text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I give this movie 7 out of 10 because the villains were interesting in their roles and the unknown batwoman creates an interesting "guess who" game. The movie, however, needs more Robin in it. He appeared in the movie in the beginning and sporadically throughout the rest. I always thought the new animated series did little justice to the neat new Robin character, let alone Knightwing. This movie just continues that bad tradition. The movie spends too much time on Bruce Wayne and his romance which wouldn't be so bad in one movie if the romance wasn't so unbelievable. It is still a good movie if you are a Batman fan and I would recommend watching it.
| 1pos
|
I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!<br /><br />This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the "romance" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his "death", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation.
| 0neg
|
My take on this, at our local festival where people would see me so often they thought me a better source than I may actually have been, began with a head shake: "Well, I can't summarize the plot, but it's a really superb character study of an extremely scary man." Then, slight embarrassment, I ran into someone who actually knew what had gone down, that is, from whom Trebor unwittingly gets his new heart. It'd been my last film in a long, long day halfway through the festival. Maybe I'd dozed. The better a film is the more likely it triggers daydreams that send me really dreaming. Don't know. Did know there was an O'Henry twist achingly just beyond my ken as things finished. And knew it had to do with the heart, hence the quietly hilarious talent search. My plot-loss remark had more to do with intricacies of Trebor's connections in France, his relation to the dog woman and so on, stuff I'd been wide awake for. Denis barely glances at details that might have anchored another director's treatment.<br /><br />But I write these things too often from memory, especially festival films, films whose DVD I don't have at hand (Le Lait de la tendresse humaine is one of many examples.), and plot kinks fade much more quickly than broader impressions. Still, or already, L'Inrus in my memory is beyond all else a character study of a sort of dark-side superman, a super fiend not ensconced in genre or historical trappings but active and plausible, relatively soft-spoken, driven but patient, right among us. The scar, once he attains it, makes him, just visually I mean, in image, a sort of hybrid Frankenstein monster, mad doctor and creation all in one. The actual doctors are his tools. If he doesn't extract and install the heart himself, it's only because it's not possible. He's the force, always, the parasite consuming everyone he touches and finally himself. What else is he? To suggest that he's us, the First World versus the Third, seems too simple since he feeds no less on his fellow First Worlders, on all of us.<br /><br />Denis's camera's eye - when it looks at things I know - goes usually where mine would, so I tend to trust her when she looks at things I don't know. Snow trekking, too-fast bicycling, and forest darkness I've known in small ways, but the South Seas not at all, so I made better entry into L'Intrus, both France and the crystalline isles of its finish, than into Beau Travail. L'Intrus is, for me, a very comfortable discomforting film. It's a sequence of places portrayed familiarly, with a intimacy that allows us to know them whether we've seen the reality or not. A single image, Trebor cycling, his massive weight on the thin racing frame, the sounds of violated air and shrieking tires, the asphalt ribbon, the dark-in-bright-sun evergreens, cued me that the film would be linear, a road trip, a single will-driven thrust.<br /><br />Despite Trebor's personal power, he's a human failure. No matter who he's with, he's alone, though apparently he hasn't always been. His body aborts life twice, first to need the new heart, then despite it. L'Intrus is tragedy. Trebor is hubris.<br /><br />I'm navigating perilously the thread of what I remember. Let's leave it at that.
| 1pos
|
Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the "gothic" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly "ham" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.
| 0neg
|
I don't even know where to begin on this one. "It's all about the family." That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a "horror" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER.
| 0neg
|
This is the worst thing the TMNT franchise has ever spawned. I was a kid when this came out and I still thought it was deuce, even though I liked the original cartoon.<br /><br />There's this one scene I remember when the mafia ape guy explains to his minions what rhetorical questions are. It's atrocious. Many fans hate on the series for including a female turtle, but that didn't bother me. So much so that I didn't even remember her until I read about the show recently. All in all, it's miserably forgettable.<br /><br />The only okay thing was the theme song. Guilty pleasure, they call it... Nananana ninja...
| 0neg
|
I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy it.<br /><br />I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian features.<br /><br />It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious. Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him.<br /><br />But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to soften my jabs. <br /><br />Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clichés, predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes away from the entertainment value.<br /><br />I had a bad feeling that the pace would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce audiences to this under-appreciated group.<br /><br />Do you have what it takes to be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion, hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision of who lives and who dies.<br /><br />Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education? <br /><br />Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its paying customers.<br /><br />THE GIST <br /><br />Moviegoers wanting an inside look at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I would've felt I had gotten my money's worth.
| 1pos
|
I decided I need to lengthen up my review for my all time favorite film. Unlike other war films that focus on the event, Apocalypse Now takes the viewer into a psychological head trip. The sheer surrealism makes the body uncomfortable, yet you can't lay your eyes off of it. Based off of Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness, Apocalypse Now slowly descends its protagonist, Willard (Martin Sheen) into madness, most likely the same way Kurtz plunged into insanity. The production of this film is notorious for its delays provided by the monsoon season and for Brando's unprepared performance (he read his lines from cue cards). There is a documentary titled Apocalypse Now: A filmmakers Apocalypse which shows the hell everyone went through in making this.<br /><br />The opening sequence is one of the most famous and popular in any film. As the blade of the helicopters are heard in slow motion and napalm is dropped in the trees, the song "The End" by the Doors can be heard. The next shot is of Willard in his bed with the fan on, so the noise of the helicopter coincides with the fan. We are informed that he does special missions for the military, mostly assassinations. When his next mission is given to him, he is baffled. "Charging a man with murder here is like giving a speeding ticket in the Indy 500." The man he has to kill was a respected colonel that has gone insane and isolated himself along with tribes people. Kurtz is ordering atrocious acts that are carried out by these people and he must me stopped. Willard does not go alone however. He is carried on a boat with several soldiers and they come across several battles. Along the way, they meet Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "Hoorah" about the war. Willard ponders that if Kilgore is that crazy, what could Kurtz be like. There are many scenes that portray Willards plunge into insanity: The tiger attack, the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese, the nonstop rain, the piled dead bodies scattered about, and the deaths of his crew members. When he reaches the Kurtz compound, he is greeted by the village people and a hippie photojournalist (Dennis Hopper). Instead of assassinating Kurtz right away, Willard begins talking with him and his conscience begins to doubt what he should do. Kurtz, on the other hand wants to die. He is tired of the war and wants to go down as a soldier. Willard kills him with a machete while in unison, a buffalo is sacrificed with several machetes by the people. Once they realize their leader has been slain, instead of killing Willard, they hail him as their new king. Willard rejects the offer and leaves them.<br /><br />The cinematography here is absolutely breathtaking. The colors are grain free, something that is rare in older movies. I can watch it muted and admire the beauty of the scenery.<br /><br />The acting ensemble is terrific, with everyone playing their parts well. Many criticize Brando for some reason, but I think he nails his role as a depressed lunatic who is beaten up by the war.<br /><br />The soundtrack and the score are haunting, and provide the mood for the film. I am wondering what instrument they used in that guitar-like sound when the credits roll? There have been many parodies of this film, but my favorite quote comes from Marge Simpson when she explains to Homer why a character with the same name on a police show is behaving like an idiot: "Your character provides comic relief for the show, like um, Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now." Those who have seen the movie know why this is hilarious.
| 1pos
|
Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(
| 0neg
|
I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.<br /><br />The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.<br /><br />But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.<br /><br />There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.<br /><br />Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.<br /><br />I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.
| 0neg
|
Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different "locations" If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off.
| 0neg
|
This film offers many delights and surprises. When Achille and Philippa beautifully sing a duet from "Don Giovanni" that perfectly describes their situation in the movie, you appreciate the subtle layers of this excellent film. The story unfolds in 18th century Jutland and the use of period music played on period instruments is just one more fine touch. You share General Loewenhielm's exquisite joy in his partaking of the Cailles en Sarcophage even though you are just watching a movie - but you do wish for just a small sample to savor.<br /><br />Babette is an artist whose medium is food. Perhaps no other art form allows the artist to share her creations so directly.<br /><br />The main theme of this movie, the potential that the sharing of food has to transform how people see each other and how they see the world, is much the same as the theme of "Chololat," but "Babette's Feast" does not hit you over the head with its message. The townspeople are conservative puritans, but not exaggeratedly oppressive. You come to understand and respect them and ultimately to appreciate their humanity. <br /><br />Many issues are raised for you to reflect on: the nature of art, the contemplation of paths taken and paths not taken, the relationship between the spiritual and the physical, the effect of environment on behavior, the taking of life to give life, among others.<br /><br />The only disappointment for me was General Loewenhielm's speech delivered at the climax of the meal. I expected deep heartfelt observations, but I got some vague mystical ramblings. The speech had such a minimal impact that I hardly remember it.<br /><br />But this understated film leaves a lasting impression. The warmth it generates is in contrast to its austere backdrop. You will leave the theater wanting to go out and dance under the stars.
| 1pos
|
The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.
| 0neg
|
I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.<br /><br />But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.<br /><br />The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.<br /><br />I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.<br /><br />Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. "Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys," he tells the head. "Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?" he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.<br /><br />I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.<br /><br />There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an "implausibility," since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom! <br /><br />A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, "Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view." Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.<br /><br />Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.<br /><br />These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.<br /><br />Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here.
| 0neg
|
I still count "Police Squad!" as the absolute funniest TV show of the 1980s. Somewhere, on BetaMax no less, I have all six episodes. I knew that a show this good wouldn't last and that I had to preserve it for myself. How stupid was ABC? They were quoted as saying that viewers didn't know that "Police Squad!" was a comedy because it had no laugh track! Right! When Drebin has a line like "You take chances just getting up in the morning, driving to work, or sticking your face in a fan.", how can THAT be comedy!?!? I've seen every episode at least ten times and still see something new I missed before. Even the deep backgrounds always have gags ongoing. Don't miss it if you have chance to see an episode, but if you're reading this then you probably already have copies squirreled away someplace as I do.
| 1pos
|
This film holds 7.0 rating on IMDb, so even I sensed something rotten in it's synopsis I decided to try it out. What a waste of 100 minutes. First of all, the 80's were not a good decade for crime and thriller genre. Most of these, in those days were badly done with silly plot (if they had any), so there are very few that can stand out, and even if they were good they are still not very good. The Hit, however suffers from everything that made silly crime pictures silly. It has poor character development, improbable plot and wasn't written or directed in a decent manner, and when you have such shortcomings the acting doesn't help. Stephen Frears often tried to emulate French new wave in English style film making and the two don't match.<br /><br />First of all Terence Stamp is 10 years in hiding because he testified against some of his former partners in crime. He hides in Spain, of all places. He is finally caught up with, and than first kidnapped by a group of silly looking Spanish thugs, just do be driven away some distance to the two hit man that are supposed to deal with him. These two are John Hurt, who is supposed to be hard boiled, stone cold killer, and Tim Roth (in his first role) as the devil's apprentice. They don't kill Stamp right away, they first dispose of the "three Amigos", they shouldn't have hired in the first place, and then, they are driving Stamp to Paris, because one of the buddies he testified against wants to confront him. OK that's possible. But even with Stamp being such a dangerous figure that they had to hire four guys to overpower him, they don't tie him down, don't incapacitate him in any way, and drive around with him, like he's one of the buddies. Stamp doesn't object and is happily going to Paris to be shot, not using any of a half a dozen chances, these "professionals" offer for him to escape. Than it appears that Tim Roth is just a school boy bully, making the idea of big crime boss teaming him up with a hard core hit man like John Hurt, even more improbable, especially on an important job like that. But than John Hurt is not so hard core himself, he spends twenty minutes of the movie, killing or not killing the totally surplus Australian, played by Bill Hunter, whose only purpose in this film is to introduce the lovely Laura Del Sol, his mistress (who he says is 15, but she looks more like 25), and whose role in the story and acting capabilities suggest that she was offered the role, solely on the basis of being the director's or producer's mistress at the time. After much deliberation, Hurt kills the Australian but takes along his mistress for no apparent reason. Than he wants to kill her but Roth with his "subtle ways" convince him not to, so even she kicks him, bites him and scratches him through the entire movie, he stays true to that deeply buried human side of him.<br /><br />Than you have plain idiotic scenes, like when Hurt and Roth lock the car from the outside, trying to prevent the people inside from getting out?!?! Anyway the movie drags on. Tim Roth falls asleep, guarding Terence Stamp with his gun on his chest, and Stamp just waits there watching the waterfall. Than the whole shamble of a plot comes to the point where everything we've seen in the last hour and 20 minutes just goes out through the window. Let's recapitulate, the whole point in not killing Stamp right away (except for having a movie) is to take him to Paris, so his former partner is to have a last word with him. And the whole point in him not running away is that he is prepared to die, saying "It's just a moment. We're here. Then we're not here. We're somewhere else... maybe. And it's as natural as breathing. Why should we be scared?" But my friends, here is where the plot twists, Hurt kills the man while still in Spain, and we ask why bother and drive around for days, he could have done it in the first 15 minutes, and than contrary to his philosophy Stamp is very afraid of being killed, so we ask again why didn't he run, and he had plenty chance. Roth gets killed too, but he shouldn't be in the movie at all, and Del Sol, well she's promised a role in this film purely for romantic (read sexual) reasons, so she stays alive again, even she attacked Hurt for the 15th time in the movie. He killed all the others, but not her, she must have maximum screen appearance. The movie was made on a shoe string budget and it shows, but when you have no story and card board characterizations, it shows even more.And yes Fernando Ray appears and goes through the movie as the guest star, having a single audible line of dialog. Awful
| 0neg
|
the intention the directors has for this films are quite honorable, but his history of his productions did get me aware that this might not get much to the core like other film makers would do it. keeping his great 30 days TV series in mind but also counting in his MTV production "i bet you will" that opposes his seriousness in any of the matters he documents and also counting in his rather disappointing production "supersize me" i did not had my hopes up high. sadly enough this movie disappointed me none the less. as with "supersize me" after a while i did ask myself what exactly the point of all this was. the main statement gets clear enough after half an hour but the rest of the playtime gets filled with rather pointless stuff and re-repeating stuff that were already shown in this way or another earlier in the movie, so it wears out and gets extremely boring towards the end.
| 0neg
|
Granting the budget and time constraints of serial production, BATMAN AND ROBIN nonetheless earns a place near the bottom of any "cliffhanger" list, utterly lacking the style, imagination, and atmosphere of its 1943 predecessor, BATMAN.<br /><br />The producer, Sam Katzman, was known as "King of the Quickies" and, like his director, Spencer Bennett, seemed more concerned with speed and efficiency than with generating excitement. (Unfortunately, this team also produced the two Superman serials, starring Kirk Alyn, with their tacky flying animation, canned music, and dull supporting players.) The opening of each chapter offers a taste of things to come: thoroughly inane titles ("Robin Rescues Batman," "Batman vs Wizard"), mechanical music droning on, and our two heroes stumbling toward the camera looking all around, either confused or having trouble seeing through their cheap Halloween masks. Batman's cowl, with its devil's horns and eagle's beak, fits so poorly that the stuntman has to adjust it during the fight scenes. His "utility belt" is a crumpled strip of cloth with no compartments, from which he still manages to pull a blowtorch and an oxygen tube at critical moments!<br /><br />In any case, the lead players are miscast. Robert Lowery displays little charm or individual flair as Bruce Wayne, and does not cut a particularly dynamic figure as Batman. He creates the impression that he'd rather be somewhere, anywhere else! John Duncan, as Robin, has considerable difficulty handling his limited dialogue. He is too old for the part, with an even older stuntman filling in for him. Out of costume, Lowery and Duncan are as exciting as tired businessmen ambling out for a drink, without one ounce of the chemistry evident between Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft in the 1943 serial.<br /><br />Although serials were not known for character development, the earlier BATMAN managed to present a more energetic cast. This one offers a group going through the motions, not that the filmmakers provide much support. Not one of the hoodlums stands out, and they are led by one of the most boring villains ever, "The Wizard." (Great name!) Actually, they are led by someone sporting a curtain, a shawl, and a sack over his head, with a dubbed voice that desperately tries to sound menacing. The "prime suspects" -- an eccentric professor, a radio broadcaster -- are simply annoying.<br /><br />Even the established comic book "regulars" are superfluous. It is hard to discern much romance between Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne. Despite the perils she faces, Vicki displays virtually no emotion. Commissioner Gordon is none-too-bright. Unlike in the previous serial, Alfred the butler is a mere walk-on whose most important line is "Mr Wayne's residence." They are props for a drawn-out, gimmick-laden, incoherent plot, further saddled with uninspired, repetitive music and amateurish production design. The Wayne Manor exterior resembles a suburban middle-class home in any sitcom, the interiors those of a cheap roadside motel. The Batcave is an office desperately in need of refurbishing. (The costumes are kept rolled up in a filing cabinet!)<br /><br />Pity that the filmmakers couldn't invest more effort into creating a thrilling adventure. While the availability of the two serials on DVD is a plus for any serious "Batfan," one should not be fooled by the excellent illustrations on the box. They capture more of the authentic mood of the comic book than all 15 chapters of BATMAN AND ROBIN combined.<br /><br />Now for the good news -- this is not the 1997 version!
| 0neg
|
Why isn't this movie on the bottom 100? Raptor is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have seen in all of my fifteen years of life. I have never before witnessed such a catastrophic mess as this. Absolutely everything about it is awkward and cheaply done.<br /><br />Nobody in the cast gives a somewhat decent performance. The dialogue is utterly incoherent and the humor is anything but humorous. Corbin Bernsen was the most painful part of the whole thing. I can't help cringe when I recall some of his lines, like "In or out? You're worse than a cat!" and "Your lady friend isn't a very good poker player. She's just revealed her hand."<br /><br />The raptors are a joke. Even I could make more realistic dinosaur effects than these filmmakers have shamelessly done. It is an insult to the actual velociraptors, or any dinosaur for that matter. Not only that, but the killing scenes are too gruesome even for me. I don't seriously think these animals would rip their victim to shreds and throw pieces all over the ground just to make everything look gorier. Besides, the blood and guts are all useless when you can see the deaths coming from miles and miles away.<br /><br />I am a big fan of Jurassic Park movies and of dinosaurs. Maybe the filmmakers didn't anticipate anybody with a shred of intelligence or sense to disregard bad filmmaking to stumble upon this movie on HBO late at night, like I did. If I could say one thing to anybody involved in this film, I would have to quote Dr. Alan Grant from the first Jurassic Park...<br /><br />"Just try to show a little respect."
| 0neg
|
I'd chose either over this film. This film has been in my "must see" list for a while because people talked about it being "disturbing" and also the VHS box contains lots and lots of quotes from people saying how "amazing" it is, or how "as close as you can get to texas chainsaw massacre" and lines like that. But, sorry folks, I was disappointed big time. The idea is interesting, but the script is SO underdeveloped that each character becomes a mistaken creation of evolution and people do indeed to the dumbest films in the film.<br /><br />That, in turn, takes away any credibility that the plot may have otherwise had. I couldn't believe how unnecessarily loooooong some "where is he, let's find him" sequences were. A few gory moments to please the gore fan, but they are so few that by the time we get to them there's no point. If Luther's a geek, then the filmmakers must really be down on the food chain.
| 0neg
|
Watched both parts twice. Enjoyed the story and enjoyed seeing an older Patrick Swayze as the hero. He was very believable as the hunter Alan Quartermaine and certainly bested the performance of Richard Chamberlain. I do admit that I would have preferred seeing someone else as the "Lady in Distress". Alison Doody should stick with modern and not period pieces. She didn't have the look of the woman of the 1800's. The rest of the cast were terrific and followed the plotlines very well. I am glad to see that the actors of this generation are not afraid to try on different characters and are not afraid to be seen as getting older. Age is inevitable, but let's not hide from it. A man at 50+ can be much sexier (and , Patrick truly is sexy) then a green youth, no matter how pretty. Hoorah for character lines to go along with a great smile.
| 1pos
|
This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.<br /><br />But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.<br /><br />If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell.
| 0neg
|
This movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--"10 years of going nowhere". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.<br /><br />It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.<br /><br />But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.<br /><br />Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.<br /><br />Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.<br /><br />But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.<br /><br />This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored.
| 0neg
|
Mario Van Peebles tries to go the Jean-Claude Van Damme route and play a renegade robotic soldier who goes AWOL to preserve himself, however the government isn't going to take this lying down, so among the simplistic plot Van Peebles protects villagers from the rebel forces and defeats a improved version of himself in this disappointing film. This blatant rip off of Universal Soldier (Which is far more fun then this) simply goes nowhere. The main problem is that the movie is so unbelievably inert. Van Peebles just waits around and there just isn't enough ass-kicking to justify a viewing. On the other hand the movie does sort of resemble a competent version of R.O.T.O.R although where as that abysmal bad movie was hilarious, this one only yields occasional laughter in its laughably unconvincing action sequences. Also like R.O.T.O.R it makes no sense in its narrative and basically the movie is awesomely boring. Plus the villains are disappointingly weak and basically the movie needs an actual action scenario to work, because the material is too dull. In all regards Solo is a very weak film.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
| 0neg
|
What a shame that some good talent was wasted. This is a tedious and overly self-conscious movie, that could tell its story in half the time. Is that Derek Jacobi under that beard doing two roles? Gosh, who would have guessed.<br /><br />The emotional payoff a the end was weak and unsatisfying. Certainly not worth enduring the padded length of the movie for. I felt quite let down.<br /><br />The sound was dreadful. First, they used stock music. Second, it was so loud during some of the dialog, that the words were hard to make out. Only three sound crew, and a trainee? There were more people listed in the credits for either the accounting or the legal.<br /><br />Some of the camera work was quite good though, and the actors did a good job with a mediocre script.<br /><br />Not a good use of viewing time, at least for me.
| 0neg
|
This film is based on the novel by John Fante. Could someone please tell me why? I see absolutely no reason why this fine book should be adapted in this way. If you want to make a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek, then how could you possibly make a connection to Ask The Dust (the novel)? -And if you wanted to make this story into a film, then why would you want to make it into a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek? I don't get it.<br /><br />The adaptation of the story is poorly made, and if you have read the book and liked it, I'm almost sure you won't like what Towne did with it. <br /><br />In the beginning of the film you'll maybe find the casting odd, the acting bad and the cinematography just a bit overdone. But you hope for the best. I really hoped a lot during this film. I actually wanted it to be good. But it only gets worse, and it is as simple as that: Whether you read Fantes novel or not, this is not a good film. Just another romantic melodramatic Hollywood production combined with bad acting, lack of structure and - of course - plenty of shots of Colin Farells naked butt.<br /><br />I could complain a lot more about this film, but why waste my time. I've seen it. Alright. I had to see it, because I like the book so much and was curious. And I'm very disappointed.<br /><br />1/10 is for Colin's sweet little mustache in the end of the film. So sweet... Had he worn it the whole time through, I'd given it 2/10.
| 0neg
|
The Man with Bogart's Face sets it self up to mine the viewers nostalgia for the late 30's-late 40's film era. It fails miserably for several reasons. First, Sacchi, while looking reasonably like Bogart and even speaking like him on occassion and using his mannerisms, completely lacks any of Bogart's charisma or acting ability. This is really apparent whenever Sacchi is not clearly imitating a scene from one of Bogart's films. Second, the film does not have the first rate character actors Bogart was able to work with. There are no Peter Lorre's or Sydney Greenstreet's in this one, folks. Sure we are treated to performances by Victor Buaeno, Olivia Hussey and George Raft amongst others, but they just aren't of the same caliber (or aren't given enough screen time or are miscast). Third, the attempts at "modern" humor all fall through. All of the underwear jokes, having Marlowe almost *never* remove that damn hat and trench coat (even though Bogart would have), etc. just aren't funny and really pull down this film. Fourth, I've never heard a goofier theme song this side of Mitchell. Finally, the film's false reverence for Bogart (and other classic actors work) is truly irritating. Bogart almost *never* played a straight hero, on those occasions he was a hero. He played complicated characters. This movie makes Bogart out to be a trigger-happy, moralistic do-gooder. While this may have been true about some film characters, Bogart's characters rarely fit that bill. It's movies like this that make people unexposed to the cinema of the past think that all of it is hokey, "good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl" crap with low production values.
| 0neg
|
Stage adaptations often have a major fault. They often come out looking like a film camera was simply placed on the stage (Such as "Night Mother"). Sidney Lumet's direction keeps the film alive, which is especially difficult since the picture offered him no real challenge. Still, it's nice to look at for what it is. The chemistry between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve is quite brilliant. The dynamics of their relationship are surprising. Caine is fantastic as always, and Reeve gets one of his few chances to really act.<br /><br />I confess that I've never seen Ira Levin's play, but I hear that Jay Presson Allen's adaptation is faithful. The script is incredibly convoluted, and keeps you guessing. "Deathtrap" is an enormously entertaining film, and is recommended for nearly all fans of stage and screen.<br /><br />7.4 out of 10
| 1pos
|
Mardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen.
| 1pos
|
I remember trying a few minutes of this film, I'm very surprised I didn't watch all of it, from director Steve Gordon, his only film directed before dying of heart failure. Basically Arthur Bach (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Dudley Moore) is the happy drunk millionaire with everything he could want, a mansion, a butler Hobson (Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Sir John Gielgud), and plenty of booze. He is to inherit $750,000,000 if he marries the daughter of fellow millionaire Burt Johnson (Stephen Elliott), they woman he and the family have chosen, Susan (Jill Eikenberry). But instead, Arthur finds himself falling for Queens waitress Linda Marolla (Golden Globe nominated Liza Minnelli), which of course is threatening the inheritance, and 3/4 of his family's fortune from father Stanford (Thomas Barbour) and Aunt Martha (Geraldine Fitzgerald). After the death of Hobson, Arthur, on the day of the wedding, disobeys the family's wishes, but Aunt Martha still gives Arthur the inheritance to live happily ever after with true love Linda. Also starring Ted Ross as Bitterman, Barney Martin as Ralph Marolla, Anne De Salvo as Gloria - Hooker, Maurice Copeland as Uncle Peter Bach, Justine Johnston as Aunt Pearl Bach, Florence Tarlow as Mrs. Nesbitt, Marcella Lowery as Harriet - Martha's Maid, John Bentley as Perry and Peter Evans as Preston Langley - Party Guest. Moore is wonderfully funny and a little cringing as the almost always drunk millionaire, Minnelli is likable as the woman he loves, and Gielgud of course makes a great Oscar winning impression as Moore's humorous humble sarcastic servant, a terrific screwball comedy. It won the Oscar for Best Song for "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" (it also won the Golden Globe) (it was number 79 on 100 Years, 100 Songs), and it was nominated Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, it was nominated the BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Burt Bacharach, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical. Sir John Gielgud was number 35 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, and the film was number 53 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!
| 1pos
|
One of the major aspects of "Malenkaya Vera" (called "Little Vera" in English) is that it was the first movie from the Soviet Union that featured a sex scene, albeit a short one. The title is important: Vera is the Russian word for "faith", identifying that punk Vera (Natalya Negoda) has little faith in the Soviet system. And as the movie shows, there's not much faith to be had in it. The opening scene shows the bleak industrial town of Zhdanov, nearly a hell on earth. When Vera's lover Sergei (Andrey Sokolov) moves in with her family, it leads to some unexpected events.<br /><br />Like in many Russian movies, people's names describe their characters. For example, there's Viktor (remember that "victor" means winner). All in all, this is a good look at the Soviet Union while it was collapsing - and we can see why it was collapsing. Really good.
| 1pos
|
(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.<br /><br />A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.<br /><br />I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.<br /><br />I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.<br /><br />Overall an artistic disappointment.<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP.
| 1pos
|
I agree with the user "SpecialAgentFoxMulder" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.<br /><br />I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.<br /><br />There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx
| 0neg
|
Another great Tom Wilkinson performance punctuates "Separate Lies," a 2005 film also starring Emily Watson, Linda Bassett and Rupert Everett. Directed by Julian Fellowes, it's the story of a married couple, James and Ann Manning where the husband (Wilkinson) believes he and his wife (Watson) are happy together. An accident near their house on the night they have a party brings the police around. It is a hit and run that killed their maid Maggie's Bassett) husband. James becomes suspicious of a neighbor, Bill Bule (Everett) when he sees some damage on his car. He confronts Bule, who admits he did it and promises to go to the police the next day. When James arrives home, Ann is angry that he is making such a big deal out of it and states that she was driving the car. Of course, James then isn't so eager to rush to the police. She suggests that they call Bule and tell him their decision. "Oh, f___ Bule," James says. "Well, that's just it," Ann says. "I am f___ing Bule." James' devastation is just the beginning in this well-crafted drama. Without giving the plot away, this is a good example of how gender switching changes a story. Example of what I mean: Susan Smith drives her car into a lake and her children drown. She gets life in prison. What if the father had done it? The chair. You'd be surprised how often the outcome would be different. The same is true here - if it had been James having the affair and doing the subsequent activities, viewers might feel differently about the story. If Ann were in James' place, it would be shattering. As it is, it's tremendously sad.<br /><br />Tom Wilkinson is heartbreaking as a man blindsided by the woman he adores, and Emily Watson does a beautiful job as Ann, who, once she frees herself from her lies - her involvement in the accident and the happy marriage - knows what she has to do. Rupert Everett as Bule is very effective - indolent, uppity and ultimately in need. Everyone here is very civilized in their dealings with one another, and no one is all good or all bad.<br /><br />There are separate lies - James that his marriage is happy, Ann's as listed above - and there is one uniting lie - the accident, about which all parties keep quiet. It's enough for Ann that Maggie knows. In the end, all must deal with the separate lies that the single lie uncovered.<br /><br />Brilliant film.
| 1pos
|
The Squire of Gothos is one of the "sillier" episodes of Star Trek, and therefore one of the most entertaining ones. The entertainment factor is, generally speaking, fueled by the stand-off between William Shatner and the episode's hilarious guest star, William Campbell.<br /><br />During an unspecified routine mission, Sulu suddenly vanishes into thin air, and Kirk follows soon after-wards. Spock immediately begins looking for his missing colleagues (and, though he'd hate to admit it, friends), while the two stranded crewmen must deal with the mysterious, all-powerful, flamboyant Trelane (Campbell), the self-proclaimed Squire of Gothos, a being capable of creating or destroying anything he wants through the sheer power of his mind.<br /><br />At first sight, the plot may seem recycled from previous episodes (honestly, are there any sci-fi shows that didn't feature at least one God-like character), but that feeling vanishes pretty quickly thanks to the script's winning use of exaggerated humor, all conveyed through Campbell's deliberately camp performance: his Trelane is essentially the Trek version of a spoiled child in the body of an adult, while his ignorance-fueled curiosity for the human race (his knowledge is quite limited) probably served as inspiration for Gene Roddenberry when he came up with the character of Q for the Next Generation pilot, some two decades after this episode aired.<br /><br />In short, the key to appreciating The Squire of Gothos is this: "silly" doesn't necessarily equal "bad".
| 1pos
|
That someone could have conceived this nonsense and then got it produced is incredible. That it actually aired on television and advertisers actually PAID TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT is mind boggling. This stomach-wrenching excuse for kid's programming is almost too vile to comment on. I've burned -- yes burned -- any Barney tapes that people have given my son. To find this awful programming in my library was an unpleasant surprise. And where, tell me where, do they get those smarmy kid actors? Have their parents no sense? Those kids will be on drugs before they're teenagers. Geez. The final insult is that I have to add this extra line to the review to get it on IMDb.
| 0neg
|
I have always liked the Carry On films, with their double-meaning sexual innuendo dialogue and moments of slapstick comedy, but I can see why the critics give this one two stars. Basically, many British people are gathering on a coach to go on a Spanish holiday to an island called Elsbels to the Palace Hotel. What they didn't know is that it is not completely built, plus they have to share bathrooms with their neighbours, they have crap draws, and many other complications and complaints that the owner Pepe (Peter Butterworth, putting on quite an amusing accent, e.g. peace sounding like the bad P word). Starring Sid James as Vic Flange, Kenneth Williams as Stuart Farquhar, Charles Hawtrey as Eustace Tuttle, Joan Sims as Cora Flange, Barbara Windsor as Sadie Tomkins, Kenneth Connor as Stanley Blunt, an apparently crap (I personally can't remember who he is) Jimmy Logan as Bert Conway, June Whitfield as Evelyn Blunt, Hattie Jacques as Floella (a ridiculous hag character, not as memorable as her usual Matron), Bernard Bresslaw as Brother Bernard, Sally Geeson as Lily, Carol Hawkins as Marge, Jack Douglas as Harry and Patsy Rowlands as Miss Dobbs. I admit it is not great, but there are just enough dialogue gags, and of course Babs in the shower, and going to to her bum with that iconic whistle, and later a rapid rip off of her bra. Okay!
| 0neg
|
I had to shut this off after about 15 execrable moments..<br /><br />I was hoping it might improve,<br /><br />What I saw was badly acted, directed & written.<br /><br />This movie should never even have been released directly to DVD,.<br /><br />The lead character who is a bride top be from HELL has an huge Ice sculpture fall on her killing her. She was such a revolting person I was not even sorry for her. She winds up there in a sort of heaven, & was still repulsive, I left shortly after.<br /><br />Eve Longoria portrays her & I hope I never see her again, she cant even act.She is just plain annoying.<br /><br />Paul Rudd an actor who normally can do no wrong also was in this dud.<br /><br />Jason Biggs ( no longer a teen) is also present,<br /><br />I do like comedies BUT not stupid ones about stupid people.<br /><br />Rating: * (out of 4) 30 points (out of 100) IMDb 2 (out of 10)
| 0neg
|
The filming is cheesy. Some of the actors overact. Some of the actions are unexplained and unexplainable. But...<br /><br />This movie is in the mode of the psychological dramas of the 50s.<br /><br />It is a morality play. Similar to the movie in which a "method" actor becomes the evil character he portrays on stage, Ed is forced to watch slasher movies because he is the film editor. It gives him a nervous breakdown which leads to a complete psychotic break.<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
This movie came aside as a shock in the eighties.Far from trends,that is to say in the heart of sincere creativity,Babettes gaestebud stands as one of the finest movies of its time.Stephane Audran,the wonderful actress of her ex-husband Claude Chabrol's greatest achievements (le boucher,la rupture,les noces rouges,all unqualified musts for movie buffs)gave a lifetime performance.To see her prepare with love and affection her meal is a feast for the eyes.All the people who saw this masterpiece actually tasted,ate Babette's culinary triumph. But the most moving part of the story is its conclusion:Babette was a great French chef,she was famous,now she found a new homeland but her heyday is behind her and she won't never be allowed to come back to her dear France.So the two old sisters do comfort her:In heaven,there will be huge kitchens where she cooks for eternity.While sharing her fortune with her new friends,Babette changed their life,she gave them pleasure and a magic evening they would remember forever.In this simple but extraordinary screenplay,human warmth is everywhere,and I wish everybody a Babette's feast,would it be only for one starry night...
| 1pos
|
I find it hard to believe this could happen at all. We do not know if Justin and Richard were troubled or had committed crimes in the past. The movie seems to imply that they were not in and out of trouble. So the first crime they commit is murder? Just to play and jostle with the cops? How do they pick up any girl and just say you are it? Also Richard seems to strangle the woman with little or no effort nor does the women seem to struggle. Hmmm. This whole concept is really hard to believe. That said let's move on. I found myself really hating these punks and would love to have been present with my shot gun with police tactical ammo and see what their plastic suits do then. As for Cassie who was a victim of Carl Hudson has a horrible time trying to survive. The memory of having been stabbed 17 times by Carl leaves her in an emotional mess. Sandra does a superb acting job. She sure made me believe she was one angry cop. As for solving the crime, I thought it was great. This movie kept me planted in my chair. Loved the acting of all but Sam. He had no get-up and go. The one thing this movie did not need was the love scene or should I say the rape scene.
| 1pos
|
As I sat subjected to this televised mediocrity, I wondered why? Why did Dianne Keaton agree to this trash? The movie uses meaningless, contrived plot lines to deliver trash to homes of thousands. The movie takes a political agenda to a new level. The movie was meaningless, and all creditability was lost to the excessive use of stereotype. <br /><br />It was obvious that Keaton tried to make this movie worthwhile, but in the end she needs to remember the age old adage that you cannot polish a turd. I hope that you did not waste your New Year's Day watching another mindless made for TV movie. I now know why the networks started airing series on Sunday night, to rid us of trash!
| 0neg
|
hi i am john and i would like to tell you all that my dog was in this film at the baiting screen he was the pit like one, that was going to bite the man chained up. my dogs name was Colin and he stayed away filming for a week for this film. he was also in other things like crime watch uk and some other small parts. he won some dog shows but he has passed away now i miss him he was a great, true and loyal dog and we had some great times together but he got cancer which could not be treated so i had to get him put down that was the worst day of my life i hope this gives you some thing to look for in the film if you watch it again.<br /><br />thanks all
| 1pos
|
I was so surprised by how great The Man In The Moon truly was.I mean at first I was kinda expecting a cheesy, and predictable film, but I decided to put that aside when watching.Well, when it was over I was just left stunned(mainly in tears), by how great The Man In The Moon turned out to be.This movie is so entertaining and is so aware of its tone, and its just a fabulous film.The acting was great especially from Reece Witherspoon(who was so cute and lovable), and everyone else.There wasn't anything that really bothered me, I felt the ending kinda predictable, but very well done at that.Also I felt some things to be plain or as if it had been done before, but still a great film.Overall I must say I don't to much to say about this film, not that it was bad, its just a film you either like or don't like.I would however recommend this to any and everyone, even if you don't like these type of films, its still an enjoyable film.<br /><br />8.7 out of 10 stars
| 1pos
|
In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.
| 0neg
|
A show about an incredibly dumb, man-child and his shrewish hot wife. 99% of the plots revolves around Doug doing something unbelievably stupid and then comes a variable: a) either he hides it from his wife or b) tell his wife, she emasculates him and then it's up to the father-in-law (Arthur: the typecast character from Seinfeld) to aggravate the situation.<br /><br />And the writers dare to say it was influenced by the "Honeymooners" (an absolute classic) and that the plots are drawn from real-life situations, unless you live in a cave, you know that's not true.<br /><br />Anyway, let's just put it this way. If Kevin James had been thin, the show would have got canceled fromm the pilot. If you're 12, or you're fond of fat jokes.. be my guest, watch this show (or any of Kevin James movies for that matter).<br /><br />I've noticed some posters compare this travesty to much superior shows like Friends, Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond -- I'm still wondering how could anyone do that
| 0neg
|
Two people living in the same flat complex find their partners are having an affair with each other. As they try and piece together how it happened, they also embark on an emotional journey that aches for a resolution
<br /><br />Building on his previous success with Happy Together and Chungking Express, Wong Kar Wai gives us this rather old fashioned and marvellous story of reawakened passions, yearning and unrequited love. <br /><br />Possibly, In the Mood for Love is not to everyone's taste. It wanders in rather lazily at 98mins: not particularly long for a film, but it appears longer because not a lot really happens. But this lazy feel conceals a quite tightly constructed film. Most of the story is cunningly woven around a series of set piece role plays, where the characters act out presumed scenarios between their respective spouses, trying to work out how the affair started. I say cunning because, of course, this makes it difficult for the audience (and the characters) to tell what is "in-role" and what is genuine. <br /><br />If all this sounds rather arty and self-conscience, that's because it is. Unashamedly so. And it is played to perfection by two of Hong Kong's finest, Maggie Cheung and Leung Chui Wai, with some excellent support from Ping Lam Siu and Rebecca Pan.<br /><br />It is also a virtuoso performance by Wong Kar Wai, who treats the audience to a sensory, and sensual, overload. Bringing together Christopher Doyle (who later deployed his lush, over-ripe style on Hero) and Pin Bing Lee (whose beautifully understated style can be seen on Springtime in a Small Town) was cinematographic genius. It has all the bold beauty of Doyle, without, frankly, the Athena-poster cheesiness of his work on Hero. The music, as always with Wong, is prominent. From Nat King Cole singing in Spanish, to the haunting strings of the main theme, it perfectly matches the eclectic beauty of the images. <br /><br />All in all a top film, whether judged on plot, acting, cinematography or soundtrack. Similar to, but more accessible than, Wim Wenders' Wings of Desire, this is a beautiful, old fashioned story about love lost and regained. <br /><br />And watch out for Tony Leung's hotel room 2046, which presaged Wong's recent film of the same name.
| 1pos
|
Found this one in the video store and rented it. It's one of those quirky, quasi-comedies that's more interesting and weird than funny. It's a good one at that. It reminds me a lot of Being John Malkovich. If you enjoyed that movie you will most likely enjoy this one.
| 1pos
|
Lots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.<br /><br />Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost. <br /><br />And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola) <br /><br />There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end. <br /><br />But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring.
| 1pos
|
A lovely little film about the introduction of motion pictures to China. Captures the amazement of film's first audiences pretty much as it's described to have been worldwide, and uses actual Lumiere films for most of the actualities. I don't agree with other people about bad acting on the British fellow's part - I thought he was fine, but the Chinese lead really stole the show. In any case, I found myself with a smile on my face through most of the movie. People who fear subtitles might note that a lot of the film is in English (which for some reason is given subtitles as well as the Chinese on the DVD).
| 1pos
|
"9/11," hosted by Robert DeNiro, presents footage from outside and inside the Twin Towers in New York, on September 11, 2001.<br /><br />Never too grisly and gory, yet powerful and moving. "9/11" is a real treat. Anyone not moved by this television show is immune to anything.<br /><br />5/5 stars --<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
"The Mother" tells of a recently widowed mid-60's mother of two adult children (Reid) who, on the heels of her husband's death, finds herself awakening from a life of sleepwalking as she has an affair with a young carpenter who is also her daughter's married lover. The film dwells on the quietly passive Mom, her tenuous relationship with her grown son and daughter, the silent needs she attempts to soothe in bed with her young lover, and the convolutions arising therefrom. A somewhat antiseptic drama with rumbling psychodramatic undercurrents, "The Mother" does an excellent job of dealing with uncomfortable issues realistically while avoiding gratuitous sensationalism. Will play best with more mature audiences, possibly women, who may better empathize with the central character, her needs and issues. (B+)
| 1pos
|
I think I can safely say (without really giving anything away), that this movie had no robots in it. The guys in "robot" costumes didn't act or speak as such, and the evil entity behind the whole "plot" isn't a robot either.<br /><br />The whole thing looks like it was shot in a city park somewhere, with photos dropped in the background when the director needed a custom set. I can't even use words to describe the acting...<br /><br />This couldn't even offer the hilarious ending of "Star Crystal". In short, it is clearly one of the worst sci-fi movies of the 80's and I would be so bold as to say "of all time".
| 0neg
|
I attended a screening of this movie. It was wrought with clichés and very unfunny jokes and set ups. I think the other comments were by people who must've worked on the movie or been family members of the cast. I'm amazed this movie cost $3-$4 million without any real stars. Where did the budget go? It obviously didn't go to writers for re-writes. Nice thought to bank on the success of Big Fat Greek Wedding, but a major miss. There was little or any spark between the main characters and the inciting incident was a bit flimsy at best. The direction was uninspired and looked like a student film.<br /><br />I don't even know what it means Everybody Wants to Italian. Is that a real saying. I've never heard it.
| 0neg
|
From a perspective that it is possible to make movies that are not offensive to people with strong moral values, this one is definitely worthwhile. This is the second Bruce Willis film in a row that manages to tell its story with no nudity, off-color humor, profanity, or gratuitous violence. (I refer of course to The Sixth Sense.) Both movies are engaging on more than one level. This one is appropriate for children as well, although as others have pointed out, it isn't a flick FOR kids. <br /><br />I was bothered that the time travel device that drives this plot is never explained, except that we know Russell himself initiates it as a 70 year old. Also, why does his dying mother have to come to school to get him when he wins the fight; why, if as his older self says, he has to fight that kid again and again for the next few years does his mother not have to come and get him every time, and why he doesn't learn to kick butt in the process. I also found the score rather annoying and not always appropriate to the action on stage. <br /><br />Good use of the red plane as metaphor, however.
| 1pos
|
When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's. They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro.<br /><br />Albert Puyn is using red and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao (communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop, starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between the red and the blue color.<br /><br />The white little dog that Mao had in the beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western world in Eastern Europe.<br /><br />I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie. Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern Europe.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert Puyn.
| 1pos
|
I researched this film a little and discovered a web site that claims it was actually an inside joke about the Post WWII Greenwich Village world of gays and lesbians. With the exception of Stewart and Novak, the warlocks and witches represented that alternative lifestyle. John Van Druten who wrote the stage play was apparently gay and very familiar with this Greenwich Village. I thought this was ironic because I first saw Bell, Book and Candle in the theater when I was in 5th or 6th grade just because my parents took me. It was hard to get me to a movie that didn't include horses, machine guns, or alien monsters and I planned on being bored. But, I remember the moment when Jimmy Stewart embraced Kim Novak on the top of the Flatiron building and flung his hat away while the camera followed it fluttering to the ground. As the glorious George Duning love theme soared, I suddenly got a sense of what it felt like to fall in love. The first stirrings of romantic/sexual love left me dazed as I left the theater. I am sure I'm not the only pre-adolescent boy who was seduced by Kim Novak's startling, direct gaze. It's ironic that a gay parable was able to jump-start heterosexual puberty in so many of us. I am in my late 50's now and re-watched the film yesterday evening and those same feelings stirred as I watched that hat touch down fifty years later . . .
| 1pos
|
The tunes are the best aspect of this television film which has admittedly better-than-average production values, but very surface and slightly altered biography. Dramatizes Richard's discovery of "We've Only Just Begun" and Karen's marriage troubles admirably (the "Superstar" montage was a nice touch), yet notably leaves out the disagreement with Neil Sedaka, the contribution of Tony Peluso's guitar solos, etc. Gibb is sweet in her Karen persona, but it doesn't include the tomboyish and gutsier sides of the real Carpenter's personality. Anderson is in fine form as the creative and take-charge Richard, and Fletcher makes her mark as the loving but overbearing Agnes. The most haunting moment of the original broadcast is the use of "Goodbye to Love" in the background of a commercial displaying an anorexia hotline.
| 1pos
|
Joe D'Amato might have made some other notable movies in his very long and very prolific career- prolific, of course, by turns of making VERY cheap Z-grade movies in Italy's big exploitation boom of the late 70s early 70s- but Porno Holocaust isn't one of them, or at least shouldn't be. Granted, I should not expect much from a movie with such a title, but I thought considering the back of the box's description that it might have some fun horror scenes with the "horny, mutant, cannibal zombie". Turns out the zombie doesn't appear until more than halfway into the movie, and at every turn we get instead a tawdry sex scene as hardcore as one can imagine. Which is fine. But it's not very enjoyable, except in the most "what the f*** is this BS" kind of way. There's laughable dialog involving lobsters costing more from mail-order Japan than in Paris, hot, slim women play biologists and zoologists who have particular sexual hang-ups (letting the door be unlocked to be raped, and a bi-polar kind of enjoyment out of getting gang-banged).<br /><br />It all leads up to the island, where the "main attraction" is a guy who early on just spends an absolutely pathetic (forget ludicrous) amount of time just staring at the newcomers to the radioactive wasteland of the shot-on-Caribbean island, and once revealed has a face like one of the guards in Jabba's palace and has a sweet potato for a main genital. But much dumber than anything before it is the "relationship" that develops between the monster and a dark-skinned lady who has an inordinate amount of time to escape, but just sits there, blank-faced, as the monster brings gifts and for what must be a racially-motivated exploitation move on the part of the filmmakers the monster ONLY rapes and kills the white women, and not her. And it ends, of course, with a "happy" ending. I use quotes, of course, out of a kind of shock that this could have any kind of legitimate ending at all.<br /><br />Bottom line, this is NOT what you might expect, as possibly being a bloody horror movie with plenty of tacky but cool looking Italian monster-zombies devouring human flesh. If anything what violence is in the film is done on a shoe-string; a log hit to the face is immediately cut to the bloody aftermath, which is like the aftermath of a tomato hitting someone. So really, the last part of the title is meant more for market sake. Yet even as a porno movie it has little to go on except as a reason for the cast and crew to get a paid vacation to the Caribbean (as an interview with George Eastman suggests, this was just one of a few quickies made while on the island). Its got penny-bought schlocky camera-work and similar actors, filled with genitalia about 3/4 of the whole time and with wretched lip-syncing and music like Nino Rota forced at gun-point to make something snappy in a bordello, and it's STILL a piece of celluloid dung all the same; all of this could be an immense guilty pleasure, but it isn't.
| 0neg
|
Yikes, it was definitely one of those sleepless nights where I surfed the channels and bumped into this stinker of a movie. For some of the names in the cast, I'd expect a much better movie. I'm almost embarrassed to see Oscar Winner F. Murray Abraham being reduced to such a horrible part. I hope the money was worth it. And the students, they talked about fencing like they were talking about survival in a war or through a horrible disaster. I mean, I've fenced, it's a fun sport, but I've never been that intense. The only reason I even watched this entire movie was because the remote fell under the sofa and I was too lazy to get it back.
| 0neg
|
Well, I couldn't even enjoyed this movie much for its cult values. It's a B-movie action-flick, by the director of "Commando", that is however far too lame and silly to consider it a good B-movie with enough entertainment value in it.<br /><br />It's an '90's flick but foremost the movie should remind of an '80's action movie, when these type of B-movies were at an all time high. These movies always went over-the-top and never paid much attention to its story or acting. It was all about blowing stuff up, big muscle heroes and bullets flying around. This movie has all of that ingredients in it but yet I really didn't liked watching this movie as much as I like watching some similar type of movies. Hard to say why really, since the story and acting and such are just as bad as would be the case in basically any other genre movie from the same era.<br /><br />It's probably because the movie is being often far too silly. All these type of movies have its silly moments but this movie is just filled with it. The fighting, Dolph Lundgren running around shirtless, the characters, the story. It all just isn't very good because it's often just too lame for words. The story at times isn't even trying to make a bit sense and what's even the main plot-line of the overall movie? Its story is all over the place really and seems only to be written to create a movie out of with fighting sequences, gun fights and such. And those sequences aren't even much good to watch really. The moments are way too short and quite disappointing to watch really, from the man who brought us "Commando".<br /><br />It's foremost a Dolph Lundgren, in which he gets to play the big action hero star, who kicks butt with seemingly relative ease, knows how to handle guns and other weapons and of course also gets the girl, played by Tia Carrere. This all also brings us one of the worst montage sequence in action movie history and also definitely one of the worst sex sequence I have seen in any movie really. Both are just too lame for words and just very poorly put together.<br /><br />None of the characters work out really. The good guys are cops but they never seem to behave like one. They simply kill around without having to face responsibility to anyone and they are not very keen on making any arrest, or to inform anyone about their discoveries. Not even when they find out a big Japanese crime syndicate is trying to take over the streets of L.A. and a beer brewery is working as a cover for a drugs factory and large scale drugs smuggling. And also just think about it for a moment, what is Brandon Lee's overall purpose in the movie? The movie could had easily done without him and the girl as well.<br /><br />Too silly, lame and simplistic and just not entertaining enough.<br /><br />4/10
| 0neg
|
If you're a fan of Turkish and Middle Eastern music, you're in great luck. This film is a documentary of current music in Istanbul, spanning the traditional to the modern. It's very good. You could not do better if you went to Istanbul yourself. We get interviews with Orhan Gencebay, concert clips of modern musical icons, a road show with a Romani (Gypsy) audience, Turkish Hip Hop (surprisingly very very good), and much much more. Some of the best female vocalists I've ever heard. A Kurdish woman singing in a hamam (steam bath) who will rip your heart out. Lots of social and political background. If this is your thing, you'll have a grand time. I could barely sit still in the theatre.<br /><br />CD soundtrack now available on amazon. Pricey.
| 1pos
|
THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is the third in a series of seven Amicus horror anthologies. If THE MONSTER CLUB is included as part of the series, this would make eight movies. Although, that movie is very different from the others.<br /><br />I look upon the Amicus anthologies with great memories as I used to love them when I was in my teens. My feelings for them today are just as strong.<br /><br />I spent many years trying to track down this movie. The synopses of the stories was so appealing that I went as far as paying a substantial amount for it when I eventually found a copy. As great as though the movie is, I did feel a sense of disappointment when I finally saw it. It wasn't quite as good as I was led to believe. Whilst better than its two predecessors, it's nowhere near as good as its four successors as I shall demonstrate.<br /><br />The linking story sees John Bennett as a police inspector tracking down a missing person who lives in a mysterious old house. His journey begins at the local police station where he learns the stories of previous occupants. The linking story later sees him visiting the estate agent who sold the house. Whilst this linking story seems enticing on paper, it is flat and lifeless in practice and easily the weakest of any Amicus anthology. I couldn't help but get the feeling that John Bennett is a poor man's version of Donald Pleasance or Ian Hendry. I would much rather have seen one of the two aforementioned actors in his role. We could have even had both here - one as the police inspector and another as the estate agent. They could, and I believe would, have brought this weak element of the movie to life much better.<br /><br />The movie contains four stories, each of which focuses on an inhabitant of the house.<br /><br />The first story sees Denholm Elliott as a writer of crime stories. He is absorbed into an exciting story about a strangler, even going as far as drawing a sketch to aid his writing. Soon after, he begins seeing visions of his own creation. Some excellent direction by Peter Duffell, particularly with the choice of camera angles helps to detract from the restrained script. Elliott's performance is superb as the tormented writer and he also helps to elevate the story. The story ends with a semi-twist but I couldn't help get the sense of a script which didn't allow it to live up to its potential.<br /><br />The second story sees Peter Cushing move into the house. He is a lonely man who is still pining for a beautiful young woman who once jilted him and who he keeps a picture of. Cushing's performance really brings this emotionally-moving story to life. He is helped by the director who chooses to include continual focus on Cushing's loneliness. This is taken further with a great hallucination scene that helps us to see inside Cushing's mind. Anyway, Cushing sees a figure at a nearby wax museum that looks just like his girl. Naturally his obsession grows but this seemingly romantic story has a disturbing twist at the end. Joss Ackland plays Cushing's rival but his performance is massively overshadowed by the late great Peter Cushing.<br /><br />The third story and easily the best sees Christopher Lee - my favourite horror actor of all time - move into the house with his daughter. Mr. Lee gives one his perfect ice cold performances here. He shows no love or attention for his daughter at all. He even brings in a school governess to educate her. The governess, played by Nyree Dawn Porter in another of her superb performances, tries to find out what is wrong. Without giving too much away, I can reveal that witchcraft plays a role. Christopher Lee's presence is truly electrifying in every scene he's in. Chloe Franks deserves special recognition for her massively underrated performance as the little girl who is easily the creepiest character in the whole movie. The movie is worth seeing even for the sake of seeing just this one story.<br /><br />The final story is played almost entirely for laughs but it certainly does entertain and that's what matters. Jon Pertwee plays a horror movie actor who moves into the house. He is very dissatisfied at the approach his producers take to movies, seeing everything as cheap and fake, particularly the costumes. So he decides to buy an authentic cloak for his latest vampire role. Geoffrey Bayldon has an excellent cameo as a dealer who sells Pertwee an ancient cloak. When Pertwee puts the cloak on, he starts developing fangs and basically transforming into a vampire. Pertwee's performance has to be seen to be believed. It truly is hilarious. Ingrid Pitt is also in this story but her talent is wasted in a role that should have been much larger.<br /><br />The linking story finishes with a loose connection to the final story. This is particularly fitting since the inspector was looking for Pertwee and naturally decides to visit the house. The rest you'll be able to work out for yourself. As weak as the linking story is, it does have a decent if somewhat unintentionally comical ending.<br /><br />I'm convinced that the blame for the shortcomings in what should have been a truly magnificent movie doesn't lie with Peter Duffell, the director, who really does his best with what he's got. I think the script was just too restrained and lacking the ambition that can be found in the four later movies.<br /><br />Overall, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, despite its flaws is a must-see for fans of the Amicus anthologies, fans of other Amicus movies or fans of portmanteau horror movies. If my summary provides the movie with enough appeal in your eyes, check it out. You'll enjoy it!
| 1pos
|
one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare.<br /><br />i.e. *we're not finished with you by a long shot* so not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, or the 3,000 or the 6,000 or the 36,000 (each of the 6 parts were a ducat) ducats, in a matter of minutes he is ruined by having to forfeit all his possessions. and his daughter has long abandoned him already.<br /><br />vengeance is a dish best served cold. but Shylock's attempt at revenge totally backfires. <br /><br />I suspect this play was and is popular because it caters to the wish we have for justice. but the hard reality is the world is engulfed in injustice and most of it stands. a few big names get tossed in jail, sme gang punks lose their turf to the 'good guys' but in reality most of the time it's the other way around.<br /><br />but not in this play. the long howls of racism and antisemitism forgets that it could well have been any other social outcast group that gets the comeuppance, it's just that the money lenders of the time were Jews and therefore the needs of the story line puts Shylock the Jew into the role of villain.<br /><br />Merchant of Venice is my 3rd favorite work by Shakespeare, 1 and 2 being Hamlet and Macbeth. this production gives excellent treatment of the moral of the story. the scenes with the suitors alone is worth watching. also the awkwardness of the new husbands squirming and minimizing the fact they let the rings so easily slip away that they had sworn to keep forever. in real life, this trick is the thing that spouses coyly use to remind their better half that promises MUST mean something and not be made frivolously. there is far deeper significance to this play than just the comedy/dramatic aspect. it is about loyalty, commitment, and love.<br /><br />well worth watching over and over.
| 1pos
|
The genre of suspense films really takes a dive in this one. The big problem is IMPLAUSABILITY. I realize that you need to create difficult situations which would cause suspense and the tense feeling of whats going to happen next, but this movie was so predictable, and is just not believable. I find that the more I watch this kind of movie, the more I am continually saying things to actors to direct them away from danger. Continually making bad decisions just borders on being plain stupid. If they took the time to make it more realistic, I might have enjoyed it a little. Having said that, you might be better off staying away from this one.
| 0neg
|
Romantic comedies can really go either way, you know? You'll see one that's really sappy, and you'll think you want something more realistic. Then, you'll see one that's realistic, but it might be too dull to keep you interested. Or maybe you'll see one that does everything right, but just fails to make you smile. Romantic comedies are tough movies. You go into them with a lot of expectations, and usually, whether you like it is simply a matter of whether the filmmakes was anticipating your expectations or those of the guy or girl next to you.<br /><br />Of course, if you've got a girl next to you, and you're a guy like me, it probably doesn't matter all that much whether the movie's any good, you've got other things on your mind. For you, I say, "Go get her, Tiger!" For the rest of us, I say, "See _A Guy Thing_." It's a lot of fun.<br /><br />Because _A Guy Thing_ knows you're going in to this movie with expectations, so it doesn't pretend that its "Guy about to get married meets the woman of his dreams, and it's not his wife!" plot is going to make everyone happy. Sure, maybe you like it, but maybe it doesn't ring true, or you think it's cruel. _A Guy Thing_ covers that. What _A Guy Thing_ does is fill the screen with the best supporting cast I've seen in a long time, so if you don't the main plotline, you've still got something to make you smile.<br /><br />Whether we're talking about the seasoned veterans of big and small screen, like Larry Miller (Pretty Woman, Best in Show), James Brolin (Traffic), Julie Hagerty (Airplane!), David Koechner (Saturday Night Live and Conan O'Brien regular, Dirty Work, Austin Powers II) or Thomas Lennon (The State and Viva Variety), or new faces like Shawn Hatosy (The Faculty), or Colin Foo (Saving Silverman), we're talking about a bunch of very talented and skilled actors who know exactly how to take advantage of the film's inspired characterisation, steal the show, time after time, and still frame the piece with an energy and a joy rarely seen in romantic comedies these days.<br /><br />And that's not to detract from the actual romantic throughline and the stars that carry it along, because it's very sweet and terribly well done. Jason Lee (Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, etc.) is touching as the young professional whose life may be spinning out of control, and Selma Blair shows an understated brilliance in portraying the aspiring socialite and sophisticated career woman every guy wants to marry except for the guy who actually is.<br /><br />A lot of the success of the movie, though, falls on Julia Stiles, the right girl in the right place at the wrong time, and she wears it well. Not since, gosh, I don't know when, have I seen an actress in a romantic comedy that has made falling in love with her so easy. Of course, it's all in the closeups, the voice, and the subtle smiles, but it's magical, and it's one of the big reasons why we go to the movies in the first place.<br /><br />But Julie Stiles's slightly offbeat sophistication would be lost were it not for the fact that the rest of the cast is so incredibly dead-on in their classic simplicity. This is a movie that paints a broken world of irreconcilable stock types, makes them fall over each other to make you laugh, and then comes through with a great deal of heart.<br /><br />A Guy Thing is a movie you've definitely seen before, and the filmmakers clearly knew that when they set down to make it. We haven't really seen any new romantic comedies since Shakespeare; the relative success of this one or that one is entirely dependent upon the execution of the classic story of boy meets girl. A Guy Thing does embrace that with a bit of a metacinematic edge, often taking the scenes into the absurd in order to give the audience a chance to acknowledge the powerful emotions and ancient plot devices at play.<br /><br />For the record, it also even manages to poke fun at the rather traditional structural notions of sex and gender that form the center of every romantic comedy, so even the feminists out there might get a kick out of it.<br /><br />And guys, I think we can all agree that we wish our friends are as cool as Jason Lee's friends in this movie. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but when you try to explain to your girlfriend why the pharmacist and the clothing store clerk are among the coolest dudes in cinema, I suggest you just say "It's a Guy Thing," and leave it at that.
| 1pos
|
1 Bolo Yeung is in the movie ten minutes altogether including when he's serving iced drinks to his boss. 2 a lot of street thugs looking like junkyard keepers get instantly overpowered by the Asian superhero who talks like an illegal alien just out of the back of a manure truck. 3 (thug) let this to me -shirt off, gay model like muscles- heee-haaw! hee-heeew! hap hap! - he's dead on the floor with his neck, elbow, chin or balls broken - 4 cheap semi-sex scenes where the white broad come out of nowhere digs the Asian superhero. 5 Norton (former C action movies star ) does nothing but pose as an eccentric trendy weapon smuggler who traffics white slutty girls hand picked at a night club where they willingly follow some idiot posing as a millionaire snapping at them ( you reap what you sow ) 6 yes, the local police captain is involved and yes, the first butchered cop is the former patrol teammate of the super-hero ( yaawn! ). 7 Action scenes are fake, like A) hee-haw! Chinese tries some spinning kick B) skinny leg of Chinese to the throat of negro thug C) finishing death move to his head too much like Walker Texas ranger fake action 8 end titles finally<br /><br />utter rubbish. Those people are good enough only to be stand ins or body doubles in other C movies and be credited AT MOST collectively as "stunt crew provided by the county prison ".
| 0neg
|
Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.<br /><br />So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.<br /><br />The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).<br /><br />If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.
| 0neg
|
hello all Denver fans!<br /><br />i couldn't agree more with you guys! This show was so cool and cute, i i watched it as a kid in the late 80s. Among Denver are other favourite too, such as Care Bears and Rainbow Brite. I am 24 now, but it is still one of my favourite shows, and my favourite cartoon from the 80s. It brings back all the memories. The theme tune was great too, i get goosebumps whenever i hear it. It is sad that it lasted such a short time, but it has remained a firm favourite. Its great that i am not alone and that there are people out there who liked it too. This is one of the cartoon shows i shall keep for future generations. <br /><br />Viva Denver! :)
| 1pos
|
I had seen this film way back in the 80's and had nearly forgotten it when I noticed it was on tv again and watched it. I remembered having liked this little sleeper when I first saw it, and I liked it even better on second viewing.<br /><br />All of the actors, especially Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, Wilfred Brimley, Frederic Forrest, and Jason Presson (as the twelve-year-old boy who feels responsible for the accidental shooting death of his older brother), are superb. The film has a very genuine feel to it--an understated, quiet, deeply moving story of a family aching with grief. The dialogue is sparse but telling, and the nonverbal acting is outstanding. Sort of like a simpler, rural version of Ordinary People sans psychiatrist but equally impressive family dynamics.<br /><br />The Stone Boy is well worth the time and emotional energy involved in watching it.
| 1pos
|
i have to admit thanks to this movie i'm now afraid of mannequins. hahaha.<br /><br />but yes, first off the acting in this movie at least by my standard is pretty swell. most of the actors are pretty decent in their roles. the script also seems to be pretty good too, sure some cheesy stuff in there but also some decently written character and some damn scary scenes. i STILL get shivers thinking about that one scene with the dude and the mannequins. brrr.<br /><br />yeah, I'll say you should check this movie out it's pretty good, and very entertaining. a good watch. 8/10
| 1pos
|
As an old white housewife I can still appreciate that Laurence Fishburne is one of our finest actors. anyone who appreciates his work like in Deep Cover might enjoy watching the incredible acting range of this actor. Since I think this is his directorial debut it might prove even more interesting. All of the acting is quite good. If you can't take lower Manhattan junky worlds or the reality of crime life (not glorified action shoot-em ups) then this is not a film you would enjoy. It is Mr. Fishburne's usual contribution to incredibly subtle relationships. I would love to see Larry and Anthony Hopkins go at each other some day in a movie.
| 1pos
|
As far as Asian horror goes, I have seen my share of disappointments along with some of the creepiest sh*t imaginable... "Acacia" doesn't really qualify for either of those categories. It had a few moments of tension and was interesting to watch, yet I couldn't help think that there should have been a tad more to this story. The film deals with a childless couple who decide to adopt a kid who appears to have a fascination with trees. He develops a bond with the Acacia tree in their yard and seems to communicate with it. Then, during a fight with his mother involving their new birth child, he storms off after threatening to find his dead mother who is now a tree. When he doesn't come back, the parents send file a report and wait, while the neighbor girl believes he somehow inhabits the Acacia tree. The pacing is rather slow and the ending gets a bit weird, but I have to recommend this as a slightly enjoyable effort, though the story feels a little flat. Hell, I can't really make up my mind on this...
| 0neg
|
The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.
| 0neg
|
I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur of boxing movies and as such there is only one thing that prevents me from calling "Gentleman Jim" the best boxing movie ever made. That is the Robert Wise/Paul Newman flick "Somebody Up There Likes Me." That movie might be number 1, but "Gentleman Jim" is a close number 2.<br /><br />The movie doesn't just chronicle the rise of James J. Corbett, it also shows the sport of boxing at a crucial time of transition. In the late 1800s boxing was moving away from the brutal days of bare-knuckle rules to the more "gentlemanly" days of the gloved, Marquis of Queensbury rules. And the sport was moving away from the days when it was an illegal spectacle and towards a time of acceptance and respectability.<br /><br />"Gentleman Jim" is not a realistic look at those days. It is romanticized and, yes, even a bit hokey at times. But always delightfully so. Errol Flynn is perfect as the "Gentleman" Jim who really isn't a "gentleman" at all but merely a fast talker from a working class family. Alexis Smith is quite ravishing as the upper class woman with whom he has a love/hate relationship (and we all know it is, of course, love that will win that match in the end).<br /><br />At the end of "Gentleman Jim" the great John L Sullivan (whose famous line was NOT "I can lick any man in the world" of course...romanticism again) hands over his belt to Corbett. This is truly one of the best scenes in any sports move ever made. Realistic? No. But wonderful. Hey, if you want realism watch "Raging Bull" instead. That is a much more realistic boxing movie. But "Gentleman Jim" is a lot more fun.
| 1pos
|
right the hospital scene with Holly and Shannon was done brilliantly it starts off with Piper On A gurney looking very badly injured, the docs race her into a resuscitation room & they move her from the gurney onto a bed and Prue Holds Her Hand from that point on it is obvious that Piper is having a lot of trouble breathing and her lungs are failing, as she turns to beg of Prue to not leave her side she gaps "don't go i love you and then her pulse drops and she goes into cardiac arrest & the monitor shows a clear flat line & the nurses go into full out trauma mode & bring in a defibrillator Prue Steps back from the bed in horror as the doctors desperately try to shock her dying sisters heart but there is no response and she is tragically pronounced dead well great scene well done girls
| 1pos
|
OK, I didn't know what to expect when I saw the cover to Fido, honestly when I came across it in the video store I was tempted to rent this movie, but nothing about it really grabbed my attention. But when I was looking around in Netflix, they were advertising this like crazy if I liked "goofy" scary movies, so I figured to just give it a shot. I'm so glad that I did watch it, this was just a great movie, it was absolutely hilarious and so charming to watch. Like I said, it's Pleasantville meets Night of the Living Dead, it's just a great concept, what does happen after a mega zombie attack? As we see in another zombie comedy, Shaun of the Dead, they have fun by making the zombies left over as "handy" citizens. This is a very overlooked horror/comedy movie, I think a lot of people were just so blown away with Shaun of the Dead that this got the boot. But it's a great story and the cast was perfect and made this into just a really funny movie.<br /><br />In a 1950s alternate universe where radiation from space has turned the dead into zombies. This radiation still plagues humanity, as all those who die after the original contamination turn into the undead. In order to continue living normal lives, communities are fenced with the help of a governing corporation named Zomcon. Zomcon provides collars with accompanying remote controls to control the zombies' hunger for flesh so as to use them as slaves or servants. In the town of Willard, a housewife ,Helen, buys a zombie in spite of her husband Bill's zombie phobia. Their son, Timmy, befriends the zombie, naming him "Fido". One day Fido's collar malfunctions and he kills their next door neighbor, who turns into a zombie. Timmy "kills" the zombified neighbor. When a pair of local bullies are blamed for the missing neighbor, they capture Fido and Timmy. Helen comes and rescues Timmy and Fido from the bullies and they try to forget about the whole thing. Several days later, the neighbor's body is found and the murder is traced back to Fido, who is taken away to Zomcon where the public is told he will be destroyed. Timmy learns through a friend that Fido is simply working in a factory at Zomcon. Timmy sets out to rescue him with the help from his neighbor with a zombie girlfriend in hopes to get Fido back.<br /><br />I really do highly recommend this movie if you get the chance to see it, it's so silly but a lot of fun. Billy Connelly did a great job as Fido and really brought, no pun intended, a lot of life into the character. I think the scene that made me laugh the most was when Timmy has to burry the old lady that Fido attacked and killed, his last words to her were so funny, "you weren't really nice, but you liked flowers, so
" and he buries her in the garden. Not to mention the neighbor with the zombie girlfriend, sick, disturbing, wrong, but classic laughs. I still love how even though this is like the Leave It To Beaver-esquire type of world, there still is a lot of gore in the movie. So if you do have a chance to see Fido, take it, I promise some good laughs.<br /><br />9/10
| 1pos
|
I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about.
| 1pos
|
If you repeat a lie enough number of times will it become the truth? 15 park avenue is the story of an alternative reality of a schizophrenic (Mithi). The movie is about her search for her home at a fictitious address where her imaginary husband and 5 children live. Aparna Sen delivers yet another masterpiece. Each and every actor of the movie was better than the other. Konkona Sen looks unbelievably convincing as a schizophrenic. She pulls off the role with such ease and maturity beyond her age. Shabana Azmi is incredible as usual. She plays the dominating and fiercely independent elder sister of Mithi who takes care of her ailing sister and aging mother. She refuses to accept that in-spite of all her strength and courage, she still feels lonely at times. This should have been a very easy movie for Rahul Bose. The role was least bit demanding and anyone could have done the role.<br /><br />The ending of the movie was the most surreal part of the whole park avenue experience. It took me a while to digest that the movie had ended. It left me confused and maybe even a bit disturbed. But later on, it started sinking in. My eyes are black. But if everyone says they are blue, will I still believe that its black??!
| 1pos
|
K-PAX is exactly what a heart warming film should be. The story is about a mysterious mental patient Prot, played by Kevin Spacey, and his unbelieving psychiatrist Dr. Powel, played by Jeff Bridges. The two have a very friendly bond, and as their relationship grows Dr. Powel can't help but wonder whether or not there is more to his mysterious patient, who insists he is from another planet called K-PAX. This film is very funny, and Kevin Spacey pulls of well placed one liners as if it was his second nature. K-PAX is a smart film, and I wasn't expecting it to go where it did. In the end, I found myself thinking about the small things in life, and the wonder and magic of the every day life we so often take for granted. I left the theater with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, and for families and couples on a date, K-PAX is a splendid film, that will not disappoint. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in something more than the monotonous releases of glossy, action packed, gore fests.
| 1pos
|
i am surprised so few have good words for this movie. For its time (the 80's) it was a very entertaining and engaging story. Casting was good. Story was good. Special effects were remarkable for the time period. Deserving of an 8/10.
| 1pos
|
Has there ever been an Angel of Death like MIMSY FARMER in Barbet Schroeder's 1960s heroin opus? Sort of Jean Seberg with a hypodermic. Pink Floyd score. Despite some ultimately insignificant weaknesses, a classic, shamelessly ripped off by Erich Segal/Noel Black for their inept JENNIFER ON MY MIND (1971), although Tippy Walker, playing a similar character, is herself very junkie-appealing in the latter mess. MORE, though, is terrific, a great 60s drug movie and, simply, an important document of its time. Very much a cult film so join the cult.<br /><br />No American movie then, as far as I can remember, charts the same territory. MIMSY's an astonishing archetype, elevating this into mythic realms. Not for the faint-hearted. Great sex scenes too.
| 1pos
|
I consider myself a casual fan of Dario Argento. For every really good flick by him (such as "Deep Red" and "Tenebre"), there seems to be one that's equally uninspired (his output since "Opera" has tended to disappoint). Still, there's no denying that when he's at his best, there are few horror directors who can top him. I consider "Opera" to be Argento's finest work.<br /><br />This is definitely the film where all of his trademarks are present. There's no well-developed characters and the plot makes very little sense once you begin to scrutinize it. Still, think of Argento as an European equivalent of Brian DePalma - the style is all that matters here, so much it becomes the substance. Typical to Argento, there's some beautifully filmed murder sequences. Those unfamiliar with the man's work may perceive that as a sadistic remark (and it may be, considering the often time misogyny of them), but its really true. Argento stages murder with an intricacy to eye-popping visual detail. He truly makes graphic violence an art form. Plus, his direction and the look of his films is impeccable.<br /><br />Fortunately, "Opera" is one of his most frightening products. Argento is the only director whom I feel booming rock music works well for horror sequences (when others attempt to pull it off, it comes across as cheesy). The acting varies, with Cristina Marsillach playing a beautiful and reasonably sympathetic but never particularly animate young opera performer. The rest of the actors are workmanlike and get the job done, but again, with Argento, the acting is never the point. Its the beautiful colors, the terrifying violence, and the overall fever dream / nightmare atmosphere. (9/10)
| 1pos
|
At the surface COOLEY HIGH is a snappy ensemble comedy masquerading as a period piece (set in the early 60's, complete with a flawless Motown soundtrack). But there's SO much more to this film - it gets better every time I see it. The cast of unknowns (at the time) is excellent, and it is notable as an all-black-cast film that doesn't fall into any Blaxpoitation clichés - at times COOLEY HIGH almost feels like an updated, urban neo-realist film, with lots of edgy humor added in. At times, the rather tight budget does show, but the constraints actually serve the film well - there's a grit and honesty of emotion here that lends the film an immediacy lacking in most similar-minded films (like Schultz' later CAR WASH, which was more popular, but largely pointless) Warm-hearted but also true-to-life, this might be one of THE sleepers of the 70s - celebrated at the time, it seems that few film freaks know about this one today. Their loss - this is a fine, fine film.<br /><br />The bare-bones pan-and-scan DVD (no widescreen!?!) is testament to just how little cared-for this excellent film is.
| 1pos
|
In a variant of Sholay , Ram Gopal Verma ventures into what can be called an unknown territory where the blockbuster takes a new shape. The Thakur goes south.Mohanlal as Narsimha the police inspector whose family has been killed seeks vengeance Madrasi style. The accent is totally South Indian in contrast to Thakur from the north. The severing of the hands of Thakur by Gabbar is also cut down to the fingers in Aag. So make up costs are cut down because there is no effort to hide the hands instead only a long shouldered Kurta covers up for the cut fingers. Moreso in the climax where the Thakur uses his legs and says"Tere Liye to mere paer hi kaafi hai" here Narsimha uses his finger stubs to fire a gun and kill the villain. Babban, the new avtar of gabbar is also different. He is not from Bihar or UP. He is Bambaiya. Gabbar's infamous laugh is also in two instalments this time and is more subdued. Babban asks for Diwali instead of Holi and romances Urmila the replacement of Helen in Mehbooba. he also dances and enjoys dancing with Abhisheh who plays Jalal Agha in Mehbooba.Babban is more intelligent this time. He tosses the apple and asks the question that made Isaac Newton discover laws of gravitation. Basanti is more verbose than the Auto driver Ghungroo. Nisha Kothari cannot play the auto driver and looks too artificial using words like 'entertain' and 'too much' with gay abandon. Viru was fun whereas Ajay Devgun is a misfit for the role. The God Speaks to Basanti incident and the shooting lessons and the Koi Haseena song and the water tank sequences are painful. The water tank turns into a well and the drunk Devgun is so bad in the sequence that the audience would have wanted him to commit suicide. Jai was composed and serious. Prashant Raj is better than the others because we do not expect anything from him. But he also bungles on the Mausi sequence. He is not as romantic as Jai with the mouth organ . Jaya's role played by Sushmita changes careers. A pure housewife turns into a doctor this time plunging into full time social service after her husband is killed. She too lacks the pain that Jaya displayed. Her flirtations with Jai are more open this time. Samba gets a bigger role this time as Tambe. He does not have to point guns and answer questions of Gabbar this time. He follows Babban wherever he goes and is a bodyguard with more visibility outside the den. Horses give way to Jeeps and auto. The Gabbar's hideout here keeps changing and Ramgarh becomes Kaliganj. All in all it is more of a spoof than anything else. RGV comes up with his own interpretation of the classic. But we remember the original so well even after three decades that our minds refuse to accept stylized versions and changed dialogues. So we call it a spoof. So Mr.RGV(Sholay ) and Farhan Akhtar (Don) and JPDutta(Umrao jaan) stop making remixes and start making originals.
| 0neg
|
Modern viewers know this little film primarily as the model for the remake, "The Money Pit." Older viewers today watch it with wisps of nostalgia: Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas were all "superstars" in an easier, less complicated era. Or was it? Time, of course, has a way of modifying perspectives, and with so many films today verily ulcerating with social and political commentary, there is a natural curiosity to wonder about controversy in older, seemingly less provocative films. In "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," there may, therefore, be more than what audiences were looking for in 1948. There is political commentary, however subtle. Finding a house in the late 40s was a truly exasperating experience, only lightly softened by the coming of Levittowns and the like. Politics in the movie? The Blandings children always seem to be talking about progressive ideas being taught to them in school (which in real life would get teachers accused of communism). In real life, too, Myrna Loy was a housing activist, a Democrat, and a feminist. Melvyn Douglas was no less a Democratic firebrand: he was married to congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom young Richard Nixon accused of being soft on communism (and which ruined her). Jason Robards, sr., has a small role in the film, but his political activism was no less noticeable. More importantly, his son, Jason Robards, jr., would be for many years a very active liberal Democrat. Almost the odd fellow out was Cary Grant, whose strident conservatism reflected a majority political sentiment in Hollywood that was already slipping. But this was 1948: Communism was a real perceived threat and the blacklist was just around the corner. It would be another decade before political activism would reappear in mainstream films, and then not so subtly.
| 1pos
|
Excellent. Gritty and true portrayal of pioneer ranch life on the Western plains with an emphasis on the woman's role and place. A moving film, lovingly made, and based on real people and their actual experiences. Low budget, independent film; never made any money. Definitely not the romanticized, unrealistic Hollywood version of pioneer life.
| 1pos
|
First off, I'm not some Justin Timberlake fangirl obsessed with making him look good, in fact I'm not even a huge Justin fan, but I did like this movie.<br /><br />I work at a video store and when I saw this movie with its huge cast that I'd never even heard of I had to see what it was about. I didn't find Justin's acting that bad, it was clearly the worst out of the group, but it's a pretty impressive group, with Cary Elwes and Dylan McDermott being two names that didn't even make the first credits list. The story is basic, a journalist uncovering corrupt cops, but I found it well done. L L Cool J's character was clearly conflicted, but I honestly didn't know what he would do in the end. Morgan Freeman is as always, the wise mentor figure he does so well, and as much as I love Kevin SPacey, he was kind of just there. HIs character didn't have a whole lot of substance, but it's Kevin Spacey, he can do no wrong.<br /><br />Surprisingly I thought Dylan McDermott gave the best performance as a homicidal cop. Truly believable and really in character, he freaked me out a couple of times.<br /><br />I was really expecting a lot of cheesiness to be honest. Horrible catchphrases, unjustified action sequences, stuff like that, but it was surprisingly well done and I didn't find any of that. Every shooting had a point, it wasn't clichéd, pretty solid really.<br /><br />overall, amazing cast, decent story that kept me interested and just enough action to make me jump. I don't know why it didn't appear in theatres, it was better than some garbage I've seen on the big screen. I would say it's worth seeing.
| 1pos
|
I was watching this movie on Friday,Apr 7th. I didn't see the last scene ( cos I was talking with my bro n Mom in law at the same time ). Anyone can tell me what happened to her?I watched slightly that her husband was hearing someone was talking to his wife in the bedroom and then he opened the door,she's dead already.<br /><br />What happened to her? Did she kill herself? How could she arrange everything like the phone calls,meanwhile she's at home when her husband was talking to this strange admirer?Anyone can explain to me,please. I am so so curious!! ( in the end,I read that she suffered from Multiply Disorder Personality ).<br /><br />Thnks before.
| 1pos
|
This is one of L&H's shorts most frequently cited as the first "real" L&H teaming and perhaps one of their best silent features. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Ollie) is a millionaire who has come to the docks to greet his nephew Philip, whom he's never seen. At first Ollie is laughing it up with everyone when this strange little man unboards and draws a great deal of attention to himself by the way he's behaving during his medical exam, but is quite humiliated when it turns out that this is the fellow he's supposed to be greeting. He has been told that Philip is a good boy, but he has one weakness--women. Mumblethunder and Philip set off to go home, but their journey there is continually interrupted by Philip breaking into a little dance every time he sees a woman, then chasing after the woman. Huge crowds gather each time this happens, not so much because he's chasing skirts, but because Philip himself is also wearing a skirt (a kilt). Finally Mumblethunder manages to drag Philip into a tailor's shop to be measured for a proper pair of pants, but Philip escapes from there as well to chase more skirts. There are lots of laughs all around. It's also nice to see a short like this because the boys aren't exactly the characters we know and love. Ollie is pretty much his usual character, but it's such a joy to see Stan acting so differently from his usual man-child character. It shows he wasn't a one-trick pony and excelled in other types of roles when he got the chance. With a run time of 19 minutes its short and sweet, providing classic one liners which still have me in stitches.
| 1pos
|
This epic brings together a superbly-gifted cast and crew, a narrative depth superior to most novels, wonderful music, philosophy and a connection to LIFE that I find difficult to explain. To immerse oneself in Die Zweite Heimat is for me akin to a spiritual experience, similar to the awe one gets when looking at the stars in a clear night sky. The language, and use of both colour and monochrome segments adds to the dramatic impact. The film inspired me to go to Munich and visit some of the locations, including the Edgar Reitz office. From then on, I vowed to improve my German skills - after Die Zweite Heimat I feel almost German, as if I am in the head of the characters. I also try to match the piano playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann), but this is the one thing that will always elude me ! This drama is unparalleled and I have been fortunate to see it on BBC2 in the UK and SBS in Australia. The sequel, Heimat 3, is currently being filmed in Germany.
| 1pos
|
Like many, I first saw The Water Babies as a child/young teen in the late seventies/early eighties. It has remained with me since then with its catchy tunes, memorable portrayals, less-then-successful animation, and a story full of heart, coldness, and ultimately good vanquishing evil. Recently I sat down and saw it again after at least two decades passing, and I noticed THIS time around its striking similarities to The Wizard of Oz. No, these aren't blatant likenesses but hear me out. In this one we have a boy and his dog - having personal problems at "home," running away from something and in the scene right after they run away, changing the substance of their appearance. In This one, the boy and dog become animated. In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and Toto are in color. In this one, the boy and dog are told they must find the Water Babies for answers and then ultimately the Kracken for guidance and he has the ability to let Tom go home if he shows he has courage, etc... In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy must also find an authoritative figure that tests her before he will allow her to return home. In the Water Babies, Tom meets three characters that will help him on his journey to the Water Babies - Dorothy has three helpers as well. When each helper is met, we are entertained with a rendering of "Hi, Hi, Hi, Hi, HI Cockallorum...We're on our way." In the Wizard it is "We're off to see the wizard." Dorothy has a good witch sort of look after her; Tom has a woman with many roles(Billie Whitelaw) do the same. If you look closely at the two, there are many other likenesses. That being said, The Water Babies is not a knockoff in any way, I was just commenting on the eerie likes between the two. This film has some solid performances from bad guys Bernard Cribbins and the always fascinating James Mason. The kids playing Tom and Ella are good. The supporting cast of Joan Greenwood(love her voice!), David Tomlinson, and the vocal talents of John Pertwee and Lance Percival add greatly to the mix. I must confess that the animation is less than sterling even for its time but is adequate enough to the challenge. The three animated characters that help Tom get home are all likable. I always have trouble picking my favorite between the French swordfish and the John Inman/Mr. Humphries like seahorse. The scene where we hear this guttural, maniacal laugh from a shipwrecked vessel only to see a seahorse with a huge polka-dotted bow-tie bob out always has me rolling! The Water Babies is a lot of fun. Sure, it is more of a children's film, but it has and always shall have a fond place in my heart. The bulk of the credit for what successes the film does have must go to director Lionel Jeffries. Jeffries is a wonderful comedic actor and his sense of humor is clearly evident throughout.
| 1pos
|
First, I loved the documentary. It represents a new school history/theory where a subject can reflect a wide range of social and historical issues.<br /><br />I'll get the camera and dogs out of the way first. I hate the Blair Witch quality of the camera, but also understand the advantage of such a casual approach. In fact, I agree with the other reviewer that it gives us unprecedented access.<br /><br />Dogs: Warning, I have a doctoral degree in literature which I do NOT use as a profession, so some of my training may seep in: The dogs are a beautiful metaphor for the complex relationship of human's great endeavors and our need to find the labor to achieve them. The dogs might reflect their owners, as one reviewer suggested. But they also serve as a stand-in for the workers we see in the film. While this might hint at the Marxist problem raised by one reviewer, I think it also shows how difficult it is to globalize labor issues. No Mondovi's in Italy may not translate as well elsewhere. (Yikes! I am a Marxist at heart and hate to hear my cynical resignation hold sway!) It is a remarkable bait and switch. The dogs are family, the workers are family. But, in the end, the dogs are the workers (the last scene with the poor farmer). While you may disagree with the politics, the artistry of the analogy, coupled with the more overt politics of the film, are wonderful.<br /><br />Had only Faulkner (I am from Alabama) had the power of film beyond the Hollywood market, what interesting tales would have been told.
| 1pos
|
The audience sat in silence through almost the entire film, with only a few, rare, occasional chuckles. The character of Maxwell Smart was so inconsistent, I felt whip-lashed. When it is convenient for the plot, Smart behaves like a master spy. At other times, he acts like an imbecile. They lift many classic lines from the television series, but they don't work in this version. The classic "missed it by this much" is funny if it is spoken with attempted braggadocio by someone who is an obvious failure - but it loses all humor when spoken by someone who is qualified. To a slightly lesser degree, many of the other characters move at a dizzying pace from skilled to cartoonish incompetent. Siegfried, the main villain, would seem to be intelligent, but he makes decisions that make no damned sense at all. Still, none of the characters in the film is as incompetent as the writers of this mess. I am utterly depressed that so many IMDb users think this was good.
| 0neg
|
Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie is a charming, funny and brilliant film that can be watched AND enjoyed by adults and kids. I feel this is my favorite childhood film because it combines great characters, great story, and great wit that it is irresistable. The plot involves Kermit the frog (puppeteered and voiced by Henson) in his odyssey across America to follow his dream in Hollywood. Along the way, he meets Fozzie Bear, The Great Gonzo (my favorite), Miss Piggy, Rolf, and DR. Teeth and the electric mayhem.<br /><br />This film has so many good things I can't even say them. But it is memorable and every time I think of a puppet or muppet, I will think of this film. Look for cameos from Mel Brooks, Dom DeLouise, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Steve martin, Edgar Bergen (and Charlie McCarthey), Elliot Gould, Carol Kane and the great Orson Welles. Excellent and spectacular, one of the best films of the 70's. A++
| 1pos
|
I hate to comment on something I didn't finish, but if I spare one person what I sat through for almost an hour before turning it off in disgust, it will be worth it. <br /><br />I decided to watch this with an open mind, knowing it was on the bottom 100.<br /><br />Bad idea. I usually love crude humor, or can at least tolerate it. I love so-called "black" comedies. I'm not easily offended, either. <br /><br />It started off okay and quickly went downhill. I laughed a few times (for example, when the main character got stuck in the airplane toilet), but that was it and didn't compensate for the strong disgust I felt.<br /><br />I didn't laugh when the dog got sucked into a jet engine. I usually can't see the humor in animals dying (except in Animal House). I didn't laugh at much else of the nastiness, either. I turned it off after an incident involving a blind man and a baked potato that I don't care to repeat the details of, only that the wave of nausea still hasn't passed over me. <br /><br />Simply put, it was smut-filled and simply not funny with barely any plot. This is one of the times when if you don't have something nice to say, you should get the word out.<br /><br />Don't say I didn't warn you.
| 0neg
|
LOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: "Take a tranquilizer and go to bed." "Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power." I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes.
| 0neg
|
As a CA resident, I'd like to see the jackholes who were shutting down the electricity plants to raise the prices get some jail time too. <br /><br />I thought the movie was pretty good and has some very informative pieces. While they stuck to how Enron rose and crashed, I found it really interesting. However, when the movie focused on it's anti-Bush slant, it made me wonder if they were really being accurate. <br /><br />It's fine to point out any connection the Republicans had to Enron, but the monster was created while Clinton was president. The CA energy crisis happened under Davis's watch. Both were in office during Enron's abuses, but neither are held accountable in any way. Rather, many minutes are spent on how Bush was friends with Lay. So what? Lay played golf with Clinton and spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Why are Democrats given such a free pass in this film? I think most politicians are a waste of our taxpayer money so I'm not partial to either party but I hate feeling like I'm subject to someone's political agenda when I watch a documentary. Yes, politicians deserve some blame, but I really doubt that the only guilty one's have Rs after their names. I found no value in portraying the Bush's as Kay-lovers when Democrats received just as much Enron campaign money as Republicans did. Like I said, it weakens the rest of the film for me because it makes me suspicious of the rest of the facts they lay out.
| 0neg
|
I got a good laugh reading all the idiotic comments for this film,<br /><br />as it's obvious that those people who criticized the movie never seen it, or were stupid enough to pay to see it.<br /><br />The best reason to watch was on the Elvira show a few years back. Elvira delivered the movie with as many laughs as one can.<br /><br />It's an ok monster flick, compared to the hundreds of horrendous American flicks made. Way better!!!!
| 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.