn't make the concert unwatchable. I find it makes you feel like you're actually in Rio watching the concert from the audience. That's one of the reasons I love this DVD. It makes you feel like you're actually there. Also, Geddy, Alex and Neil have never been in better form! Geddy's vocals are flawless, Alex's guitar playing is still incredible, and Neil - absolutely no words to say. The camera work on this concert was very good I must say. They gave us a good look at everything that was going on on-stage, and in the audience. Kudos to the cameramen! Anyways, enough of my raving! Go watch "Rush in Rio" for yourself. You will be amazed. I guarantee it.<br /><br />10/10
| 1pos
|
This is screamingly funny (well, except when Bruce is in the hospital scene, which is a little sad). <br /><br />Ted Raimi and Stacy Keach are both excellent and worth watching.<br /><br />Sure, it's not a big budget-suit controlled blockbuster, but it's everything it promises to be and more- and BTW- the women are wonderful in their parts, though I don't know them from other movies, I'd welcome seeing them again.<br /><br />The two-brain walking scene is inspired and certainly a showcase for Bruce's outstanding physical comedy- he is one yummy guy!<br /><br />Thanks Bruce, for your brain, this is your baby!
| 1pos
|
Being a huge Laura Gemser fan, I picked this up at a rental outlet just to see another Emanuelle film. Boy, did I make a mistake!<br /><br />EMANUELLE IN EGYPT has nothing to do with Emanuelle. Laura Gemser is in it along with her husband Gabriele Tinti, but that is the only connection to Emanuelle. Here, Laura plays "Laura" (original, huh?) a beautiful supermodel who goes to visit her wealthy friend Pia (Annie Belle) in Egypt. In tow are her a**hole photographer Carlo (a haggard-looking Gabriele Tinti) and some blonde woman who is never named. Also living in Pia's mansion is Horatio (the sexy but dumb Al Cliver), a mystique who speaks nothing but nonsense. Arriving for the weekend are Pia's two daughters, one a short-haired lesbian and the other a brunette. Lots of sex is implied, but hardly shown. One good-looking actor plays Ali, the Egyptian servant, who gets lucky with three of the women in the mansion. Laura has sex with the lesbian, the lesbian has sex with Horatio, Pia and the blonde have sex with Horatio at an Egyptian orgy, Laura drinks goats' blood and is possessed during an Egyptian ceremony, Carlo rapes Laura. It all happens with so little flair that EMANUELLE IN EGYPT is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Far from erotic, even the actors themselves look bored during their sex scenes.<br /><br />Considering there were two famous couples in this film (Laura and Gabriele & Al and Annie), the number of available sex scenes are uncountable. Instead, a film that offers a top-notch Eurocult cast and never delivers the goods will piss every viewer off, except the hardcore Laura Gemser completist. Otherwise, steer clear of EMANUELLE IN EGYPT!
| 0neg
|
From the Q & A before and after, this is what I could gather: Some Irish guy wants to make a movie. Nothing in particular, just any movie. So, one night at a party, he hears some ex-roadie tell him a classic bit of rock n' roll lore; the one about how Gram Parsons' corpse was stolen from LAX by his loyal roadie so he could honor Parsons' wishes that he be cremated out in JoshuaTree. Wow!<br /><br />What a great idea for a movie! Rock n' Roll (well, country), grave robbing, escapes, friendship, the 70's! I guess we could get Johnny Knoxville from "Jackass", cause it's kind of a prank, right, and Knoxville wants to do "a movie" too. Why he must have thought he had the next "Snatch" on his hand!<br /><br />But this story's not really that exciting...we need something for Knoxville to struggle against.like a psychotic girlfirend after his money! But Parsons' was married at the time. That's O.K., no one knows that. Besides we could get Christina Applegate. But what if the audience doesn't like the idea of stealing a corpse.well, we'll get his dad to join the chase, but give permission in the end. But Parsons' dad killed himself when he was 10, in fact his orphan status, and tragic childhood, are key parts of the Parsons Mythology. Mythology? We're making "A Movie!" This is creative problem solving.<br /><br />It's an uncomfortable experience for anybody even vaguely knowledgeable on or interested in the subject. Applegate's presence is doubling jarring. First her invented character is a Beverly Hills bitch before her time -she might as well have walked around the whole movie a cell phone in her hand, and secondly, what kind of man would Parsons be if he ever associated himself with that kind of harpy? Facts aren't just distorted or left out, but REVERSED. They could have easily found the villain they wanted in Parsons STEPfather, who was attempting to whisk the body back to his home state where law would favor him in dividing up the considerable inheritance.<br /><br />And the music, oh, the music I love. The music is hacked up (the bridge of a song here, the chorus there), forced to the background, and in the end, horribly covered by the hippest new indie band, Starsailor. My girlfriend asked the unnecessary, but irresistable question after the movie --was anyone up there, the writer, the producers, the director, actually a Gram Parson's fan? Well, no. He'd never actually heard of Gram Parsons, but of course, blah blah blah, I learned to love it, and here's some factoids I read in a bio online. Another guy vouched for Parsons' coolness by saying he and Keith Richards tripped on acid together and wrote "Wild Horses" together, a mixed up bunch of facts as off-base as the movie. Another person asked, wasn't it morally questionable to rewrite history when most people would only know about it from this film? Well, he had the real roadie's permission (he was even set) and the Parsons estate gave permission, and all these other people who got paychecks said it was great.<br /><br />But what I really wondered was, and asked in the embarassingly trembling voice of a truly impassioned Parsons geek, was, if the movie's so cheaply made (a million), had they not considered the original Gram Parsons fanbase as an audience? The director and writer seemed to think he was a nothing figure with no fanbase, though I doubt any Mojo magazine reading, country-rock 70's music fan would agree. But a bunch of Brits made it I guess, and they just didn't care about Cosmic American Music, or even knew it existed. This isn't just not a truthful Parsons flick, it's not even in the right spirit -it doesn't even fit the legend. At the very least it should have had the sentimentality of one of his songs. And plenty of people would love to be told.<br /><br />I should mention the movie was received well from the bunch of stoned college kids, just off the slopes, and into Johnny Knoxville. But if you're a Parsons fan ignore the title, it's just a movie for Jackass fans.
| 0neg
|
Okay, I grew up on Who, but haven't loved a Doctor since Tom Baker. Christopher Eccleston made me love Who again and I'll be furious with him forever for leaving. <br /><br />The writing is grand, the acting superb, the directing (which was dreadful in the old days) is just fantastic. I was very skeptical about this programme, and watched it merely out of being forced, but am now a huge fan and love it (I have a ringtone of a Dalek screaming "Exterminate" then). <br /><br />A few of the things I love about the new programme -- 1) people actually notice when Rose (Billie Piper) disappears off the planet. Some of the old shows an assistant would drop off for a while, and then come home like nothing has happened, no one noticed. 2) Chris Eccleston's doc loves Rose -- romantic or not will be debated, but there is no doubt that 9 loves and cares about his companion. He'd destroy the world if he had to to save her, which the old show was lacking -- often a doctor wouldn't care if he never saw his assistants again. 3) They talk and think like real people -- when Rose is shown something outlandish or new (such as aliens) she acts like a real person would -- gobsmacked. I never liked it when an assistant from the old show, who never saw anything alien, would just fit right in and adapt instantly. I want to see the surprise on Rose's face when she sees a plastic dummy come to life. She gives that to me. <br /><br />The few things I don't like about this series: 1)nearly everything happens on earth (London or Cardiff) and I was sort of hoping for a more off-world sort of show. 2) That Eccleston left so quickly, he really made the show brilliant. <br /><br />But I can let those few things go -- I far more enjoy the series than I ever expected to, so I don't mind if they have stuff set on earth. <br /><br />Just don't take this show seriously -- it's fun, it's smart, it's entertaining, but it's not a super-serious heavy duty show. It's pure fun, and pure British, and I can't get enough. Watch it with an open mind, and just put your brain into neutral and enjoy!<br /><br />ps -- don't watch series 2 or later. series 1 was brilliant, the first few episodes of series 2 were good, but don't watch it once it gets to Love and Monsters. Utter rubbish, completely destroys the show.
| 1pos
|
All the folks who sit here and say that this movie's weak link is the Ramones would probably say that Amadeus was ok if not for that irritating harpsichordist. Rock and Roll High School was centered around the Ramones. How anyone can watch this and not get a kick out of Joey Ramone eating bean sprouts backstage in an attempt to keep him in performing condition is obviously a wet blanket square daddy-o. Ms Trogar, exploding white mice, the hall patrols...instant classics. Nevermind the Riff Randell character.<br /><br />If you don't like the Ramones then you don't know rock and roll and you don't deserve to watch a movie called ROCK AND ROLL High School.
| 1pos
|
It seems Hal Hartley's films are kind of hit or miss with most audiences. This film will be no exception to that rule. Fay Grim acts as a sequel to Hartley's 'Henry Foole' from 1998. The focus this time is on Henry's ex wife (played to perfection by the always welcome Parker Posey), who is being pestered by CIA goons about Henry's unpublished book about all of his shady dealings. In the interim of all of this, Fay ends up on an odyssey,dealing with international spies,etc. The film does get a bit bogged down in the second half. If you've been a fan of Hal Hartley in the past, this is one not to be missed. For the novice Hartley first timer who has only heard of his film making technique, you might want to check out his earlier films before taking on this one (especially if you haven't seen 'Henry' yet). I admired the camera work,which at times reminded me of certain early Man Ray photography.
| 1pos
|
A very funny movie. Michael Douglas' "do" is worth watching this flick for if for no other reason. I'd like to see him do more of these low life roles. He was terrific, as were all the performers.<br /><br />The film struck me right off as an American Roshomon, only funnier and easier to watch because it was in American and didn't need no stinkin subtitles!<br /><br />In a funny movie with a laugh every minute or so, two of the best were with John Goodman (not someone I am crazy about) - 1. He is telling the priest about Jewel doing something he liked and says "I had to wipe the smile off my face." The visual shows he is not smiling and clearly is a guy who never smiles, but probably doesn't know it. 2. The scene at the end between Goodman, all suited up for Jewel in his cop uniform, and grappling with the be-leathered Reiser hunched over a table... and the two of them then protesting that they are not gay to another character who happens on the scene - this alone deserved a special Comedy Academy Award.
| 1pos
|
Pretty amusing spoof with great attention to detail re: the look of the 1960s spy films and the way the action was staged back then. The fight sequence in the hotel room was a hoot and the casting was perfect with a Peter Lorre lookalike added to the mix of villains. A big plus: Jean Dujardin is hot and the scene in which he is tied up without a shirt was a highlight. Plus his eyebrows deserve some sort of recognition for doing a great job. <br /><br />Funny aside: the people behind me in the theater kept gasping after every plot twist as if they were watching a 'real' spy thriller.<br /><br />Before the movie started, a trailer for "Get Smart" was screened. The preview made the movie look embarrassingly bad with lame attempts to incorporate the jokes and gags from the TV series. Looks like a bomb and quite a contrast to the comparatively sublime jokes and gags of OSS 117, though, of course, OSS had its share of misfires. The overall tone of OSS, however, was not an insult to the audience's intelligence, and the material didn't feel as it had been 'dumbed down.' I did get the distinct impression that if I understood the language, I would have caught more of the jokes, and one in particular (the pistol gag) was mishandled in the interpretation for the subtitles.
| 1pos
|
This film really misses the mark on most fronts. The accents are laughably weak, the acting amateurish and the comedy weak at best.<br /><br />They've got a great idea, it could have been particularly enjoyable but for the reasons mentioned above.<br /><br />The writer seems to think by putting the word f*ck into every sentence it'll make it funnier and the main character just seems to try a little too hard. He's no Brick top thats for sure.<br /><br />Next time at least get a cast that can keep the accent for the whole film.<br /><br />It's a crime to compare this to films like The Business, Lock Stock and Snatch.
| 0neg
|
A comedy that spoofs the inspirational sports movies, The Comebacks tells the story of an out-of-luck coach, Lambeau Fields, who takes a rag-tag bunch of college misfits and drives them towards the football championships. In the process, this life-long loser discovers that he is a winner after all by redeeming himself, saving his relationship with his family and friends, and finding that there is indeed, no "I" in "team"!<br /><br />I decided to watch the unrated version for this film. It was thirty minutes longer and I though it may be better than the theatrical release, hearing that people hated this movie. After all, thirty minutes of extra footage can add a whole lot to a movie. Well, I certainly was wrong. It was as bad as the recent "Meet the Spartans" but it was thirty minutes more of torture!<br /><br />Seriously, who makes a close to two hour spoof movie?! A spoof movie is short because if it goes any longer, it would be overkill! Honestly, I love stupid comedies. Heck, I liked "Date Movie," "White Chicks," "Epic Movie," and "Little Man"! I guess when it comes to spoof movies, it is either a hit or miss and this one definitely missed.<br /><br />On the lighter side, from the many jokes in this film, I will say about six or seven made me laugh, even some that made me laugh out loud. But that's not saying much. Following those jokes were more scenes of torture and unfunniness.<br /><br />I can't see how people would say this is not a terrible spoof film. In fact, there is as much product placement in here like Meet the Spartans, there are as many dance sequences, and unfunny jokes. I will say another thing I like about this movie is the songs. They are some very good songs in here. Overall, watch it if you like spoof films. Skip it if you like funny films.
| 0neg
|
Far more sprightly, and less stage and set bound than Gene Saks' previous efforts Barefoot in the Park(67) and The Odd Couple (68), Cactus Flower is not a work of art, but compared to most of the tired farces from the 60's like The Apartment, How to Murder Your Wife, Goodbye Charlie, A Guide for the Marrried Man, Divorce, American Style, Any Wednesday, Kiss Me Stupid, Boys Night Out, it's a masterpiece. Director Saks and writer I.A.L. Diamond have effectively "opened up" Abe Burrows' Broadway hit, and the film benefits greatly from New York City location shooting and excellent performances from Ingrid Bergman and Goldie Hawn. Bergman is charming, looks great, and demonstrates a flair for comedy. Hawn in her Oscar winning role has never been better or more appealing. Matthau is OK though it's hard to believe that Hawn's character would be so enamored of him. And in retrospect, Hawn's attempted suicide at the start of the film is out of character and unbelievable. Nonetheless, the film has a plausible farcical set up, and once it gets going it generates laugh. Rick Lenz, Jack Weston, Eve Bruce, and Vito Scotti provide good support. The film is likable and fun, and Hawn and Bergman make you care.
| 1pos
|
Genre: Dinosaur, animation, New York, time travel, circus.?<br /><br />Main characters: Rex the Tyrannosaurus rex, Elsa the pterodactyl, Dweeb the Parasarolophus, Ooo the Triceratops, a boy called Louis, a girl called Cecilia and Captain New-eyes. ? Actors: John Goodman (Rex), Yeardley Smith (Cecilia), Martin Short (Stubbs the clown), Felicity Kendal (Elsa) etc.?<br /><br />What happens: Four dinosaurs (see above) are fed some "brain grain cereal" and are now cuddly, friendly dinosaurs who are going to be nice to children. They go into New York, with big plans
<br /><br />My thoughts: This is a cute animated film. The animation of the dinosaurs when they go cuddly and friendly is a bit floppy and not-so-good, but they look pleasant all the same that way. I like the dinosaurs when they are cuddly and friendly, they are nice, friendly and good. I like (almost) all the characters featured, especially Elsa and Cecilia, but of course I like the others as well. Overall, I like this film a lot! :-)<br /><br />Recommended to: People who like good children's animated films, people who like dinosaurs, John Goodman and people who think that circuses aren't always what they seem
Enjoy! :-)
| 1pos
|
I finally have seen the real reason why Peter Boyle became famous. It wasn't being the monster in "Young Frankenstein" or being cranky Frank Barone on "Everybody Loves Raymond". For younger people who only know him from TV,give this film a try,it makes Frank look like a saint.<br /><br />"Joe" is Boyle in his finest acting role and as someone mentioned,most likely gave the inspiration for "Archie Bunker" on "All In The Family". I think Boyle even went back to "Joe" a little to play Frank. (I say this because I noticed the basement of both "Joe" & Frank Barone look similar.)<br /><br />I knew nothing of this movie when I checked it out of the library,I just knew Boyle and Susan Sarandon were featured. Yes,Susan does look great here and for a young actress a very good early role. A young hippie wanna be,who escapes her parents home and lives with,the ultimate lost in a drug induced haze hippie,who also sells as much as he buys.<br /><br />After a near-fatal over-dose on too many pills,she is hospitalized while her parents go to collect her things,her mother wont go into the smelly,run down apartment but her father does. While Dad gathers up her things,her boyfriend comes home and the two exchange words and then the father does what we will later hear Joe say he'd like to do to a hippie.<br /><br />Joe is shooting his mouth off about how he hates different cultures/races,hippies and a laundry list of others. When he says,"I'd really like to kill one of them",the father (trying to look like he's kidding)says,"I just did". Joe almost buys it but then takes it as funny. <br /><br />Later,when the police are at the scene and the story is in the paper,Joe realizes,he wasn't kidding. Instead of nailing the rich guy for money through blackmail,he actually,kind of,does blackmail him. By just wanting him and his wife to "get to know" him and his wife. Long story short their association is awkward but after Sarandon gets wind of what her father has done,the bottom is at risk of falling out.<br /><br />How this all plays out in the end you'll have to watch for yourself. Although it's over 35 years ago,the ending is something you wont expect. Unless you've seen the film before of course. Again,I recommend it mostly for those who haven't seen it.<br /><br />10 stars for Boyle not just playing someone completely opposite his nature but for what will show others that he was more than just a TV and movie comedy actor. (END)
| 1pos
|
Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made.
| 0neg
|
The main reasons to see "Red Eye" are Rachel McAdams, who delivers a stellar performance, and Jayma Mays, who is wonderful as the Assistant Hotel Manager. On the other hand, Cillian Murphy overacts so badly that he becomes cartoonish. The rest of the movie is riddled with plot holes, on which I will elaborate.<br /><br />Please do not read further if you don't want to know what happens!<br /><br />Here is a synopsis of the plot. Rachel McAdams's character (Lisa) manages a hotel where the new hard-nosed Homeland Security Director plans to stay that night. Rachel is returning to Miami from a funeral, but fielding calls from her assistant up until the plane leaves. In the meantime, someone is stationed outside the house of her father, Joe (played by Brian Cox), ready to kill him if Cillian Murphy (Jackson) calls. All Lisa has to do is phone the hotel and move the Director's suite to one where Jackson's cohorts are planning to fire a guided missile (from a fishing boat) to kill the Director and his family.<br /><br />So, here are some of the plot holes or absurd coincidences:<br /><br />1. Jackson finally convinces Lisa to make the call, and in the middle, the phones in the plane lose their connection. Lisa tries to fake that she is making the call, but coincidentally, a guy across the aisle from Jackson is also making a call and starts banging his phone to indicate it is dead. Jackson catches on and grabs the phone from Lisa.<br /><br />2. At one point, Jackson head-butts Lisa and she, of course, gets knocked out...but only for 30 minutes.<br /><br />3. Jackson catches Lisa writing a note on the mirror in the (extraordinarily large) lavatory, and he bangs her around a bit. Miraculously, the only one who hears anything is an 11-year-old girl, whose word, of course, is discounted.<br /><br />4. Lisa stabs Jackson with a pen in the throat as the plane is landing, steals his cell phone, and makes a mad dash for the exit, fitting down the aisle between the seats and 18 rows of standing passengers. Despite knowing there is a passenger with a pen stuck in his throat, the flight attendants oblige Lisa by opening the door to the jet-way.<br /><br />5. OK, all those are reasonable (if not highly unlikely). But here's where it gets really stupid. Lisa gets into the terminal at Miami Airport, and there is no cell phone signal (every major airport in America has great cell phone reception).<br /><br />6. She runs through the airport with Jackson in hot pursuit, and no security officers even delay them.<br /><br />7. Jackson, who lost Lisa in the Airport while the train from the gates pulled away to the terminal, has lost some of his voice from the pen in his throat, but he can still be somewhat understood. However, he doesn't bother to call his man outside of Joe's house. (PS: There is no train at Miami Airport, but the one they showed looked an awful lot like the Orlando Airport).<br /><br />8. Lisa steals a car and rides away. Of course this time, when she goes to make a call, the cell phone says "low battery" and soon shuts off (when will they stop using this inane plot device?).<br /><br />9. While the phone still said "low battery," Lisa had reached her assistant just in time to save the Director and his family from the guided missile launched by the fishing boat to the window of the room on the 40th floor to which the Director had been moved. Of course, they expect us not to notice that the hotel is surrounded on 3 sides by ocean, so the missile could have probably been launched at the first suite, thereby negating the need for the whole Lisa-Jackson plot. What's the story here? Was the Director's original room on the 38th floor one of the only rooms in the hotel with a lousy view? Nevertheless, everyone gets out just before the missile hits.<br /><br />10. Lisa drives to Joe's house to save her father only to see the killer outside. Although she runs him over (as he is shooting at her) by crashing her Jeep into the house, no one in the neighborhood seems to notice or bother to stop by.<br /><br />11. Jackson arrives at Joe's house and knocks him out (we don't see how...maybe another head butt). He then explains to Lisa that he didn't kill dad yet because he wanted dad to see Lisa die first (Give me a break. What is this? Saturday morning cartoons?).<br /><br />12. For the rest of the movie (about 20 minutes), Jackson chases Lisa around the house, and she resourcefully fights him off. Of course a real killer (i.e. one maybe played by Jason Statham) would have done away with Lisa (or for that matter anyone who is not a trained killer) in the first 30 seconds. During the course of this chase, Jackson steps over Joe at least once without bothering to kill him.<br /><br />13. Finally, Jackson prevails, and he is about to kill Lisa when (you guessed it) he is shot by Joe.<br /><br />So, here's my suggestion...tell Wes Craven to stick to horror. Or maybe he should get together with Michael Bay (who directed the equally stupid "The Island") and make "Red Island."
| 0neg
|
In 1958, Clarksberg was a famous speed trap town. Much revenue was generated by the Sheriff's Department catching speeders. The ones who tried to outrun the Sheriff? Well, that gave the Sheriff a chance to push them off the Clarksberg Curve with his Plymouth cruiser. For example, in the beginning of the movie, a couple of servicemen on leave trying to get back to base on time are pushed off to their deaths, if I recall correctly. Then one day, a stranger drove into town. Possibly the coolest hot rodder in the world. Michael McCord. Even his name is a car name, as in McCord gaskets. In possibly the ultimate hot rod. A black flamed '34 Ford coupe. The colors of death, evil and hellfire. He gets picked up for speeding by the Sheriff on purpose. He checks out the lay of the land. He is the brother of one of the Sheriff's victims. He knows how his brother died. The Clarksberg government is all in favor of the Sheriff. There's only one way to get justice served for the killing of his brother and to fix things so "this ain't a-ever gonna happen again to anyone": recreate the chase and settle the contest hot-rodder style to the death. He goes out to the Curve and practices. The Sheriff knows McCord knows. The race begins... This is a movie to be remembered by anyone who ever tried to master maneuvering on a certain stretch of road.
| 1pos
|
This movie starts off promisingly enough, but it gets a little to convoluted and caught up in its stylistic charm. The set designs, costumes, and music were wonderful- as close to perfect as one can get. But the more I got into the movie, the more I felt like all this effort was for the director's entertainment, not the audience. Although, I loved looking at it, except for a few brief musical scenes, I can't say I enjoyed it. The director shows enormous imagination, but if he had fun with this film, he failed to share that with the audience, or at least with me. I didn't get a sense of whimsy and I didn't get sucked into this universe.<br /><br />A big cause of this was (surprisingly) Zhang Ziyi. You can tell she's trying very hard, but she seems to have been so miscast that she comes off almost amateurish. She's a capable actress but she has her limitations. I've noticed in her acting, that she has yet to truly react to her fellow co-stars, a flaw that creates a void of chemistry. The language barrier in this film seems to have only exacerbate matters. She and Odagiri act as if they're on separate planets. She's also not a very good singer which made me cringe every time she sang, but thankfully there weren't too many scenes of that. Odagiri was OK but doesn't make much of an impression.<br /><br />I didn't even care for the characters separately. There really is a sore lack of characterization. The only reason to care about them seems to be that they're good-looking royalty. Without the compelling love story at the center of the film though, it's hard to care what happens. The film also takes detours into minor scenes that added nothing to the story and was actually distracting. I had to rewind because after going into a subplot I couldn't remember what the heck they we're doing in the main storyline. There were also scenes where it was hard to tell what the action occurring was because it was so stylized.<br /><br />Mostly I'm just disappointed because I really like the concept behind this and there are a lot of things I do like. The music and dance choreography are really great.The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, fantastic in both the acting aspect and the singing. It's just too bad the lead actors were so bland.
| 0neg
|
"Tintin and I" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).<br /><br />We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.<br /><br />Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.<br /><br />Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again.
| 1pos
|
Dark comedy? Gallows humor? How does one make a comedy out of murder? It can be risky business as the viewer is required to let go of their moral values and laugh at the antics of a man who kills people. So, the story has be rock solid with a good dash of suspended reality in order to make it work. So, Pierce Brosnan, the Irishman's answer to 007 is now cast as a chain-smoking, sex-addicted alcoholic who kills people for a living and is having a life crisis. He meets a struggling businessman, Greg Kinnear, and after a rocky beginning, he learns that he needs a friend. But, Greg's happily married to Hope Davis and Brosnan sees in him the basic things he doesn't have, love, home and a life. Add character actor, Philip Baker Hall as the hit-man's manager and we're off to the races. Brosnan is wonderfully crass and crude as the anti-hero and Kinnear delightful as his counterpart, the very human businessman. Hope Davis adds a sparkle as Kinnear's very conventional wife who is fascinated with this derelict who drifts into their lives. The ending is delightful and with some surprise to it. You should leave the theater feeling, at least, partly good-- if you're able to suspend being aghast at killing people.
| 1pos
|
After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.<br /><br />The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.<br /><br />Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.<br /><br />The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.<br /><br />The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.<br /><br />This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.<br /><br />I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.<br /><br />My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?) <br /><br />The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.<br /><br />There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?) <br /><br />No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.<br /><br />For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.<br /><br />1/10
| 0neg
|
It's a mystery to me as to why I haven't caught up to this masterful 50s caper film turned brooding noir until now, but I'm certainly glad to report that it didn't disappoint. I haven't seen any of Jules Dassin's American films for several years but based on this I'll probably be going back and re-watching "Brute Force" and "Night and the City" quite soon.<br /><br />Jean Servais, a name unknown to me but a face rather familiar in its world-weariness and coldness, has recently completed a lengthy stay in prison and as is the way in these films (hey, there wouldn't be a story otherwise) isn't coping well with the straight life. An opportunity presents itself: an easy multi-million-dollar jewel heist that can be done at night with no fear of discovery by a few men. The taut filming of the robbery, half an hour of total silence, is what people most remember about the film of course, and indeed it's pretty remarkable; but I liked the half-completed location of the final shootout, once the robbery has gone sour thanks to the big mouth of one of the thieves; the excellent portrayal gritty sides of Paris in stark black and white; and Servais' channeling of both Eddie Constantine and Humphrey Bogart in his spare but brutal performance.<br /><br />Perhaps it's a bit too sentimental in the end, but this is one of those classics that really does live up to its reputation just as pure entertainment even if what it has to say about the human condition isn't exactly deep or thought-provoking; George Auric's at turns modernist, romantic, and jazzy score is another highlight.
| 1pos
|
This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clichés than should be possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant.<br /><br />As I was driving home from the theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, "I've seen that a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!" But the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were still in Indiana.<br /><br />Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit and elan.
| 1pos
|
For those not in the know, the Asterix books are a hugely successful series of comic books about a village of indomitable Gauls who resist Caesar's invasion thanks to a magic potion that renders them invulnerable supermen. There have been several animated features (only one of them, The Twelve Tasks of Asterix really capturing the wit and spirit of the books despite being an original screen story) before a perfectly cast Christian Clavier and Gerard Depardieu took the lead roles in two live action adaptations that proved colossally successful throughout Europe but made no impression whatsoever in the English-speaking world. <br /><br />The uncut French version is great fun, but sadly does not appear to be available in a version with English subtitles outside of the UK DVD. While there's still no sign of a US theatrical or DVD release, the Miramax version of Asterix et Obelix: Mission Cleopatre is also on that DVD (and has played on UK TV), and you'll never guess what - it's been completely re-edited (at least 21 minutes gone) and dubbed into English. Maybe Harve mistook it for a Hong Kong movie - after all, he never saw a foreign film he didn't think couldn't be improved by heavy re-editing and shelving for a few years.<br /><br />Whereas Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar was lovingly dubbed into English from a particularly good translation script by Terry Jones but otherwise left unaltered, that sort of thing really isn't the Miramax way. The results ain't good. The film was the best attempt to get the books mixture of slapstick, anachronisms and highbrow classical humorous asides to the screen, but a lot of the classical references are gone (such as the great Raft of the Medusa sight gag or the Cyrano de Bergerac references from Depardieu), alongside anything that seems too French or might slow the picture down, with the result that the first 20 minutes are now a real slog. Several punchlines to sequences are missing, Depardieu's part has been trimmed (his part was already fairly small because of his serious health problems during the shoot: the US version has been partially digitally regraded to change the unhealthy pallor of his face in the original!), and as usual with dubbing, because literal translations into English don't fit properly, lines are either rushed so much they're not funny anymore or the dialogue has been changed completely (a couple of these changes are admittedly funny, like one character dreaming of a world in which he could move his lips in French and hear the words in English).<br /><br />Not a total disaster, but very disappointing considering how good the full-length version is. It would be nice to think that Miramax would do a Shaolin Soccer and release both versions, but since they've shelved both films for two years since paying $45m for them (another classic case of Harvey's notorious chronic buyer's remorse: gee, wonder why Disney were so p****d at their overspending) and still have no release plans, that may just be too much wishful thinking.<br /><br />It's a real pity that such an accessible and entertaining film will now only be available to non-French speakers in such a clumsily bowdlerised version. It seems the plucky Gauls may have been able to defeat Caesar's legions but are no match for the Miramax jackboot.
| 1pos
|
This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...<br /><br />The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.<br /><br />Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.<br /><br />Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.<br /><br />this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen.
| 0neg
|
Eliza (Elizabeth Moorman) is a farm girl from the country coming to the city looking for love. She has met a man that has told her of an Astrologist who will show her the stars. This is a journey of souls...Eliza is put to the test, can she realize her true love when she sees him or not? Tommy (Tommy Lee Jones) is a construction worker trying to find himself in his native heritage. They show each other different ways of looking at things. All the while Eliza is still looking for love and Tommy is trying to protect the reservation that his grandmother lives on. This is a twisted story of looking beyond the obvious and finding beauty in the simple everyday things. The style is artsy and chock full of symbolism. The psychedelic camera styling might scare away the average moviegoer, but the deeper message and the interesting frames make this movie worth watching. It is a movie that explores the underworld of the weird, wretched and devastated individuals. This one strays from the path but certainly worth watching!
| 1pos
|
All movies that contain "goofy sound effects" should be shot. If there is one thing I HATE, it's gotta be the use of a "whoop whoop whoo" when somebody gets hit one the head. The only movies I have seen to do this is Ghoulies IV and Hobgoblins when they are in the bar, and Pixie is hitting the guy in the red suit with a beer bottle... or rather, fanning him with a beer bottle, because she never really hits him with it. Yes Ghoulies IV does suck. But I have to wonder, did they MEAN to not make the so called "Ghoulies" mouths move when they supposedly talked? Their faces are almost as static as the masks used in Trolls 2. Hell, I can make a better mask out of construction paper, some rubber cement and a handful of glitter. This sucked.
| 0neg
|
My daughter, her friends and I have watched this movie literally dozens of times. I bought it twice and some little girlfriends absconded with it. Subsequently, I rented it so very many times. It just never gets old!!! Blockbuster doesn't even have it in their listings anymore and I have tried to buy, find, rent it for over 5 years. Without a doubt, this was and is my most favourite movie of my daughter's childhood...it has it all! We laughed, we cried, we discussed real life and how hard some children have it in the world. There was nothing pretend about this movie. We related to every second and every line Bill! Thanks a million for restoring our faith in human nature. Sincerely, Shelleen and Kailin Vandermey. Craven, Saskatchewan. CANADA,eh!!! :-)<br /><br />August '07 update:<br /><br />Who are we to judge if a rich woman falls in love with a poor man; or a man who has love chooses to raise a child who is not his own. It may not be my or your life. It is not only believable, it happens every day. Thank God! Keeps my faith in human nature alive!!! celebrate!!!!
| 1pos
|
If you find the first 30 minutes of this film to be so slow that you wonder why you're watching it, don't give up. Also, hearing the Danish language is a bit new to most North Americans, who don't see and hear a lot of Danish films. Anyway, as the film progressed it got better and better and the viewer is rewarded for his/her patience.<br /><br />Being a fan of the movie, "Out Of Africa," this film piqued my interest because it's based on a short novel by Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen), the major character in that film.<br /><br />The meal - Babette's feast - was amazing. I'm no chef, but I was impressed! How one interprets the story, too, varies, I suppose depending on how much you read into this, and where you stand religion-wise. If the latter, how you look at the definition of "legalism" can affect how you interpret this story.<br /><br />In any case, it's a fine film, but don't watch this if you're dieting.
| 1pos
|
This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.<br /><br />Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.
| 0neg
|
I work in a library and expected to like this movie when it came out 5 years ago. Well I liked Parker Posey a lot (she's a wonderful actress) and Omar Townsend was really cute as her boyfriend (he couldn't act but when you look like him who cares?) but the movie was bad. It wasn't funny or cute or much of anything. Posey kept the movie afloat with her energy. But she learned the Dewey Decimal system OVERNIGHT and then shelves tons of books to the beat of music??!!!!??? Come on! Also I did have a problem with the way she looked when she became a full-fledged librarian at the end--hair in a bun, glasses, no sense of humor--can we let that stereotype go please? Worth seeing for Posey and Townsend but that's about it. The TV series was much better.
| 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.