text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Ok, at the beginning it looked like "Shrek" - the loner that is persistently followed by the comic relief. Then it evolves into something really compelling, as the gauntlet is set. And the result is an enjoyable movie, which has moments that I agree that are a little too dramatic for kids to watch (Manny's past, for example). The premise has been obviously worked for a long time, so that they can suceed in making a movie set with almost no different sets (only ice caps and rocks), and three characters. It's a good thing to know that they succeed in doing something emotional out of it. As I said, it can be tear-jerking at some times, so, kids, be warned. The real letdown is the animation. This wasn't so souped up like the toy story movies or shrek, and it shows. The humans are unrealistic, and we have seen better examples of CGI before. But don't let this stain the record: as a solo effort, "Ice Age" is commendable. And it will gather many fans, I have no doubt. Oh and yes, the moments with that small mouse are priceless, and show-stealing.
| 1pos
|
The good news for IMDb is that this movie was so very bad that it compelled me to register and make a comment. I should add here that I'm a film buff who rarely passes harsh judgment. But sometimes a movie is so poorly acted, poorly conceived, poorly edited, with a such a poor story line that it begs criticism.<br /><br />I'm surprised by all the claims of how superb, brilliant, dark, and beautifully shot this movie was. I can only conclude that the cast and crew are active posters here. The acting was extremely thin. The pace of the movie was agonizing. I gave it new chances at every turn (mostly because I didn't want to feel like I was wasting a Saturday morning in NY), but with every new scene, it dragged longer, delivering characters in which I took no interest, with which I could not connect, for whom I could not empathize.<br /><br />When I see negative reviews on IMDb of small independent films like this, I sometimes wonder if the poster has a personal axe to grind (something like. . he used to date the gaffer, she dumped him, and now he's going to trash everything she ever works on). But here, nope. I know no one who worked on this film. And I wish it would have been great. But the film wasn't dark (as some have mentioned) or depressing (as others have claimed). . . those suggest that I connected with the film . . . nope, Henry May Long was just too long, empty, and tedious. <br /><br />That's the Tomas Take on this one.
| 0neg
|
The first 1/3 of this movie I loved and thought it was going to be one of Truffaut's best films. I loved the plot where a pen pal marries a man from half way around the world--sight unseen. Especially when this woman turns out to be a fraud and was responsible for the death of the REAL pen pal so she could take her place! She then cleaned out the husband's huge bank account and disappeared! I was really hooked and wanted to see more,...<br /><br />And then, the movie fell apart and became just plain dumb! Despite her coming from New Caladonia (an island in the Pacific) and he from Reunion (an island in the Indian Ocean), when he goes on a trip to the South of France, he stumbles upon her almost immediately. Hmm,....odds are 187,000,000 to 1 but he finds her. Then, instead of either killing her or turning her over to the police, he forgives her--even when she acknowledges what she has done. Okay--this is tough to believe, but okay,...but then he helps to hide her from a private detective by murdering him!!!! No one is that stupid! Yes, the character Catherine Deneuve plays is quite beautiful but come on folks--this is just silly. Plus, if he only wanted her as a sex object, then why would he do this for a woman who is often frigid and completely selfish and evil.<br /><br />This movie, due to it's very ridiculous plot, does not deserve such high ratings! Unless you are a die-hard Truffaut fan, try another film--even one of Truffaut's--just NOT this one.
| 0neg
|
I have fond memories of watching this when it came out. It's one of those films that you know is rubbish, even when you're a kid, but at that age you overlook the ludicrous acting, special effects and plot (so there's a race of big-busted nymphets living underground, huh?) and just enjoy the campy monsters for all they're worth.
| 1pos
|
This movie is a fascinating example of Luis Bunuel's storytelling abilities. This is a comedy that is not a comedy, and a social drama that is not a social drama. Even though I don't think it was particularly funny, it made me laugh. Also, despite the fact that you can never take Bunuel too seriously, the movie made think about religion and its importance in some people's lives. Bunuel tells the story of a Catholic priest, devoted to his faith like no one else and the viewer witness what happens when the priest's undying commitment to serve others is put to test. As usual, Bunuel's target is Catholicism, but I don't think he tried to mock the church as he often does. At least I didn't take the film as a mockery of the institution. I think he is trying to make an interesting point about how religion could be a nuisance in today's modern society. Not because faith in itself is bad, but because people always mange to bastardize the concept. Message aside, I think this is one of Bunuel's most clever works. Francisco Rabal is superb as the priest. Definitely, one of the filmmaker's best movies.
| 1pos
|
The biggest problem with this film is that it's nothing like Bruce Allmighty. The first film played upon every daydreamer's fantasy of being able to control ones surroundings as one sees fit. Evan's experience though is entirely different. He has none of the control that Jim Carrey fools around with and instead the story centers around the power of belief. Now this would have been fine, since the first film was preaching the same message. The problem is that the sequel does it's preaching at the expense of the comic relief. And to add insult to injury it also throws in politics into the plot. You get the distinct feeling that there is a clear message with this film, and it's main objective is not to make you laugh. To sum things up this movie is failed mixture of Eddie Murhphy's "The Distinguished Gentleman" and Charlton Heston's "The Ten Commandments". I'm not sure if Steve Carrell is at fault here, you get a sense that it's his character that limits his abilities as a comedian, the former news anchor Evan Baxter is not supposed to be funny, he's basically an antagonist made into a protagonist which in this case only adds to the confusion of what this movies message is supposed to be about.
| 0neg
|
I thought this was a really great movie especially since it was jut filler for me. I was bored, I got it from the library and I really enjoyed myself! I've watched it twice in the two days and the more I watch it the more I like it.I thought that the plot was going to be really corny but in the end it really could be said that it would be true. I liked the main characters and I thought that they were well cast and you could see true friendship. I thought they all did an excellent job. The ending was good.And you really hate the bad guys and you really like the good guys. Which is what a movie is supposed to be like.
| 1pos
|
A blatant rip-off of "Air Bud", this movie is REALLY about parents worrying too much about parenting. All the foibles of the characters (eg; adult coaches who dont know the game) are taken to the extreme- so much so that they are totally unbelievable, not funny.<br /><br />There is no semblance of reality here, folks and you'll not develop sympathy for ANY of the characters.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the good looking kits (uniforms) of the opposing team in the first game the dog plays. Perhaps chosen because the setting is supposedly near Arlington Heights, IL, the home of the Columbus Crew's franchise player, Brian McBride.
| 0neg
|
A friend of mine who has a mysterious knack for finding and - horrors! - liking bad movies recommended I watch 'The Pest.' At the time unaware of just how truly pathetic his taste in movies was, I decided to give it a try.<br /><br />Bad mistake.<br /><br />The story, although clearly ripped straight out of any sixth grade English textbook as far as the "manhunter" theme goes, would be amusing under the right conditions - good actors, writer, director, wardrobe, and so on and so on to almost no end. Clearly these factors are absent.<br /><br />'The Pest' is supposed to be funny, I think. I say "think" because I let crack nothing more than a slight smile throughout the whole film. Not a guffaw, not a laugh, not a chuckle, not even a grin. A smile, at best. And that happened so rarely while watching this film I even remember how often I did smile - maybe 3 or 4 times at best.<br /><br />So do yourself an immense favor. Never watch this movie. Avoid at all costs.
| 0neg
|
Strangely erotic schlock Gothic horror that will be loved by Hammer House of Horror fans the world over. Appears to be an interesting take on "Beauty and the Beast". It is definitely worth a look and surprisingly well acted when taking into consideration the genre and era.<br /><br />Corsets, castles, rutting horses, rampaging faux fur monsters in the woods, proof that no-one had a Brazilian in the 70's, and more bodily fluids than you can shake a stick at, what more could you possibly want?!<br /><br />It certainly brightened my Sunday afternoon!
| 1pos
|
I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.<br /><br />I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.<br /><br />Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...<br /><br />Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.<br /><br />In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.<br /><br />Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...
| 1pos
|
I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all.
| 0neg
|
With Al Jolson at the height of his popularity and Warner Brothers's the Jazz Singer having been the highest grossing film of 1927, it was inevitable that the other studios would churn out a few vehicles for their own Jolson-esquire characters. But while the Jazz Singer was a sensation for its being the first part-talkie, the Matinée Idol lacks the singing voice of its star (the now obscure Johnnie Walker), and has to make do with just his visual antics.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol was an early directorial assignment for the renowned Frank Capra. Capra's first couple of full-length features for Harry Langdon reveal a very showy, excessive style, which made Langdon's already mediocre slapstick almost unwatchable. A couple of pictures later and Capra has learnt to ease off a bit, with some fairly regular and decent camera-work. However he still shows no aptitude for shooting physical comedy. The longest comic routine - the stage performance - seems to have a few good gags, but it's all cut up into lots of different camera angles, and there is no chance for the comedy to flow naturally from the performances. Theoretically, a good portion of the jokes are in the intertitles, but there are far too many of these and none of them is especially funny.<br /><br />Of course, Capra would eventually mature into a fine dramatic and romantic director, and you can see him beginning to develop in this respect. He cuts down the line, closing in on Walker and Bessie love in the scene where she first lays eyes on him in his Don Wilson get up, neatly establishing the wordless connection between them. Then there is some beautiful and tender framing of the couple in their scene together at the masquerade, which is all very reminiscent of the love scenes in Capra's early 30s output.<br /><br />Johnnie Walker, Columbia's answer to Al Jolson, is not an exceptional talent. His comic timing is good but there is nothing to make him stand out. Bessie Love on the other hand is a pretty good actress too, with a very expressive face. Kudos to her for getting involved with the physical comedy and losing her dignity with the boys. There's also a good role for Lionel Belmore, that rotund and jolly character actor who seems to turn up in absolutely everything in the late 20s and early 30s.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol is one of those pictures that has gained more than its fair share of attention thanks to its director later having made a handful of masterpieces. In and of itself it is a very uninteresting piece, and like most of Capra's work before he met Robert Riskin, a disappointment.
| 0neg
|
"Big Fat Liar" comes as a welcome -- shallow, but welcome -- breath of fresh air after one too many films featuring bathrooms, bodily fluids, pets on acid, gaseous jokes and crotch gags. After all, "See Spot Run," "Max Keeble's Big Move" and "Snow Dogs" had signaled The Degenerative Spiral of Kiddie Movie-making. Worse is the realization that the young audience would later be satiated by the smuttier offerings of "Not Another Teen Movie" and "Slackers." Written by Nickelodeon producers Dan Schneider and Brian Robbins (who coincidentally co-starred on the '80s sitcom "Head of the Class"), the film stars Frankie Muniz as Jason, who's always ready with a good lie to get out of scrapes. (Where's the English paper? Dad choked on a Swedish meatball.) His teacher (Sandra Oh) issues an ultimatum: Turn in the paper by the end of the day or take summer school. Jason whips out a story called "Big Fat Liar" and is struck en route to school by a limousine carrying insensitive Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti). Wolf gives him a ride, but Jason leaves his paper behind. No one will hear the truth this time, and Dad tells him he's lost his trust.<br /><br />Months later, Jason and best friend Kaylee (Amanda Bynes) see a movie preview for "Big Fat Liar," and head off to Los Angeles to wreak havoc on Wolf's life -- all to get a confession that he stole Jason's paper to make the film. They even gain the sympathy of some of Wolf's abused employees, including his assistant (Amanda Detmer), former chauffeur (Donald Faison), movie star (Jaleel "Urkel" White, playing himself) and stunt coordinator (a much-aged Lee Majors).<br /><br />Because "Big Fat Liar" is without the edge that his sitcom "Malcolm in the Middle" is known for, Muniz is easy to root for but doesn't have much to work with. Likewise for Bynes, who headlines her own Tracey Ullman-like sketch show on Nickelodeon. All the hamminess is given to Giamatti, whose eyes bulge and cheeks wiggle with every sneering insult.<br /><br />The film gets snaps just by attempting the high road, and should be enjoyed by its target audience (especially since most of the high jinks occur on the Universal Studios lot). But here's one head-scratcher: The message is that it pays to tell the truth. But didn't we just see Jason getting to his payback by telling white lies throughout the film? Well, at least there's no poop.
| 1pos
|
Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the "legend" up with substance.<br /><br />The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses ("Nature Documentary" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama. <br /><br />Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.<br /><br />Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed.
| 0neg
|
Not worth the video rental or the time or the occasional efforts.<br /><br />*Makeup that a child can do. *Acting was over done...poor directing. *Editing was very choppy...many things made no sense or just seemed gratuitous. *Sound was badly dubbed. *Music was highly inappropriate. *Casting was extremely off...must have been on crack. *Zombies that talk let alone...drive, dance, work...just pisses me off. *And the bad guy...Holy Crap! As horribly casted as he was...he was the best looking zombie of all. Which doesn't say much.<br /><br />The Cover Art was good but very deceiving...as was the Main Menu of the DVD...great artwork and music.<br /><br />DON"T BOTHER!
| 0neg
|
For me, the best & most memorable movies are often those which on first viewing I know nothing about. American Movie is a perfect example of just such a gem. Watching TV late one evening, I spotted the one & only good review among the dross - thankfully I settled in for a real treat. American Movie is a documentary following the unforgettable Mark Borchardt (pronounced "orchard", I believe), a highly articulate & charismatic Wisconson lad, as he struggles to write, direct and produce "MidWestern", a gritty, low-budget Horror movie on which he has been working for years. In Mark we discover a young man filled with contrast. His appearance is of the classic trailer-trash stereotype - skinny, bum-fluff mustache, '80s heavy metal styling, mullet hairdo, etc. To camera however, Mark reveals startling wit & insight as he philosophizes upon life, love, movies & the American way. As the movie unfolds, it sadly becomes clear that Mark's lack of discipline & heavy drinking are relentlessly sabotaging his creative efforts. American Movie is a charming watch, filled with hilarious moments & vivid characters. Chief among these is Mark's lovable buddy Mike Schank, a soft-spoken reformed stoner who, having conquered an addiction to scratch cards, is now dependent on soda pop. I absolutely loved American Movie. It generates real empathy between the viewer & principal characters, and provides hilarity without feeling exploitative. I would wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.
| 1pos
|
Finally a gangster Movie worth watching!<br /><br />Jennifer Tily should get nominated for her role as tough murdering femme fatal!<br /><br />This Movie flies like a bird , just a fast paced non stop Gangster Mayhem!<br /><br />Jennifer Tily is just so beautiful and bad in this Movie.<br /><br />I was shocked to find Faye Dunaway still lives! The cast in this movie are so fitted to their roles. <br /><br />A real cool soundtrack rides along side and you get swept into the Spanish soul of this film.<br /><br />The story is original deep and poetic.<br /><br />This Flick has a lot of Substance and never rests.<br /><br />The gang of Spanish Fire just set everything on screen alight.<br /><br />Damian Chapa Is a Joy to watch and a Movie Star.<br /><br />Sit back and enjoy the ride.
| 1pos
|
This is probably the worst film I have ever seen. Mike Myers tries to be a dramatic actor and fails miserably. The children, who have the major roles, are almost impossible to understand and are really unpleasant characters. It was not even worth the price of the rental.
| 0neg
|
I'm no slouch at finding "redeeming social value." Whatever book or film people want to suppress, from Huck Finn/Heart of Darkness to, I don't know, Deep Throat or the latest hostage beheading, I sincerely wish they wouldn't. I'm not a lover of porn or of violence-as-entertainment, but what of them I chance upon I tend to see camera angles, cuts, pans, lighting, rhythms, nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation, sometimes even missing filmmakers' or actors' intent. Even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed, I always imagine there's something to learn. I wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. Maybe that's wrong of me. Wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema, might be to see cuts, pans, etc., at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. I ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. Add in political filmmakers, fascist and not. All manipulate with light, space, and sound in order to alter perception and mood. How different are their goals? How different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda? <br /><br />When the original All Night Long (ANL) trilogy appeared on my shelf, I left it unwatched for nearly year. Curiosity had made me buy it. I sampled a few minutes of "1" the day it arrived, up to the awkwardly sound-effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers' sensibility, found it inept but effective. I'd have to come back to it, certainly, but didn't relish the prospect. Clearly this wasn't the sublime horror of Kairo, Cure, Angel Dust, Lain, the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first Evil Dead Trap, the overtly political work of Koji Wakamatsu, or even the brilliant crudity of early Cronenberg.<br /><br />Maybe that word "attack" is key. Matsumura attacks not his characters, but his viewers. I can't watch these at this point in history without thinking of both Abu Garib (some of which I think I recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos, but also about Godard's torturers (in Le Petit soldat?) to whom atrocity is just a job, a fraction of a person's workday. And then there's the prolonged Northern California news story whose details I barely remember but can't entirely forget because it too entails "cinema," a duo of serial killers notorious, if suggestion isn't playing games with my memory, for having videotaped themselves torturing victims.<br /><br />All three ANL entries are revenge cinema, vigilante exercises, but I'm attaching these notes ANL3 because it's the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director Matsumura. (I haven't seen the entries that followed ANL3.) Through the first two offerings, I imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (Or as if one of Matsumura's revenge-crazed characters had turned writer-director. Anyone watching these who hasn't seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom would do well to see it.) But ANL3 seems to aspire to mainstream. Matsumura's protagonist grows carnivorous plants, allowing for some typically Japanese cool close-up nature shots. There's also, for the first time a Matsumura film, a traditionally erotic sequence: Kikuo's female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he's peeping at the love hotel's customers. Kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. He's a middleman voyeur. The brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. There's even a philosophical/poetic garbage sifter, a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in Wakamatsu's not-at-all-what-it-sounds-like Go, Go, Secondtime Virgin.<br /><br />I'm getting nowhere with this, and it's getting in the way of my commenting other films. Can't escape the suspicion that a few years on I'll walk into a Matsumura retrospective at my local film archive, maybe hosted by some learned character who's caught onto something I'm missing.<br /><br />How much does it matter whether the director is or simply "gets" his lethally muddled protagonists? Does he even have to understand them? Maybe a director's job is just to spew it out, then let critics, sociologists, and the rest of us hash things out. Maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion.<br /><br />My final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. We put women through this over and over, from Star Wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on, but is anything quite as male-skewed as the All Night Longs?
| 0neg
|
This film has got so much in it. Prehistoric society, adventure, romance, true brotherhood, violence, sex, religion; all depicted abundantly..without a single word uttered!!! And how come it sucks so bad? This film will make you rethink the origin of humanity. If this were the product of anthropology, you would rather defy Darwinian theory and Hegelian synthesis all together. You cannot bear to watch this even with your brain shut down. And now you are thinking, "I've got to see this." I warned you. I take no responsibility whatsoever should you regret spending over an hour staring at this piece of art. Well, I did warn you. This should be forgotten and buried for ever.
| 0neg
|
Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.<br /><br />This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.<br /><br />It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes "Critters 3" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction/horror/comedy.<br /><br />Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.<br /><br />The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.<br /><br />Really a too silly and lame movie.<br /><br />4/10
| 0neg
|
Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word "slut" comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better "blue movie" - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title "Blouse Man" and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth.
| 0neg
|
Simply an amazing bittersweet movie that portrays a side of life often skipped over in feel good movies. I saw this as a child and came back to it very recently and fell in love again.<br /><br />As a child it sparked my interest purely for the building of a plane, as an adult it captured me in the dark world and a young mans escape from that world. <br /><br />The portrayal of the King was great, the camera style chosen with low shots and shots focusing on actions and hand movements was I thought well done, I personally can not recall anything quite done in that style and adds to the character and portrays him as a force almost not human (which may not be far from reality) it makes for interesting developments <br /><br />Worth a watch any day
| 1pos
|
Bad Movie - saw it at the TIFF and the movie gives me a sense of 'been there done that' - it reminds me alot of the movie Blow - expect the Blow was actually interesting.<br /><br />This one story told two ways and both times it is not told that well.<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Watching QUINTET is not unlike watching a group of people playing a word game in Portuguese, or some other language you do not understand. You get the idea that they are playing a game, and if you watch closely enough, you may just begin to understand the rules. But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.<br /><br />Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them. Sometimes he lets you slip into the picture to be a part of the crowd, like in M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE and A WEDDING, films so full of hubbub and orchestrated chaos, one or two more bodies in the scene wouldn't make much of a difference. And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman. With QUINTET, Altman seems to purposely dare anyone to become involved with the narrative. <br /><br />You can't depend on Altman to do the logical or the expected, which is sometimes the thing that makes his films so remarkably iconoclastic. But sometimes doing the unexpected isn't daring, just dumb. For instance, in QUINTET, we are introduced to a young woman who is apparently the last person on earth capable of getting pregnant, and she is, indeed, with child. This last ray of hope in a decaying society is almost immediately extinguished; Altman doesn't even wait until the end to play his last depressing card in this elaborate nihilistic and pessimistic tale. He lets us know how empty and meaningless life is right off the bat. Brave? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely. Devoid of a purpose, he tries to build a story on a rapidly melting iceberg, all the while reminding us how pointless the effort is. <br /><br />For the record, QUINTET, can at least claim to be prophetic. The story is centered on a treacherous game played by the various bored characters. It is a form of TAG (the assassination game): a handful of people target each other for elimination, each as a would-be assassin and each as a would-be victim. Two or more can form alliances to kill a third. As they die off, new targets are assigned. Whoever lives, wins. All of this happens at some exotic, inhospitable wasteland. It is, to a great extent, an extreme, sci-fi version of "Survivor" -- minus the commercial plugs and faked "reality."<br /><br />It is not a bad concept for a sci-fi epic. A post-apocalyptic setting, a microcosm of the world (the cast is pointedly multinational), a game where no on can be trusted or least not for long, and where no one really wins. Literally a cold war. A steely eyed director with a taste for dark humor and violent invention could have a field day. The mystery in QUINTET is not in the game or how it is played, but in why it exists it all. If the game "Quintet" is a metaphor for life, then Altman, seems to see nothing in the material but a chance to show life to be an empty, meaningless game -- a conclusion as obvious as it is untrue. Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either. And if Altman has no faith in his material, why should we?
| 0neg
|
This is a great film in many different ways...perhaps the most important is that it introduces Western audiences to the remarkable, tragic story of Aung San Suu Kyi and her fight for freedom and democracy. Wonderful acting, gorgeous cinematography, breathtaking action and suspense: "Beyond Rangoon" has everything. I've seen this movie several times over the last ten years and each time it means more to me. Not everyone will like it (hence the relatively low rating on IMDb), but that's because it is not conventional Hollywood dumbtainment; rather, it challenges the viewer on several levels. I've never watched it without sobbing at the end and promising to live a more meaningful life.
| 1pos
|
I saw the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time
| 0neg
|
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Horrible acting,Not funny at all, and well just boring.<br /><br />I can only assume all these 10 out of 10 fav. all time movie comments are actually the actors themselves in disguise.<br /><br />Idk what the runtime on this movie is I'm sure its listed on this page It certainly felt like an eternity <br /><br />If your looking for a tough challenge,attempt to sit through this awful movie.<br /><br />otherwise<br /><br />Don't waste your time as I did on this one
| 0neg
|
And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.<br /><br />There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.<br /><br />What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.<br /><br />The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.<br /><br />In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?
| 0neg
|
This movie just pulls you so deeply into the two main characters. I popped it into my laptop without even reading the cover (let alone reviews) and was intrigued for two solid hours. Two lost ships from two different worlds collide. The sexual tension that brews between a secretary and a criminal is almost palpable even without hardly any physical contact. Toward the end I couldn't decide which I wanted more: Our hero and heroine to pull off their caper or simply consummate their passion. RML could've done without a curious subplot and a traditional 100 minutes would have been plenty. I'm nitpicking though. After a series of Netflix, Blockbuster and local library duds this movie restored my faith in great film making.
| 1pos
|
A film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin.
| 1pos
|
As a person who knows the filmed ship and some other ships, too, I cannot see the movie as a movie, only. As a movie is has some great, wonderful shots of the ship, most of them done on an existing vessel - apart of the ones in the disaster scenes, of course, and a certain room under deck. But regarding the story and dialogs I only can call it big crap. Nothing of that would happen like this on a real sailing vessel. No wonder, the film had bad impact on the existing ship - if I didn't know better, I wasn't tempted to do a sailing voyage for sure. Definitely, for Europeans I recommend to switch off once the ship ran aground. After that, the over-emotional, very American part begins which I couldn't bear. The pics are really, really great, no wonder in a Ridley Scott film, but if you can avoid listening to the text, it will become much better.
| 0neg
|
Jean-Claude Van Damme plays twin brothers Alex and Chad, both whom are martial arts expert who team up to take down the mobsters responsible for the murder of the parents in this empty headed martial arts actioner which doesn't have a plot that would make better use of the gimmick of having two Jean-Claude Van Dammes. Some okay actionscenes, but this is not one of Van Damme's best.
| 0neg
|
When I first rented Batman Returns, I immediately thought it was going to be less than exceptional. I mean, Jack Nicholson was undoubtedly the best part of the first, so without him, how could there be a good movie? Simple, throw in Danny DeVito.<br /><br />Batman Returns is an arguably more dark movie than Batman. There are more villains here, less actual dark comedy in a lot of aspects, and more nerve-striking issues. However, the music is similar to the first if not darker. The scenery is definitely more depressing than the first, every detail right down to the time of year. This movie follows the same comic-style format we came to love in the first Batman.<br /><br />Now for the performances. Michael Keaton thankfully returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. He was great in the first movie, and just as much in this sequel. There was not enough screen time in the world for Keaton as Batman, need MORE! Danny DeVito gave an award-winning performance as The Penguin, the most grueling, disgusting, lovable, angry, evil, sad, pathetic villain ever to grace a superhero movie. You hate him so much yet feel so bad for him at the same time. And it explains him down to the last detail too, making it all the more conflicting. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent as Catwoman/Selina Kyle. Two completely different personalities in one. She actually got a good amount of back story as well. Christopher Walken didn't disappoint as Max Shreck, the greedy, judgmental, selfish CEO of the power company. Michael Gough also thankfully returns as the lovable Alfred, and he was just as good here as well. Pat Hingle also returns as Gordon, although I feel he was really never in the spotlight.<br /><br />With lots of great twists and sub-plots, Batman Returns is sure to please any fan of the original.<br /><br />9/10
| 1pos
|
This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for "talkies", this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper.
| 1pos
|
In my opinion, Flatley ruined the first show with his ridiculous ego. He was disrespectful to his dancing partner, tried to upstage everyone and had no awareness of the spirit of Riverdance. It's well he left the show. Colin Dunne, the new male lead, is superb, and when he and Jean Butler dance together, magic happens! Eileen Ivers' fiddling is astonishing (as is Noel Eccles' percussion,) and Maria Pages' "Fire Dance" is worth the price of admission! When Pages and Ivers get together, near the end of the show for a musical duet, well, it's a genuine treasure. I agree, the editing isn't complimentary, but no technical shortcoming can quell this extraordinary tour de force. This is the one to get. There's never been anything like Riverdance! This is the real one!
| 1pos
|
The guy did a lot of title design for a bunch of movies and I guess one day he said; I should pick a cheap scenario, try to put as much title in it as a can ( cause after all i'm a title designer ) and try to persuade people that this is in fact a movie. One of the worst i've even seen that's for sure. If you fell the urge to see nice titles, go check out some posters don't waste your time watching this.<br /><br />It kinda ironic don't you think, did you saw the poster? the only part of his project that SHOULD had title work done have almost none !
| 0neg
|
This was the stupidest movie I have ever seen in my life. It is a complete waste of money and time. I went to see this movie with my friends and when the movie was over not a single person in the movie theater- not that there was a lot of people there to see this terrible movie- said "wow what a good movie." Someone actually walked out! It was absolutely terrible! It was disgusting and I hated every minute of it. My friend was putting her head in my shoulder towards the end because after the scene with Rick on the ceiling peeing, she had had enough. It was not funny at all. Believe me I went with 11 other girls and not one of my friends liked it. It was ridiculous! I've seen many movies but this was absolutely the worst! I mean a scene in the movie is with an old man making out with a dead person in a coffin. I just can't make up these things.
| 0neg
|
This formulaic film (hero's girlfriend marries the villain) just didn't move along fast enough given some of the circumstances of the story. Scott seems too old in this one, and too many times his character turns away from decisive action, deflating the scenes. He responds to the deaths of some of his hands weakly; he escapes from Knox's gang by hiding in a full rain barrel; his escape to the high country and pursuit by John Russell seem superfluous, as does much of the film. The plot could have been tightened. <br /><br />High points of the film: seeing "Tennessee" Ernie Ford without a mustache singing "Man in the Saddle"; Alfonso Bedoya's too brief scenes as a cook; the color photography of the high country, and the fight scene there with John Russell.
| 0neg
|
My first review at IMDB, after a few years of using this site constantly...<br /><br />Anyways, saw this on the tube the other night, loved it. It's in the mindset of a Dangerous Minds or a Substitute, but much better. Was sure for a moment that Rex was Speedy Levitch, in Waking Life, but after checking, it doesn't seem so.<br /><br />I can see why many have problems with this plot and its poetry, but I also think these people are close-minded. Admittedly the ending wasn't quite what I was hoping for, but overall it was so unique and well-acted, I can't complain. I wouldn't call this cheesy, as one reviewer did, it pulled off the scene better than most films of the 80's did. And they refrained from playing any really dateable 80's music.<br /><br />Can't remember everything that made me smile when I saw this, but basically it realistically showed very creative individuals surrounded by mediocrity, and whether I share Rex's beliefs or not, I love original attempts to describe the meaning of life. And his Mutant theory is, to my knowledge, original. He rambled a lot as well, but they showed how confused he was at times, and why he might have some psychological issues. And then in his moments of clarity he was a philosopher extraordinaire, a person who noticed the little details in life and tried to give expression to them.<br /><br />Also I was very impressed with John Savage as the teacher. Usually actors fail at that role. He pulled it off brilliantly.<br /><br />If you enjoyed Waking Life, I say watch this movie if you get a chance.<br /><br />9.5/10<br /><br />pk
| 1pos
|
Kubrick again puts on display his stunning ability to craft a perfect ambiance for a film. Mainly through cinematography, but also using an ingenious score, he creates a chilling and ominous tone that resides over the entire film and thoroughly gets my spine tingling from the start. It really is this flawless ambiance that makes The Shining the masterpiece that it is, in my eyes. Of course it doesn't hurt that Jack Nicholson gives one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. A frighteningly authentic portrayal of a mind gone mad. Duvall and Lloyd are artificial, to be nice, but it's easy to look past those two when the rest of the film is so brilliant. Plus it features the actor with the greatest name of all time (Scatman Crothers).
| 1pos
|
Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did!
| 1pos
|
Could anyone please stop John Carpenter from continuously and deliberately ruining his reputation? How low can you go? It seems this man has lost any self respect.<br /><br />This episode looks like it has been done by a film student, it isn't even worth beginning to talk about WHAT was bad, because it was just a borefest, directed by somebody with no talent as a filmmaker or without any motivation...<br /><br />Come on, Mr. Carpenter, please retire immediately with a rest of self-esteem and stop spilling out trash like this in a bad tradition from Escape from L.A. to Ghosts of Mars.<br /><br />Get drunk instead.
| 0neg
|
Look, if I were interested in a Nancy Drew book, what I would do is pick up a book and read it. I'm not. Ever since I can remember I read people trashing movies because it wasn't like the book. I'm sorry - in the digital age we can no longer watch movies on flip books, however I'm sure you can still find a few short silent films in book form. When Lord of the Rings came out, people complained. When the third one won an Oscar - "The book was better." When I watched To Kill a Mockingbird, "the book was better." Now a bunch of people are upset, yet again, because Nancy Drew wasn't like the book. I'm not saying Nancy Drew is going to win any Oscars - if anything it'll be one of those Nickelodeon Blimps or Kids Choice Awards. I'm saying give film a break. It's film, not paper. As a movie, I found Nancy Drew quite enjoyable - featuring cameos from Bruce Willis and Adam Goldberg (The Hebrew Hammer) and supporting roles featuring Tate Donovan (Jimmy Cooper on the O.C.) and Rachel Leigh Cook (She's All That). This is the first time I've seen Emma Roberts in a movie and, frankly, I enjoy her work more than most of Julia and of Eric's; her character stays consistent throughout the film and reacts well with conflict. A lighthearted movie in the spirit of Harriet the Spy is nice now and again.<br /><br />I give it ten stars because I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, would love to see it again, and will probably buy it upon DVD release.
| 1pos
|
"May Contain Spoilers*<br /><br />"All Dogs Go to Heaven" is a great movie. I saw it in 1989 when I was two years old. I didn't understand it that well but as I saw it more and more times I started to love it. I love the songs in this movie. My favorite songs are "Let Me Be Surprised" and "Soon You'll Come Home". Those are beautiful songs. The only thing that bothers me about the movie is Charlie dieing. When I was little my sister couldn't even watch that part. Other than that this movie is wonderful. <br /><br />My favorite part of the movie is when Annabelle and Charlie are flying around heaven. Heaven is beautiful in the movie and the "clocks" are very clever. I also love Itchy, in fact I have 3 dachshunds of my own. They are so cute. <br /><br />Overall I love this movie and suggest everyone should see it. I give this movie 10/10 stars.
| 1pos
|
Pretty darn good for a French film. I have not seen any of Catherine Breillat's previous films, and so have no opinions about this compared to her previous work. French cinema usually sticks to the ultimately arty films, and leaves the shoot-em-ups and star vehicles to Hollywood. That is probably a good business strategy, as no other nation's film industry will likely have the resources to compete on those sorts of projects. Films about film-making are often a bore, as it has little resonance for people not in the business. But this one held my interest much more than I thought it would. In spite of the title, (oddly in English) it really isn't much of a comedy, in spite of a few droll moments. I've only seen a few of Anne Parillaud's films, but she shows a generous amount of talent and range, from the action/psychological drama of "La Femme Nikita" to the wry comedy of "Innocent Blood". This film also extends her range as she plays a more or less ordinary woman, yet is still compelling on the screen. Kudos also to Roxane Mesquida, with whom I was unfamiliar. She plays a very inexpressive actress for most of the film, whose talent is drawn out at the end. If you don't HAVE to have car chases and explosions to be entertained, check this one out.
| 1pos
|
Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.<br /><br />I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.<br /><br />Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of "Find the scientific absurdities." The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like "Everybody looks the same" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes. <br /><br />Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.<br /><br />For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware.
| 0neg
|
I'm glad that this is available on DVD now. This film is an excellent example of the triumph of content & style over empty-headed flashing lights & constant loud noises.<br /><br />Essentially, if you have a short attention span or lack the wit & imagination to engage with literary narrative you won't like this film. The reasons for this are quite simple, but unfortunately rarely achieved: Matthew Jacobs has done a fantastic job of transposing the story of Catherine Storr's novel 'Marianne Dreams' successfully to a screenplay. An unenviable task as anyone who has seen a film of a book will undoubtedly know.<br /><br />The casting is excellent, allowing director Bernard Rose to use the actors in a way that is rarely seen now; they indulge in the craft of acting! I know, I know, actors doing their job & acting instead of resorting to mugging inanely at the camera lens whist a kaleidoscope of car chases, explosions & fire fights break out around them is a genuinely rare treat, but it does actually happen in this film.<br /><br />This brings me to the final reason that this is a film for the imaginative thinker & not the spoon-fed tabloid reader - Apart from a solid script, direction & acting, it relies on atmosphere, suspense & implied horror. If it is to be categorized as horror then the presentation of 'Paper House' is more in the vein of Sophocles than Tobe Hooper.<br /><br />In conclusion then, if you like lots of loud noises, explosions, constant cuts, & bright flashing colours you'd be better off watching 'Transformers', but if you like a suspenseful story which unfolds through a skillful & evocative use of narrative without insulting your intelligence by force feeding you cacophonous nonsense then this might just be your thing.
| 1pos
|
While this was a better movie than 101 Dalmations (live action, not animated version), I think it still fell a little short of what Disney could do. It was well-filmed, the music was more suited to the action, and the effects were better done (compared to 101). The acting was perhaps better, but then the human characters were given far more appropriate roles in this sequel, and Glenn Close is really not to be missed, as in the first movie. She makes it shine. Her poor lackey and the overzealous furrier sidekicks are wonderful characters to play off of, and they add to the spectacle Disney has given us. This is a great family film, with little or no objectionable material, and yet it remains fun and interesting for adults and children alike. It's bound to be a classic, as so many Disney films are. Here's to hoping the third will be even better still- because you know they probably want to make one. ;)
| 1pos
|
Human Tornado (1976) is in many ways a better film than it's predecessor. The director knew what he had to work with and catered towards Rudy Ray Moore's limitations as an actor. It's a fun movie that's more technically sound and acted. The performers don't take themselves too seriously and it seems that this time around everyone is on the joke and goes with the flow. Rudy Ray Moore seems more relaxed in front of the camera and not as stiff like he was in Dolemite.<br /><br />I enjoyed the film very much and I highly recommend it. Just like his first film, it's catered towards a certain audience (I highly doubt that Mr. Moore was trying to broaden his audience at this point in his career). Check it out!<br /><br />Highjly recommended.
| 1pos
|
Ayone who whines about how this movie was crap or that it had no plot must have been looking for "Jean de Florrette". HELLO! this film was made to be a random act of comedy and in no way involves a plot in any way shape or form. I would also like to remind these whiners that if you are going to flay the crap out of this film that they seem to be missing the point. This film is clearly made for people who don't appreciate the so called "american humour" which seems to me just a pile of smutty crap. The point is everyone has an opinion and you should be a bit more appreciative that some peoples sense of humour may not be in line with your own before shooting your mouth off.<br /><br />Thankyou
| 1pos
|
Although I don't usually go for relentlessly heartwarming fare like this, I happened to catch the 1994 version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD (AitO) on cable one Saturday morning just as it was starting. Being an Adrien Brody fan, I was curious to see what Brody was like as a youth of 21 (20 when he filmed it, I suppose) in this early role as Danny Hemmerling, utility infielder for the California Angels (in the 1951 original, the hard-luck baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates. The name change is a nice touch, since it turns the title into wordplay). I decided to give the flick a chance, and it turned out to be a pretty painless, even amiable experience, with a decent balance of laughs, tears, sweetness, and baseball-based excitement. Also, my 7-year-old daughter liked the angel effects! :-) Directed by Mike Nesmith's frequent collaborator William Dear, AitO is the story of Roger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a foster child who prays real hard after his ne'er-do-well dad (the convincingly sleazy Dermot Mulroney) sarcastically says they'll be a family again once the last-place California Angels win the pennant. Soon Roger starts seeing real angels at the Angels' games, led by Christopher Lloyd, whose usual zany, eccentric irreverence keeps AitO from plummeting irretrievably into The Schmaltz Zone. Crusty manager George Knox (Danny Glover in world-weary, exasperated mode) is a hard sell, but once the team starts winning, he believes Roger's angel sightings, and soon Knox has Roger and his cute li'l pal and fellow foster kid J.P. (the adorable Milton Davis Jr.) at every Angels game for good luck. Knox even starts toning down his own temperamental outbursts and profane language, as much to appease the angels as for the kids' sake, resulting in a funny bit when he starts dressing down an umpire in his usual way but starts editing himself as he goes along. Predictable obstacles ensue, such as obnoxious sportcaster Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders) trying to make trouble for Knox because of the angel angle. Sure, it all works out fine for our heroes in the end, but they're so darn amiable you don't mind! :-) Baby-faced Brody has a couple of good lines (I especially like his exchange with Glover about the emotional impact of the National Anthem at a ballgame) as well as a cute bit where a pretty blonde angel massages his shoulders before he goes up to bat. Brody isn't the only future star in AitO's lineup: his teammates include Matthew McConaughey and Neal McDonough, and of course, young Gordon-Levitt went on to co-star in TV's 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN as well as such films as 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The always-amusing Taylor Negron and Oscar winners (but not for this film :-) Brenda Fricker and Ben Johnson lend able support. If you're a baseball fan who wants to rent a movie appropriate for the kids and check out some notable young actors before they became stars, AitO '94 will do nicely.
| 1pos
|
I watched this because of the description and cover art and yet again was deceived.I am getting sick of all these new stupid straight to DVD horror movies.Once in a blue moon 1 will be OK. It started out with a confusing scene and then jumped 30 years and showed a couple one night during a thunderstorm which was OK because I like storms and it set a nice mood.Then it turned into a cool road trip where they ended up at a diner encountering bizarre people.The rest got weird and then got confusing.I did watch it til the end but was even more confused when it ended so badly.I had higher hopes for this movie but it was more like a science fiction then horror and something that should have been made for TV.
| 0neg
|
Chili Palmer is tired of doing movies and know wants to do some success in music. Being half mafioso half expert negotiator, he wants to rise in the music market. However, know everyone is like him and making the good singer Linda Moon to record a hit will be harder as expected. The first part is funny and filled with irony, this one falls into the easy jokes and has many less good moments. Only the two women (Uma and Milian) are decent in their part. Most of the film is done with histrionic character, excessively exaggerated (a little is OK, too much is disgusting) and the only one that one could save is the gay bodyguard, who, at least is coherent, the rest, are too much idiot. The most surprising thing is the fact that the movie is not boring, everything happens so quick and there are so many things happening that you do not have time to get bored, if you want to follow the movie. It may insult your intelligence (a lot!), and the movie is bad(yeah!), but, well, it's not boring.
| 0neg
|
New Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.<br /><br />Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.<br /><br />What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.<br /><br />This film needs to be remembered.
| 1pos
|
This movie sucks. It's horrible. If anyone liked it, those people should get there heads examined. Jackie Mason's character sounds like a retard. That guy who tries to kill the gopher is a loser and he sucked. Even though Chevy Chase was in this movie, he wasn't funny. This movie had crude and unfunny jokes and did not have Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray. Even though Jackie Mason's character had the personality of Rodney Dangerfield's character, Mason's character sucks. Rodney Dangerfield was funny! He should have returned! I don't care about Ted Knight, but Bill Murray should have returned, also. The original Caddyshack was Murray's career performance. If he was funny in the first, he could have been funny in the second.<br /><br />Final comment: I recommend this movie to... NO ONE!!!!!!!! THIS MOVIE SUCKED!!!! IT HAS SUCKED, IT SUCKS NOW, AND IT WILL ALWAYS SUCK!!!!!!!<br /><br />2/10
| 0neg
|
A sadly inferior precursor to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" this film drags on and on, occasionally reviving your interest only to put you through more selfindulgent maundering and obvious but patently overdone plot points.<br /><br />It may list as 111 minutes but feels like three hours of painfully wasted time.
| 0neg
|
I really enjoyed this movie. It succeeded in doing something that few movies do now; it provided family values while entertaining me. Nancy Drew is a heroine for all generations and a role model for young girls to look up to. The little girls I was with throughly enjoyed the movie and kept talking about Nancy as we walked out of the theater. The movie has relatively few problems for families and I don't think parents will get bored sitting in the theater. No, it won't win an Oscar and it did not showcase magnificent special effects or even provide a horribly spooky mystery, but it entertained me and it stood true to the the spirit of the books. I would definitely recommend this movie to anybody with a young girl (she will love it!) or any fan of the books. You will not be disappointed.
| 1pos
|
Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as "Darling"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a "woman's weeper" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. ** from ****
| 0neg
|
I loved this movie. It was almost the same as the first (cabin by the lake), only instead of just killing women, he kills men also. And the scenes are much more interesting, 2 of my favorite scenes are firstly, when Stanley and Allison are in the dance club and he is describing Kimberly's last moments before she is thrown to the water, And secondly, When Stanley is visiting Allison in his basement, right before they head down to the set, when she kisses him. Those scenes, for me, were very intense and riveting. I gave the movie a rating of 8/10, not because the movie was bad, but because the filming was bad, I mean, there were times when you'd notice nothing was wrong, like its being shot the way a film is usually shot, you wouldn't see the "live" camera shooting, but then, very little, you would notice the filming mistakes. what went wrong??
| 1pos
|
Sure, this one isn't really a blockbuster, nor does it target such a position. "Dieter" is the first name of a quite popular German musician, who is either loved or hated for his kind of acting and thats exactly what this movie is about. It is based on the autobiography "Dieter Bohlen" wrote a few years ago but isn't meant to be accurate on that. The movie is filled with some sexual offensive content (at least for American standard) which is either amusing (not for the other "actors" of course) or dumb - it depends on your individual kind of humor or on you being a "Bohlen"-Fan or not. Technically speaking there isn't much to criticize. Speaking of me I find this movie to be an OK-movie.
| 0neg
|
The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill. <br /><br />Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.
| 0neg
|
Watch The Beguiled because it's a good place to begin when you study the femmes fatales in Clint Eastwood's filmography.<br /><br />The smothering Gothic sexuality of The Beguiled has already been discussed. What everyone missed is the synchronized sexual physiology that occurs in a group of females living together, especially when a man is introduced into the group. They all become horny and then bitchy at the same time.<br /><br />Femme fatal filmography for Clint Eastwood: Inger Stevens, Hang 'Em High, 1968; Jean Seberg, Paint Your Wagon, 1969; Shirley MacLaine, Two Mules for Sister Sara, 1970; Geralding Page, The Beguiled, 1971; Jessica Walters, Play Misty for Me, 1971; Sondra Locke, Sudden Impact, 1983; Genevieve Bujold, Tightrope, 1984; Marsha Mason, Heartbreak Ridge, 1986; Burnadette Peters, Pink Cadillac, 1989; and the best heart-breaker of all, Meryl Streep, The Bridges of Madison County, 1995.
| 1pos
|
In the light of the recent typhoon that hit the country hard (that is, typhoon Ondoy), I thought it upon myself to re-watch "Black Rain" (1988, Japan), Shohei Imamura's haunting black-and-white masterpiece on the destruction and after-effects of the atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima in the closing period of the Second World War. The destruction and impact of both catastrophes (war and typhoon) may differ in degree and quality, but the trauma and scar (physically and psychologically) nevertheless are still there. <br /><br />It is a testament to a film's power that its images remain as potent and as indelible as when they were first seen. It is only that the difference now, in my case, is that watching those images has assumed a greater sense of poignancy and potency due to a first-hand experience of a near-monumental weather calamity. There is a sense of kinship, so to speak. <br /><br />Imamura has always been one of my favorite Japanese filmmakers. His films are always a pleasure to watch because of their anarchy, sensuality and earthiness:"The Pornographers:Introduction to Anthropology" (1966), "Eijanaika" (1981), "Warm Water Under a Red Bridge" (2001), his two Palme d'Or-winners "Ballad of Narayama" (1983) and "The Eel" (1997), to name some. Given the mood of his films, who would have thought that he once served as an assistant director to Yasujiro Ozu, Japanese cinema's most austere and minimalist filmmaker? But then, it is Ozu's rigorous formality and domesticity that Imamura was rebelling against. <br /><br />But then again, with "Black Rain" one can unmistakably sense Ozu's imprints. The father (or the father-figure) being intent on seeing his daughter get married before time runs out on both of them, and the stillness and calmness of the scenes showing all members of the family together (notably, the dinner scenes or in Ozu's film lexicon, the tatami) are something that the revered master filmmaker would perennially explore in his works ("Tokyo Story", "Late Spring"). Essentially, the over-all subdued and deliberate quality of "Black Rain" is a remarkable contrast to the bacchanalian chaos and instinctual drive of Imamura's entire filmography.<br /><br />Still, this is not to say that watching the film would not be an altogether unsettling experience. "Black Rain", as aptly described by American film reviewer Leonard Maltin, is "filled with haunting black-and-white images." In the film's first 15 minutes, Imamura pulls no punches in showing the immediate and graphic horrors of the nuclear bombing, one after another (stiffly-burnt bodies, hanging flesh, walking dead, fires and debris everywhere, madness all over). An assault to the viewers' senses, definitely it is, coupled with Takashi Kawamata's somber b/w photography (he did the lensing in Yoshitaru Nomura's crime drama "The Incident") and Toru Takemitsu's chilling score (he did the music in such classics as Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" and Masahiro Shinoda's "Double Suicide"). <br /><br />Even during the film's supposed "tranquil" phase (that is, five years after the atomic bombing), one can still never have a sense of contentment and order, with the uneasiness and pain still being strongly felt by the survivors, not only in terms of failing physical health, but more so in terms of psychological trauma and social stigma. The human race, it now indisputably appears, has been destined to bear the legacy of the Bomb, for as long as it lives. <br /><br />I already wrote a piece about "Black Rain" some years earlier (posted in IMDb.com), but only in comparison to Volker Schlondorff's magnificent "Tin Drum", another film dealing with monumental human folly and global catastrophe. Moreover, it has never been my practice to write twice about a film that I already wrote something about before. It is in the light of the recent weather calamity that devastated our country that I was prompted to re-visit and write something again about this remarkable Imamura film, as there is a wealth of lessons to be learned from both the film and the recent event in regards the imperfections and dangers of scientific knowledge and action, and the long-term scars and wounds inflicted by a wide- scale destruction (whether human- or nature-induced).<br /><br />There have been a number of films dealing with nuclear holocaust and destruction ("Testament", "Threads", "The War Game", each situated within their own respective countries);and "Black Rain" stands among them, if not more so, for both its unapologetic and somber portrayal of individual and communal disintegration brought about by atomic devastation and the fact that it has a historical event as its basis.<br /><br />Few weeks from now, another disaster film from Hollywood, Roland Emmerich's "2012", will finally hit (no pun intended) the big screen. As we all know, this American director's bunch of "disaster/apocalypse" films--"Independence Day", "Godzilla", "The Day After Tomorrow"-- serves no other purpose than to be of mere entertainment value, with no real insight into the nature and wisdom of apocalyptic disaster and the human condition being affected. I wonder how this "gigantic" movie would exploit the trauma, disorientation and apprehensions still being experienced by our people because of the recent weather calamity. To say that this flick is a precautionary tale would probably be no more than an overstatement. <br /><br />But yes, I will still watch "2012".
| 1pos
|
Valeria, an elegant and pretty young lady lives in a world surrounded by the walls of her shyness and depression. Although she may have a one-night lover or if someone lives with her, it makes no difference of being completely alone. Valeria is also a passionate woman who can take actions to approach that special man, Massimo, and at the same time the fear that allows her to answer his questions only with a "yes", "no" or "I don't know". The way to accent the loneliness of the character is magnificent. An example would be the distance of both, Massimo and Valeria taking a coffee in the same room, separated by subtle divisions and not seeing each other. I could mention several sequences, however, it is better to see the movie. It is impressive to watch that not a single detail is out of control by the director. Although all actions are performed in slow movements, no shouts are necessary not special effects, but only great acting and a touching well written story. I loved it.
| 1pos
|
I have to be honest and admit that this movie did basically nothing for me except baffle me completely. It's burdened with a plot that revolves around the mysterious murders of several young women, which then gets linked to the discovery of a body over 40 years old. The story never really seems to make much sense, especially when Robicheaux (played by Tommy Lee Jones) starts having his conversations with Confederate General John Bell Hood (I never really did figure that out.) Jones was OK in his role, although I thought he was really starting to show his age here. Horribly miscast was John Goodman as Julie "Baby Feet" Balboni, who I guess is supposed to be some sort of local mob figure. I simply didn't think Goodman worked in this role, although I'll admit that just could be because I'm not much of a John Goodman fan. Somewhere in the mix appeared Justina Machado as an FBI agent, although I never really did understand what the FBI was involved in, which could mean simply that my attention kept wandering from the screen. If it was explained, though, I missed it completely. Fortunately, this is a fairly short movie, so you won't waste too much of your life on it. 2/10
| 0neg
|
Fair drama/love story movie that focuses on the lives of blue collar people finding new life thru new love.The acting here is good but the film fails in cinematography,screenplay,directing and editing.The story/script is only average at best.This film will be enjoyed by Fonda and De Niro fans and by people who love middle age love stories where in the coartship is on a more wiser and cautious level.It would also be interesting for people who are interested on the subject matter regarding illiteracy.......
| 1pos
|
It's the early 80s. There's a group of suspiciously old-looking teens. And there's a maniac stalking around. Yes, this is slasherville.<br /><br />This movie is called Pranks. Why is it called Pranks? I haven't the faintest idea. Unless your idea of a great prank is to repeatedly hit someone's dinner with a baseball bat - on balance, not a great prank; in fact quite a rubbish prank if truth be told. But there you go.<br /><br />The film itself concerns a group of teenagers who are tasked with cleaning out a decommissioned dormitory. They become aware that a psychopath is on the loose. To combat this development, they split up and wander about in the dark. It ends in tears for most of them.<br /><br />Pranks is a badly made slasher movie. The DVD release I viewed was the Vipco one. It appears to be cut of a fair bit of violence. This makes the DVD even more pointless because, let's face it, a slasher movie shorn of violence is a waste of time. For slasher-film and video nasty completists only.
| 0neg
|
Sometimes, making something strange and contemporary doesn't always work to everyone's advantage. While I will admit that the set design and concept of the film was rather interesting, the execution of these ideas into one congruent story just didn't work. This film was so hideously slow and pointless, not even Robin Williams could save this garbage. It's obvious Barry Levinson's dream fell flat on its face, but he should have warned the rest of the world about this slop.
| 0neg
|
I gave this movie such a high mark because it was really cute, really funny, all while being unpretentious. I went to see this film when it was playing in the Philly area, and it was the centerpiece of a great night out with friends. The film is well written and well acted, and though it does feel a bit like a sitcom rather then a movie, that doesn't take away from the film. You just don't find comedies like this anymore, where you don't have to shock people to be funny. The film centers around a Ukranian housekeeper that finds herself working for a young couple in need of help. Though at first she helps, soon she adds more craziness to their lives then the couple bargained for. Things get further and further out of control until....you'll have to see! The banter had me laughing, even after leaving the theater. This film just put me in a good mood. I can't wait until it is released on DVD because I want this movie in my collection.
| 1pos
|
I´m from germany so please excuse my style of writing. As I´ve seen Chucky 4 for the first time I was a bit surprised, I knew Chucky as a usual 80s scarymovie, but Bride of Chucky was very different from the old ones. First there is the artwork of the very good director Ronny Yu, who we still have in mind from A chinese ghost story. His visual style is in a wired kinda way comparable to Francis Ford Coppola. Also the voices of Chucky an Tiff are very impressive. I´ve also liked the screenplay very much, especially the scene in which Tiff throws the Champaignbottle in the ceilingmirror.<br /><br />I give it a 9.0 vote for funny, gory and progressive entertainment. If you have any comments on my opinion, just send me an E-Mail. MFG Schawez
| 1pos
|
I must be getting old because I was riveted to this movie from the first time I saw it. I'm watching it again right now on HBO. It's a very simple film about 2 people that fall in love after they found out that there spouses were having an affair. Plot is very thin, but the actors acted very well in this movie. In the mix of Kristen Scott Thomas running for congress and Harrison Ford being an Internal Affairs cop, these two meet, under unfortunate circumstances and fall in love. I love the soundtrack. Perfect fit. One thing I can't figure out, this movie had a budget of $68 million dollars. Were was it spent? The plane crash or Harrison Ford's salary?
| 1pos
|
A young couple -- father Ben (solid Charles Bateman), wife Nicky (the lovely Ahna Capri) and their daughter KT (the cute Geri Reischl of "I Dismember Mama" fame) -- find themselves trapped in a small California desert town populated by hysterical lunatics. Worse yet, there's a pernicious Satanic cult that's been abducting little children for their own diabolical purposes. Director Bernard McEveety, working from an offbeat and inspired script by William Welch and L.Q. Jones ("Devil Times Five" director Sean MacGregor came up with the bizarre story), relates the compellingly oddball plot at a slow, yet steady pace and ably creates a creepy, edgy, mysterious ooga-booga atmosphere. Strother Martin delivers a wonderfully wicked and robust performance as Doc Duncan, who's the gleefully sinister leader of the evil sect. The top-rate cast of excellent character actors qualifies as a substantial asset: Jones as gruff, no-nonsense Sheriff Hillsboro, Alvy Moore as friendly local Toby, and Charles Robinson as a shrewd, fiercely devout priest Jack. John Arthur Morrill's bright, polished widescreen cinematography, Jamie Mendoza-Nava's spooky score, and the wild, rousing climactic black mass ritual are all likewise up to speed. The idea of having toys come to murderous life is simply ingenious (the opening scene with a toy tank coming real and crushing a family in their car is truly jolting). Nice eerily ambiguous ending, too. A pleasingly idiosyncratic and under-appreciated winner.
| 1pos
|
Most of the comments so far have nailed this one right on the head. Viewers under "a certain age" and with IQ's of three digits should avoid "Chance of a Lifetime" like a George W.Bush appointee facing a Congressional grilling.<br /><br />The cast is composed largely of veterans who know their way around a well-written script. Is the premise wildly original? No, but the movie stands out like a lighthouse at midnight in the current and non-ending glut of movies/TV geared to the most-desirable audience demographic of teenagers and "young adults"<br /><br />In addition to Betty White and Leslie Neilsen in the leads, the cast also has ever-reliable veterans like Elaine Stritch and William Windom. The sharp dialog is effortlessly and effectively delivered by these pros.<br /><br />"Chance of a Lifetime" is definitely not a movie for the Will Ferrell/Adam Sandler/"Saw" slasher gore-fests, "American Eye Dull," and ninety percent of the rest of the sludge ground out by Hollywood and TV.
| 1pos
|
H.O.T.S. is not for those that want hardcore porn. Instead, this film is a precursor to many 80s era cult-classic college/frat films like REVENGE OF THE NERDS and PORKY'S and a post-cursor to the world-renown ANIMAL HOUSE. A good time if you dig a lot of big-titted 70s/80s Playboy type chicks and cheezy slap-dick comedy - but nothing too notable if you wanna use it as whack-material...<br /><br />H.O.T.S. is an "unauthorized" sorority of sexy outcasts doing battle against the popular and trendy Pi girls. This one has pranks, an Aunt Jemima-ish house keeper, and even an over-heated robot that makes it relatively fun viewing if boobies are your "thing"...<br /><br />Well...I like tits as much (or probably more...) as the next guy - but with all the sleazy sh!t that I've seen, I couldn't help but wish for a few hardcore scenes to make this one truly worthwhile. I knew it wouldn't happen, but I still wish that H.O.T.S. had a bit more sex and a bit less cheeze. Not quite as notable as NERDS, PORKY'S, or ANIMAL HOUSE, but worth a look for fans of those types of films...7/10<br /><br />P.S... and I forgot - this one has consummate douche-rag Danny Bonaduce in probably the best role of his career outside of his "reality show"...
| 1pos
|
Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?
| 0neg
|
I found this movie immensely interesting yet a little jaded, it talks of violence and what there doing, I still don't see the point in becoming terrorists in order to stop the terrorists. We have similar people in the United States and other countries justifying the use of violence and war tactics because they think they are right. Think of the Puritans,and the Christian crusades against the Islamic people during the Medieval times. Lots of blood and death far exceeding the violence of today, the western world has had a negative impact on the religion. I do not justify their actions but western culture in the past has had a very negative effect on some. But still do remember the majority of the Islamic people are PEACEFUL! People of any nation feel some sort of patriotism but to start a war on the fact that I'm right and your wrong needs to be rethought. Again I repeat you cannot stop terrorists by becoming like them.
| 0neg
|
Extremely tense thriller set in the urban chaos of São Paulo, the biggest and ugliest third world nightmare in Brazilian urbania. For the sake of making it easy for anyone who is curious about this intriguing and truly well made film, it has the grit of Mexican feature "Amores Perros" with a character not too far off Max Cady, from both Cape Fears, although this is not, by any means, a film about a psychopath. Two partners (Alexandre Borges and Marco Ricca) in a construction company pay hitman Anisio (Miklos) to off their third partner (and majority share holder) in said construction outfit. The murder is blamed on the city, but things begin to look very grim indeed when witty and charismatic walking nightmare Anisio decides he wants to be around the ever so nervous partners in crime, not only trespassing but, more importantly, deconstructing the strict social codes that make up Brazilian society. Anisio turns poverty into an attitude and he wants in. The look is almost entirely handheld, grainy, the performances outstanding throughout, especially so as first time actor (and member of classic Brazilian pop band 'Titãs'), Paulo Miklos, dazzles and baffles the viewer with his pretty funny social terror.<br /><br />I saw the film at the Brasília film Fest in November 2001. It has since done very well in Sundance and Berlin. Kleber Mendonça Filho
| 1pos
|
Walt Disney & his 9 Old Men put their own 1950 spin on the classic fairy tale of Cinderella, which I guess you could say helps form an unofficial "fairy tale princess trilogy" from the classic Disney years.<br /><br />THE PLOT: Cinderella is a nice girl who can't catch a break. She is the daughter of a nice, wealthy widower who loved her dearly, but her mother passed away when Cinderella was very young, and Cindy's father felt she needed a mother figure, so he eventually married the woman who would become known as Lady Tremaine, herself a widow with two daughters about the same age as Cinderella, Anastasia and Drizella. At first they all seemed to get along, but then Cinderella's father died, and Lady Tremaine's true nature was revealed - she was a cold, cruel, callous, heartless, mean spirited woman, and she passed those traits on to her daughters, who were spoiled, bratty, and equally mean spirited. Anastasia & Drizella hate Cinderella because they know deep down that she's better looking and an overall nicer, more attractive lady than themselves (i.e., more appealing to men), and their mother, Lady Tremaine, hates Cindy for pretty much the same reasons. As the years passed Lady Tremaine began to squander the family fortunes in a stubborn but futile quest to improve/refine her awkward, unattractive daughters (to call them "homely" would be an insult to homely people everywhere) while all three relegated Cinderella to being the multi-tasking servant of the house, abusing her, mistreating her and humiliating her every chance they get (they are particularly fond of increasing her already absurd workload). That brings us to Cinderella in the present, where she has blossomed into a good looking young lady who somehow manages to remain kind hearted and nice despite her abusive step family and holds on to the hope that one day the tables will turn in her favor. <br /><br />Cinderella gets her shot at freedom & happiness when a royal ball is held to introduce the local prince to an eligible young maiden so that he can take her as a wife, settle down, start a family, etc. Naturally, her step family tries to keep her from attending, even going so far as to physically assault her and rip up the dress she had procured for herself (with a little help from her mice friends - the dress belonged to her biological mother). Finally pushed beyond her breaking point, Cinderella runs out into the courtyard and cries in despair. It is at that point that her Fairy Godmother, a short, plump, jolly woman, arrives and provides Cinderella with transportation and a transformed dress (after all, Cinderella wouldn't make a very good impression at the ball if she entered the scene looking like she had just gotten gang raped). Cindy arrives at the ball, the Prince falls hard for her, but that pesky midnight rule gets in the way, forcing her to flee, but leaving behind a glass slipper. Make a long story short - after a long harrowing quest to find the mystery girl via trying on the glass slipper, Cinderella is found and she and the prince get married, giving her the happy ending she deserves.<br /><br />Overall, an enjoyable Disney classic. Not without its flaws, the most glaring of which is that the Prince is little more than a MacGuffin to help push the plot along - he has very little screen time and even less dialogue, so we never get to know him very well or get a good look at his relationship with Cinderella (which is unfortunate since, according to the making of documentary, the Prince was originally meant to play a bigger role), and a few additional scenes to help flesh out Cinderella herself might have been helpful (there was a song that showed her fantasizing of turning into an army of maids to clean up the house as well as eavesdropping on her step-family post ball to show her amusement at their jealousy, which was cut because Walt himself thought it made her look spiteful). Still, Cinderella herself is a likable enough heroine, even if she is upstaged by her mice friends, and there's a sweetness to the film that is becoming harder to find these days. Of course, if this were being made now, Cinderella would probably put up more of a struggle against her family during the dress ripping scene and would probably free herself in the climax (either by picking the lock herself or making an impractical yet exciting jump down from her window) but this is beside the point.<br /><br />And for all those who say Cinderella sets a bad example for young girls, well, consider this - at least Cinderella didn't go around getting publicly drunk and indecently exposed, unlike some modern day "princesses" (you know who I mean).
| 1pos
|
I'm not sure why this little film has been banished into obscurity, as despite some rather silly goings on; The Sentinel is a clever and inventive horror film that gives most of the highly praised ghost stories of today more than a run for their money. Michael Winner has admitted many times that he's not the best director of all time, and that does shine through on a number of occasions with this film; but it has to be said that the film works in spite of it's uninspired direction, and the fact that Winner has somehow managed to round up a simply amazing cast of talent more than makes up for it. The plot is rich with mystery, and begins by focusing on Alison Parker and her hunt for a flat. She finds that she can't afford most properties she looks at, but thinks her luck has changed when she finds a fully furnished apartment for an affordable price. Her problems start soon after moving in, as she doesn't like her neighbours very much...and this problem increases when the property broker tells her that she has just one neighbour; an elderly blind priest on the top floor...<br /><br />The cast list is truly superb, with the relatively unknown Cristina Raines heading up a great support cast. Chris Sarandon is a little wooden in his role opposite Raines, but small parts for the likes of John Carradine, Eli Wallach, Ava Gardner, Jeff Goldblum and Christopher Walken, to name but a handful more than make up for Sarandon's lifeless portrayal. Michael Winner does a good job with his central location, as the block of flats provides a creepy and macabre setting for the story. The film is a little slow to start, but it's never boring; and Michael Winner's screenplay provides a surprise that's almost impossible to guess from the offset, which certainly deserves some praise. Like many similar slow-burning horrors, this one doesn't go for the money shot early on - but unlike many, the ending is a definite climax as Winner goes all out to shock the viewer, and if the rumour that he used actual human oddities is true; I've got to say that he does a very good job at it! Overall, while this film may be pure hokum whichever way you look at it; The Sentinel is one of the better films of its type, and it's definitely a major highlight for its director.
| 1pos
|
While this film might not be the next Evil Dead ( Hell who knows maybe it will, it has only been out for a year) It is worth a look. Don't expect a $10 million film. cuz you'll be disappointed. DO expect to be entertain, to laugh, and to enjoy the experience.All in all this film is MUCH better than many if not all of the low budget horror films out there. I have seen films that spent more than 10 or 20 times what this film cost to make and turned out 10000000000 times worse. The effort that was put into this film far out weighs the set backs it faces by having a limited budget. Movies are meant to entertain, and this movie sure does that. In fact this film might even open up new doors for you in movie watching. It's available on Netflix if not your local video rental store. So watch it, then decide.
| 1pos
|
I have seen films come and go in my years,and when i see a disaster film i keep hoping i wont be disappointed.And with this one i was not in the least.The story of a whole country sinking into the ocean was a great concept written by sakyo komatsu,a novelist with intense theories on where this earth is going.The characters were top notch,and even though i am not Japanese,i didn't need a translator to give the idea of how people in their most desperate needs can come together for the common good.The special effects blew me away,i was literally on the edge of my seat watching the tidal waves lava flows and land explosions that must have taken months of work to perfect.As for the acting i thought yes,this is acting at its best,emotions run rampant throughout the film and i cried at the most severe scenes.For movie goers alike,you don't need to speak or understand Japanese to watch this film,you can get the idea and feeling from each person and character to understand it well and to follow it along like you are there.My hats off to Shinji Higuchi for directing it,i hope he can outdo his work with another mind blowing experience.As i said,....Fantastic Film.
| 1pos
|
(There Are Spoilers) Usual slasher film with the story taking place in and around this God-forsaken mine outside the almost deserted town of Sutterille. After receiving a letter map and gold nugget from her brother Jared, Shadrach Smith, Clair and her husband Nick Breman, Carrie Bradac & Sean Hines, drive to the village together with four other friends and armature gold-prospectors Alx & Tori, Steve Wastell & Sangie, and Hayden & Rox Ann, Rick Majeske & Elina to stake their claim. <br /><br />It later turns out that the fact that Jared disturbed the long-forgotten gold mine caused the ghost of the notorious Jeremiah Stone, Vernon Wells, to come back to life and with that restart his reign of terror. Stone, or 49er, is about the most ridicules slasher/killer in motion picture history. Stone looks like he was buried for years under a few tons of coal runs around with this hook slicing people in two. After doing in almost the entire cast local hermit Aunt Nelly, (Karen Black), who's daughter Eve (Alexandra Ford) was also one of Stone's victims, tells those still alive that unless they return the gold back to the Stone mine the crazed miner will never rest until he kills all those who still have it.<br /><br />Aunt Nelly is given just enough time to tell her story before she's turned into a human torch by Stone and ends up jumping into a nearby stream.The movie goes on endlessly with the killer miner on the rampage looking like he's about as scary as burnt toast and just as dark. Even those in the film seemed to show no real fear of him. In one scene when he broke into Aunt Nelly's house everyone inside all charged, instead of running away, him causing the ghost miner to lose his right arm; Stone spent the rest of the movie with a miner's pick attached to his "stump". <br /><br />Besides Actress Karen Black the film "Miners Massacre" also has veteran actors John Phillip Law and Richard Lynch as the town Sheriff Murphy and Old Man Prichard. Passable stuff but nothing special the movie has a predictable ending with the entire gold mine going up in flames. The audience given a hint by the makers of "Miners Massacre" that the end to this mindless lunacy is nowhere in sight and may very well resurface in the very near future in a possible sequel, God help us all!
| 0neg
|
This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never drags.
| 1pos
|
The original title means "The Birth of the Octopuses". I must confess that I do not quite understand this title. The English title is "Water Lilies". But after having written this, I read the comment by another user: "The title in French is also suggestive: "prieuve", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously." Thanks for your explanation.<br /><br />The basic theme is the first sexual emotions of girls, when it is not clear if they are directed toward the same or the other sex. It is no different for boys. I think that both Floriane and Marie will eventually have heterosexual feelings without any admixtures.<br /><br />Much of the movie is water ballet. Sometimes the girls will have their heads downwards, and nothing above the water except their feet and lowers legs, with which they will wave and kick in the air. To people like me who had never seen such things before, it was fascinating. - Floriane is the leader of one team of "water lilies". <br /><br />Marie tells her that she would like to see when Floriane is training. This seems to be their first contact that is not just ordinary. Soon they will walk together. Floriane takes Marie to a garage where a boy is waiting for her, and then goes away with him for an hour, while Marie is waiting for her to return. I took for granted that the couple slept with each other. But we will later learn from the movie that they do less than that. <br /><br />I can supply some information which few users will find elsewhere. There is a scene in which Marie secretly steals Floriane's garbage bag. In it she finds an apple, mostly eaten. And Marie proceeds to eat the rest. There is a parallel scene in another movie, "Kazetachi no gogo" (Afternoon Breezes) by Hitoshi Yazaki (Japan, 1980). This is about adult young females, and a clearly Lesbian woman is vainly in love with a heterosexual woman. She also steals a garbage bag of the beloved, and also finds a more or less eaten apple and eats the rest. <br /><br />Later Floriane tells Marie that she would like to have her first orgasm from her. Marie says she cannot do this. <br /><br />But still later Marie says that she is indeed willing to do it. And she masturbates on Floriane. There is no nudity in this scene. <br /><br />Probably only a female director could have made such a fine psychological show or study of I would like to quote Baudelaire, "Les amours enfantines".<br /><br />Floriane is played by Adèle Haenel, who made the excellent performance as the autistic girl in "The Little Devils" by Christophe Ruggia (2002) a very underrated movie.
| 1pos
|
Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.<br /><br />Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.<br /><br />Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.<br /><br />Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.<br /><br />Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.<br /><br />See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.
| 1pos
|
This is by far the WORST movie I have ever seen. I was going in expecting a cheesy movie but at least with some cool car scenes/races. What I got was nothing. The racing scene are so low budget they sped them up to make it look like the cars are "going fast" In one scene a Mercedes SLR goes from over 200 to 0 in like 4 seconds by just spinning around in circles. Its just ridiculous.<br /><br />If you wanna see a real movie about cars, see the fast and the furious series. They may be a little cheesy, but 100x better than this movie could ever hope to be. Better yet just watch Mischief 3000, the best car movie ever made I think.
| 0neg
|
Kept my attention from start to finish. Great performances added to this tremendous film. Mr. Pacino once again gives us another brilliant character to enjoy.
| 1pos
|
I was attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck. <br /><br />Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be "exert as little effort as possible at all times". Or "why speak when you can mutter?" Or maybe "put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.
| 0neg
|
This Drummond entry is lacking in continuity. Most of them have their elements of silliness, the postponed wedding, and so on. However, this has an endless series of events occurring in near darkness as the characters run from one place to another. The house seems more like a city. There's also Leo G. Carrol who is such an obvious suspect who no-one seems to even look at. He is a stranger and acts rather suspicious, but Drummond and the folks don't seem to pick up on anything. Still, it as reasonably good action and a pretty good ending.<br /><br />I know that Algie is supposed to be a comic figure, but like Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes flicks, he is so buffoonish that it's hard to imagine anyone with taste or intelligence being around him. Is there a history behind him that will explain how he and Drummond became associates?
| 0neg
|
Standard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Rånarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.<br /><br />Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient "military-styled" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.<br /><br />As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).<br /><br />In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make "Hollywood-action light" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.
| 0neg
|
I, for one, absolutely loved this movie.<br /><br />It is not a "typical Asian horror" where you would see a gruesome looking ghost (usually a woman) that is going around scaring people. You barely see any ghosts for a majority of the film, but the way this movie keeps you interested in the plot and characters is genius. This is not the movie for you if you're into gore (e.g. Saw, Hostel) or "surprise scares" where stuff pops out at you (Hollywood horror, slasher films), but this movie has an underlying "creepy" factor throughout the entire movie which I loved. Noroi is a progressive and somewhat experimental approach to horror amongst the ridiculous remakes and unoriginal crap being released by Hollywood in today's society.<br /><br />Please don't let the documentary-style of filming turn you off (why should it?!). It is far superior to the Blair Witch Project because, for one, the acting in Noroi is brilliant and it really makes you really feel like you're watching something you're not supposed to be seeing.<br /><br />Noroi is definitely one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. Only a few films have made it into my Top 5 horror; and this movie holds a solid #1 spot on my list.
| 1pos
|
Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!<br /><br />Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.<br /><br />I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10
| 0neg
|
I have always been a huge fan of "Homicide: Life On The Street" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.<br /><br />Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show.
| 1pos
|
I have very fond memories of this film, as I saw it with my two younger sisters when it first shown theatrically in 1977 and I was eight years old. Apparently it was deemed a failure - and is now practically forgotten (the pan-and scan videocassette - which never did justice to the picture or it's ambitious Panavision compositions is now out-of -print.) The film is very stylized (shades of YELLOW SUBMARINE) and admittedly uneven. Some of the characters and sequences are exquisite while others are somewhat juvenile and undistinguished. The sad discarded blue camel (shades of Eeyore) and his blue song are truly heartwarming. Joe Raposo's songs are for the most part simply beautiful. Definitely a worthwhile curiousity that will probably (sadly) fall into total obscurity.
| 1pos
|
Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.<br /><br />Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.<br /><br />Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.<br /><br />The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work. <br /><br />Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.<br /><br />This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film. <br /><br />What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.
| 0neg
|
Victor Nunez imbues this unsentimental tale of a young woman's emotional journey with a sense of poetry seldom seen in cinema. By poetry I mean the sense in which the literary and the cinematic come into play. There is something very literary about the film, almost as if a novel has been adapted page by page to screen. In this sense, the film achieves depths many cannot; but it is also rather slow at other times, undercutting the depths it once achieved in favor of ennui. The film's star Ashley Judd has not yet made a better film than her debut here. She fits the role of lead Ruby like a glove, almost as if she didn't have to act. She has true movie star presence in the film, and hasn't really managed to convey the same allure in her later films, although she was impressive in Normal Life.
| 1pos
|
A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels.
| 1pos
|
In all this dogma fuzz, please note that this is the Danish masterpiece of the 20th century. The humour, the fate, the sorrow is so clean - so simple - so touching.<br /><br />This movie is a masterpiece. Go see it. There's nothing more to say.
| 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.