text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Years ago, with "Ray of Light," Madonna broke through to a truly amazing level of musical artistry, and since then she's occasionally transcended even her own standards. This concert production, with its hypnotic editing, amazing dancing, hallucinatory lighting effects, and trance-inducing arrangements, blows away all previous efforts. Madonna's apparent ambition -- to single-handedly bring about world peace through music and dance -- may seem hubristic or absurd to some. But hell, somebody's got to do it! Thanks to her assemblage of the remarkable talent of everyone involved in this production, "Confessions Tour Live from London" places her once again among the top ten artists working anywhere in the world in any medium.
| 1pos
|
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is, simply put, the worst movie ever made, far lamer than even the inept "Plan 9 from Outer Space."<br /><br />The Lampoon film is told in three segments, each one supposedly a spoof of a conventional movie genre, but each one landing at our feet with a sickening thud. There is no rhyme or reason for these execrable vignettes, and no discernible story lines.<br /><br />Another reviewer on this site has written that the only good points about the film are the nude scenes. True, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice it is too. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.<br /><br />Probably the worst of the three segments is the last one, featuring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark. Here, we see Benson as a young, eager-beaver policeman being paired with a cynical oldtimer played by Widmark. And for just a moment, those of us who are still watching this odious cinematic exercise are heartened by the thought that we are about to see a redemptive tale about how the young, idealistic cop brings about a purifying change in the old-timer's approach to police work. But no such luck. As we've said, this film has no redeeming values. It is sickening all the way to the final fade-out -- which, perversely, is stretched out longer than it should last on the screen. Apparently the film makers knew they had a bad thing going, and wanted to make the least of it.
| 0neg
|
This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.
| 0neg
|
ROCK N ROLL HIGH SCHOOL holds a special place in my heart because it introduced me to the Ramones. I was too young during the band's mid-70s heyday to be very aware of them, although I had an older cousin who was a big fan at the time. I finally saw RNRHS on television one afternoon in the mid-80s when I was about fifteen years old, and laughed all the way through it. (Isn't it every high school kid's dream to trash his school and blow it up, all set to a rockin' soundtrack?) I recorded a subsequent airing of the film a year or two later and kept watching the Ramones concert sequences over and over again, thinking "Man, these guys kick ass! I have to check out some of their albums!" The rest is history. Twenty years, umpteen Ramones LPs/cassettes/CDs, and three Ramones shows later, they're still one of my all time favorite bands and RNRHS still cracks me up every time I watch it. Now that Joey, Dee Dee and Johnny have left us (R.I.P. all)at least we have this movie and tons of great music to remember them by.
| 1pos
|
The story itself is routine: A boy runs away from home and ends up in a struggling music school for kids. He convinces a famous violinist to sponsor the school. The film is a splicing of shootings over 11 weeks, and leaves many amusing holes which the observant viewer may find for him/herself.<br /><br />However long the whiskers of the plot might have been, the movie is justified by its music and acting. There is plenty of music, featuring classical works played by Heifetz and by The Meremblum Orchestra, one of the leading youth symphonies of that day, and said music is excellent. By itself, it would make the picture worth viewing. The conducting and scoring duties were put in the best of hands: those of Alfred Neumann.<br /><br />The acting is a study in contrasts. The kids in the orchestra, most of whom had little or no acting experience, must have driven director Archie Mayo crazy, looking into the camera, overacting the parts that they had, and overstudiously following directions given to them. But the spontaneity that results from their lack of training adds an interesting charm to the picture. The veteran actors were marvelous with the material they had to work with. Walter Brennan was perfectly cast in his role, one that he emulated in real life. Joel McCrea and Andrea Leeds were ideal fits for their parts. And the supporting acting was a veritable Who's Who of character actors: Marjorie Main, Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, , Charles Coleman, Perry Ivins, and Porter Hall in his typical role of the heavy---all ideally cast. And the bit players: Jessie Arnold, John Hamilton, Marjorie Wood, Jimmy Flavin, Dulcie Day, the gravelly voiced Lee Phelps in his usual role as a policeman and many many more. If you're a fan of character actors, this movie will bring back a lot of memories.<br /><br />Overall, the picture is very enjoyable and is recommended, even if you aren't a fan of classical music.<br /><br />tvcat
| 1pos
|
This sequel is a total rehash of the first film. A completely pointless movie. It basically just took every single sceanrio of the first film and they redid it in Omen IV except with a female antichrist this time. It even ends the same way as the first one! The music is too busy and interfering, and because its pretty much a copy of Omen I, it's extremely predictable. It's not a horrible movie, it's not terribly made, there is much worse movies out there, this just had absolutely no point in being made. The Omen remake from 2006 is much worse, even more pointless than this, so I guess it has that. If you someone pointed a gun to your head and you had to choose to watch this sequel or the 2006 reamke, I guess I'd choose this.
| 0neg
|
... a recommendation! Gloria Grahame runs the kind of orphanage where discipline is imparted with a meat cleaver, orphans are hung on meat hooks to punish them and the bodies are kept in the deep freeze so that they can be brought out for when social services call. That the orphanage is strapped for cash we know because Gloria puts all the orphans to work, and also because there don't seem to be enough clothes to go round - especially for the older nubile female orphans (age range appears to be 12 - 30 ish). The new arrival, however, turns out to be more than a match for Gloria - and has indeed just taken out her own mother & mother's lover (in a witty claw hammer and arson opening scene). Predictably, Gloria ends up on a meat hook herself. This one was made for about tuppence but was/is a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit on the grindhouse circuit. My DVD cover promised "disturbing and politically incorrect scenes", and it sure wasn't lying. I believe it is regarded as the Citizen Kane of orphanage set torture porn movies. 4/10
| 0neg
|
The movie never claims to be something spectacular like many films do. The films props itself as a fun and entertaining time. And that's exactly what it was. It is the Korean version of a male Bring It On.<br /><br />From the get go you can feel for the rest of the film and how it will end but the enjoyment is not in the surprise twists nor is it the way the film is a carbon copy of another. Instead, the enjoyment is held in the journey of how the 2 remaining "thugs" came to be men in their own right. Therefore, the film is fun and entertaining.<br /><br />The camera work, specially the dolly moves were very well executed. The script, being a tad weak, was overly enjoyable in the fact that the characters were not 2 dimensional but they were full of life and desire. This film will not win any Oscars, nor any DVD blockbuster sales, but a fun watch and a fun experience.
| 1pos
|
I got lured by the title... I was expecting an insightful and intriguing journey into alcoholism, instead I got a rather boring and uninspiring story about a rowdy Scot.<br /><br />The leading character isn't given much psychological depth, unless you are willing to classify cheesy teen-like poetry as psychology.<br /><br />It was a shame, because the core of the story could have been good, with a better effort to depict the inner feelings of a man who had to live with alcohol and violence since his youth.<br /><br />Sadly, the general idea seems to be more like "I'm the way I am because that's the way I am". And the laughingly bad attempt at giving some sort of poetic edge to a lower-class man makes things even worse. Resorting to the overused cliché of the "poète maudit" reeks of a quick fix, a cheap way to make a dull movie seem smart, artsy and meaningful.<br /><br />But "16 years of alcohol" isn't much smart, artsy or meaningful... The leading character doesn't evolve at all, and the feeble attempt of changing fails without a good explanation. Just like the initial attempt happened rather out of the blue.<br /><br />The movie borrows heavily from classics such as A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting, but it ultimately fails to recapture their greatness, not even for a few seconds.<br /><br />Jobson put too much emphasis on the artistic side of the story, and neglected the rest, giving us a movie which is pleasant to the eye but insipid to the brain.
| 0neg
|
PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO READ MY ENTIRE REVIEW. I AM NOT KNOCKING THE FILM ITSELF - ONLY THE DVD VERSIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.<br /><br />***<br /><br />I really wanted to give this film even two stars. I mean how could it possibly rank a mere 1 out of 10!?!<br /><br />Here's how: An epic film adaptation of Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" with historically accurate battle scenes, courtesy of the Red Army, and an extremely faithful, scene-for-scene adaptation of the novel would be difficult but worth sitting through for seven hours - if that's what you were seeing.<br /><br />The trouble is you can't see that film - anywhere as far as I know.<br /><br />I am attempting to watch the RusCiCo DVD version - widely considered the best version available since it's letter boxed and restores the scenes that were cut from other DVD releases. <br /><br />But, it is one of the worst film prints I've ever seen transfered to DVD. The picture is muddy and inconsistent, often strobing. It's almost tolerable if you crank your brightness, color and picture levels up to maximum.... but the problem doesn't end there.<br /><br />The sound is also way inconsistent, blaringly loud in parts, virtually inaudible in others. <br /><br />And as for languages, it's a HUGE problem for English speakers - the dubbed option has some good actors, and some really terrible ones whose performance grates, and parts of the film just aren't dubbed at all, slipping back into Russian and even French randomly.<br /><br />The subtitled option isn't much better. The subtitles don't appear below the image, but right over it - obscuring some of the beauty (or what's left of it) in the scenery. Furthermore, the subtitles are often a poor translation (a shame given that the script took pains to hew so close to Tolstoy's actual words), and the subtitles too seem to just drop out in parts. <br /><br />So, even if you max out the color, brightness and picture settings, and turn the volume way up, and choose subtitled *and* English dubbed, you're still going to get a film that's annoying to watch and listen to.<br /><br />Can it's content overcome that? It might have been able to, but at seven hours - who can stand it for that long?<br /><br />Maybe someday, someone will come along and restore this - and maybe then I will see a masterpiece - but for now, I just can't give more than one star to something I've only been able to stand watching about the first 12% of.
| 0neg
|
I'm not a massive Disney fan, but my 7 year old son is starting to get into them, so we've built up quite a collection, and this is one of my favourites. We first saw this a couple of weeks ago and we must have see it half a dozen times since! OK, as others have pointed out, not the most complex or inventive of plots, but there's more to a film than that.<br /><br />Great characters, Phil Harris stealing the show as Thomas O'Malley, but Edgar the butler not far behind. The music is superb - my disabled son always insists that I lift him up and dance with him to "Everybody wants to be Cat" this says it all. And "Thomas O'Malley" is just as enjoyable.<br /><br />I'm not sure why some people have such a downer on this film other than a dislike of cats! And yes, it does take a few of its cues from "101 Dalmations", and maybe "The Lady and the Tramp" (It's been a long time since I've seen that, so I'm not going to compare them), and while "101 Dalmations" is better in some ways, for me "The Aristocats" is far more enjoyable. Isn't that what these films are about? <br /><br />Apart from "Peter Pan" (now that is a 10/10 film), this is my favourite Disney film. My 7 year-old son loves it, his grumpy 41 year old dad loves it, so you can't ask much more of a family film.<br /><br />Superb!
| 1pos
|
I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....
| 0neg
|
I like all different types of movies, so this is not a bash on romantic movies from a guy who only likes The Matrix etc etc.<br /><br />I just felt it was a lousy movie. I don't feel that there was enough buildup of the characters to fall in love. They were there for a few days and while dealing with a severe hurricane and major issues in each of their lives, Richard Gere and Diane Lane fall hopelessly and helplessly in love?? It isn't realistic. This movie didn't make me buy into it and feel it emotionally and that is something that you look for in a good plot. Some emotional connection. If someone can relate to them falling in love that quickly, without any true substance , than so be it. You are neither right or wrong. Different strokes for different folks.<br /><br />Another very unbelievable component to the movie was Diane Lane's very rude teenage daughter becoming nice and sympathetic at the end of the movie. Does a teenage girl who is that miserable and aggravated at her mother for not getting back with her cheating husband going to just have a switch turn on and be nice? This movie, in a nutshell, had some big names, but to me, was a major disappointment.
| 0neg
|
This is not a movie you watch for entertainment, at least most people I know would not.<br /><br />It's portraits the cruelty to both body and mind that happen in a war pretty well, the characters seem plausible, especially because you "read their minds", something more often found in books and rarely in movies, however done very well in this piece. I would place it next to "All quiet on the western front" and "Die Brücke" in terms of leaving a lasting impression.<br /><br />I wish I could screen it at school, along with the other two movies - however finding a copy of it showed to be pretty hard - which is a shame.
| 1pos
|
"Campfire Tales" is basically made up of three spooky stories that a group of friends tell after they get into a car crash in the woods after a concert. The film begins with the classic "Hook" story, and then we're introduced to the group of friends driving home from the concert. They crash their car, put out some flares, and start a fire in a little abandoned chapel, waiting for someone to arrive with help as they warm themselves by the fire. To pass the time, they decide to start telling classic horror stories, about terrorized honeymooners, a girl who falls prey to an Internet predator, and a motorist who takes refuge in a haunted house. As they tell the eerie tales, each story becomes increasingly terrifying, but the real shock that awaits them is yet to come...<br /><br />In my opinion, the last story they tell is probably the scariest and had some genuine, frightening effects. The first story was alright, and the motorhome sequence near the end was a little creepy. The second story built a lot of suspense, more than either of the others did, but it's unoriginal plot was it's downfall. I remember watching this movie a long time ago when I was like eight years old on HBO and the third story scared the crap out of me, although it's not scary to me now. You'll probably recognize some of the cast here, particularly Amy Smart from the opening "hook" interlude story, and Christine Taylor as one of the main actresses in the film. The twist ending was kinda interesting too, I know I didn't see that coming, I thought it was all cleverly pieced together.<br /><br />To sum things up, if you're looking for a horror movie that is worth the while, rent this, you should be happy. It's a great anthology of some classic urban legends, and the whole film was tied together neatly. It is much better than what one would expect. 7/10.
| 1pos
|
...but I would be lying. A relative was a crew member, and we got to go watch the production of this movie for a couple of days (and I was an extra). I get to die and have a second of screen time, not that I plan on moving to Hollywood anytime soon. I just thought it was awesome to see how movies are made and be a part of it. Plus, I got a copy of the movie once it was finally released. They didn't have a studio backing when making this film so it truly was independent. Why the writing and acting is so awful is beyond me, but the main character "Cherry" is the director's sister so that could be part of it. But the cinematography was good. :)
| 0neg
|
The second "Mr. Eko" episode has somewhat less interesting flashbacks than the first ("The 23rd Psalm"), but in just about every other department it is one of the best episodes of Season 2, advancing the series' mythology/background as well as the characters. A new Dharma Initiative station - The Pearl - is discovered by Locke and Eko, and the orientation film that they find and watch inside completes Locke's transformation from a believer ("Orientation" - after the end of the film: "We're gonna have to watch this again") to a doubter ("S.O.S" - "Did you push that button, Henry? I need to know") to a non-believer ("?" - after the end of the film: "Do you want to watch this again? - "No, I've seen enough"). Terry O'Quinn's performance is powerful as usual ("every single second of my pathetic little life is as useless as that button"). Meanwhile, Eko takes his place as the man who becomes sure that he was brought on the island as part of his true destiny, which is to continue pushing the button. Other high points of "?" are a startling, unique dream sequence where person A has the dream as being person B (this is the kind of bold idea that the current season of LOST could use much more of), and the haunting scene of Libby's last word before her death, and the way Jack and Hurley cannot possibly know its true meaning. ***1/2 out of 4.
| 1pos
|
I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way!
| 1pos
|
Another try, another miss. France may be doomed for not being able to produce a good horror movie. I mean... the least they could do was to shoot the movie in the forest of Brocéliande, but even the forest is fake ! It was shot near Paris ! The subject is useless, the actors are really insignificant and the text makes you wish you were deaf. Nothing could save it.<br /><br />Bad... to the bone. I wasn't warned. I want my money back.
| 0neg
|
There was a time in the US that everything was possible on film, so came the roughies, movies containing horror and explicit scene's. The best known are Forced Entry and Waterpower, but of course those were made with a bit of budget. All shown on 42nd in NY, but hey, there were other grindhouses out there that showed no budget roughies. Wet Wilderness is an example of it. It circuited the underground scene after a while so copies were available but as seen on other reviews, some copies were abrupt cut at the end. But the version I watched was complete. Well i would call this one more a porn one then a roughie, there is a serial killer around but he likes more to watch others have sex instead of killing them, when he kills it's done off screen. The acting is the worst I ever seen. And I guessed that the so called actors didn't like what they are doing, for example in the beginning when we have the lesbian scene watch one girl stop performing and pulls a pubic hair out of here mouth then continues doing what was happening, or when mother is riding the black man, the daughter is sitting in the grass annoyed by ants! But it is the storyline that made this one famous, incest and racism is what this made it famous. When there is blood watch the two girls sitting there waiting for a cue to act, god this is worse but still one to have if you are into sleaze and grindhouse. Be sure that you have the full version.
| 0neg
|
One of my favorites. As a child, growing up in the NY Metro area in the late 60s and early 70s, I was often afforded the opportunity to visit NYC with my grandfather or father, as they conducted business there. The gritty, bustling, human, reality of that city, particularly in winter, have stayed with me. <br /><br />This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture. <br /><br />And the car chase is simply amazing. At least on par with the one in "Bullitt", and surpassing the chase in "The French Connection". I can watch, time and again, as the suspension comes unstuck on that Plymouth Fury police cruiser barreling toward the GW Bridge in pursuit, as it lurches into that sharp right curve, bouncing and scraping into oncoming traffic. The stunt driving coordinator for that scene did "Bullitt" and "The French Connection" as well as many other noatable movie chases. Good acting, too, and a decent plot line. The musical score is edgy and compelling, and the cinematography and direction are top notch. A great, if underrated 1970s cop drama. A keeper. Not out on DVD yet, though.<br /><br />Comparable in style and content to: The French Connection and Super Fly. Early 1970's cop dramas set in the bleak NYC winter months.
| 1pos
|
Just the kind of movie I love. Some very good British actors as well as the one and only Sharon Stone. Catherine Tramell (Stone) masterfully manipulates a well educated group of people's lives, playing on their frailties to collect experiences to write a murder mystery book. She plays the female psychopath quite well while using her ample sex appeal to convincingly portray what could be considered one of the ultimate Black Widows. Tramell is use to dark places within society and freely partakes in sadomasochistic flings in the 'never visit after dark' side of town. From the beginning, there is nothing short of an R rating here from the dialog alone. Stone could also be described as a sort of female Hannibal Lecter, an emotionless femme fatal without the meal plan.
| 1pos
|
As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.
| 1pos
|
I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.<br /><br />The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience. <br /><br />They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")
| 0neg
|
"Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski"... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed "Linda" in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!<br /><br />Watch at your own risk.
| 0neg
|
What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.<br /><br />The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.<br /><br />The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.<br /><br />I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.
| 0neg
|
'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.<br /><br />Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.<br /><br />However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.<br /><br />We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.<br /><br />Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.<br /><br />Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases.
| 0neg
|
Sometimes, Lady Luck smiles on me. I had originally made -- and copied over -- a VHS tape of this wonderful TV presentation. I was heartbroken when I realized what I had done since I had been unable to obtain a copy of it anywhere else.<br /><br />Recently, I subscribed to digital cable, and while searching through upcoming movies, there to my surprise was a scheduled broadcast of the movie. This time, however, I made a copy of it to DVD so there's no chance of repeating my mistake.<br /><br />I finally got to watch it again after eight years, and it was just as exciting and tense as when I first saw it. There is a little bit of prelude to this story in that my first contact with "Pandora's Clock" came with a live reading of the book on public radio. I just happened to tune in to the broadcasting station on my way home for lunch, and from the first installment, I was hooked. Each day, I waited with anticipation for the next chapter to be read.<br /><br />When I learned a few months later that the book was going to be broadcast on TV as a movie, I made sure to clear my schedule for that event.<br /><br />First of all, I'd like to say that the movie was very true to the book, contrary to what another reviewer had said. That, in itself, is a rare achievement for TV movies.<br /><br />Secondly, I agree with others about the casting. I could not imagine a better choice for Captain Holland than Richard Dean Anderson. Literally, the movie could have crashed and burned without a proper cast for this pivotal role. Anderson has never been better, and it is a shame that we have not seen more of him. In fact, all of the cast members did a superb job.<br /><br />My only complaint with the movie -- and the book -- was the interjection of the "terrorist plot" to arm a private business jet with air-to-air missiles and have its pilot stalk and shoot down the stricken plane. Basically, we are talking about less than 36 hours to orchestrate and execute a plan like this one, and folks, that is just not realistic at all given all the players involved. Also not realistic was how little the airliner was affected by having first one, then two of its engines blown off.<br /><br />That beef aside, I enjoyed the building suspense and found to be very believable how the reactions of foreign governments were portrayed in the film, as well as our own.<br /><br />If you have an opportunity to see this movie, do so by all means.
| 1pos
|
I thought this movie was very well put together. The voice-overs were also great. I liked how they all overcame their conflicts and reached their goals. I would recommend this movie to anyone. It was definitely worth the time and money to watch it. Atlantis has some comic scenes that made me laugh. Other scenes made me sad. And others made me glad. It is a movie any age can enjoy. From the moment Milo is the crazy "profesor" or until he gathers the crew up for the fantastic voyage under the sea. After I watched the movie, I read the book. It was good as well, but the movie puts better pictures in your mind. It is just like the book. But go ahead and watch this movie!
| 1pos
|
I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists. <br /><br />Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.<br /><br />On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.<br /><br />I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that.
| 1pos
|
I saw this in the theatre a couple decades ago, and fuzzy recollection suggests that I liked it. However, seeing it for a second time two things stand out: (1) very poor acting on the part of Michelle Johnson, and (2) very poor music throughout.<br /><br />It's not that all the music was bad. Some of the Brazilian music was fine, but the theme song and others that clanged their way in were reminiscent of the worst of '80s pop music.<br /><br />Johnson's voice seemed all wrong, possibly dubbed. This was distracting.<br /><br />On the positive side: (1) The story's not bad, (2) it's interesting seeing such a young Demi Moore, (3) Valerie Harper never looked better, and (4) Johnson did look quite fetching in various stages of disattire.
| 0neg
|
I've been waiting 30 years to see this film. I played the soundtrack album as a teenager and through my 20s. Recently, I located a reasonably priced dvdr and I watched it this morning. It was in widescreen, probably even a 70mm print, stereo, the colors were quite good, very little fading, certainly not remastered but I'm very very happy with this clean copy.<br /><br />Now for the film. It's pretty good. I wouldn't say it's great though there are great scenes in it. Perhaps Premminger may not have been the right director for it, but I'll say this. For me the center piece of the film was the hurricane scene. Marvelously staged by Premminger. One of the great weather scenes of all time.<br /><br />In fact, I'd go as far to say that the acting scenes are better than the musical scenes, not that the musical sequences are bad. Not at all. They did lack... something though. Perhaps it was the fact that there are no close ups and very few medium shots. It was almost like watching a filming of a stage production. Perhaps that was the feel that Premminger was going after. In the end it may not have been the right choice, but so it goes. It is far from a ruined movie.<br /><br />Having said that, not everyone loves the singers on the soundtrack either. I always have. They are perfect for this film. I love the singing voices. The actors lip-sinking are excellent for the most part. I just wish the songs were staged more imaginatively. Sportin' Life's two numbers are fine, but the intimate numbers don't even feel intimate. They just feel... far away. In spite of that, you cannot deny the power of the music. And in the end, that is what comes through loud and clear. Once again, maybe what Premminger was trying to do was to stay out of the way of the incredible music he was working with. I believe he had the right idea but perhaps went too far in that direction.<br /><br />The acting is terrific. Top kudos goes to the great Brock Peters who acts and sings the part of Crown. He is the ultimate meany. We just want him to leave poor Bess alone, and he doesn't. As proud, arrogant and nasty as he is, Sammy Davis Jr's classic rendition of Sportin' Life is the slick devil himself and a very charismatic one at that. Arguably, Davis's best film acting. Poor Bess just can't handle two bad men. I'm glad the Hermes Pan gave Davis a tap dance number to do.<br /><br />Dandridge and Poitier, reportedly not impressed by being in the film, really are very sweet together. I don't know about chemistry... there was more chemistry between Dandridge and Peters than there was between Dandridge and Poitier. Still, it worked out fine for Dorothy and Sidney.<br /><br />Even so, I think they should both be proud of the work they did on this film. They both managed to bring more than one tear to my eye. Their characterizations where very 3D and believable. Sidney Poitier's Porgy, however, seems almost out of place in catfish row. I couldn't help thinking he was Mr. Braithwaite in "To Sir with Love", very educated and well mannered and spoken, fallen on hard times. He probably wouldn't have been my first choice for the part of Porgy, but hey, he was a huge star at the time, so why not? Dorothy's Bess was as perfect as her Carmen Jones, in fact even more vulnerable this time around. Carmen was probably the flashier part for her to do.<br /><br />A very very good film indeed, it is two sticks short of what I would call a classic. It just doesn't make the ultimate classic grade. Still, there is no reason on earth why the Gershwin estate has decided to keep this beautiful film, even with all of its flaws, hidden from the public as they have. Premminger may have made some odd choices as a director, but the film is nothing to be ashamed and embarrassed about for anyone involved with it. It is what it is and there are a lot worse movies than this that are embarrassing out on DVD and in theaters today. Porgy and Bess is not one of them.
| 1pos
|
Can't say this wasn't made well. At a recent film festival the director admitted some scenes took 30 takes. And there isn't the slightest indication he didn't get exactly what he wanted. But this is an oddly non-Hispanic film in the same way West Side Story was many years ago. Both the leads, a brother-sister team, are excellent and memorable in their parts. The setting, a sort of underground car repair district in Queens, is completely foreign to most people and is worth the price of admission by itself. But there's something unsatisfying about the key issue in the film, namely, what the sister feels she has to do to get by. I can understand the brother's reaction, but it just seems a little too easily come by to me. The movie seems to suggest that people like these don't need our help, that they'll find a way to survive without the usual support systems. I wouldn't encourage anyone to believe that. There would be far more resistance to the choices made here than depicted. Other than that as an entertainment it works well. As an accurate depiction of a culture, not so well, I think.
| 1pos
|
What we have here is a damn good little nineties thriller that, while perhaps lacking in substance, still provides great entertainment throughout it's running time and overall does everything you could possibly want a film of this nature to do. I saw this film principally because it was directed by John Dahl - a highly underrated director behind great thrillers such as The Last Seduction, Rounders and Roadkill. I figured that if this film was up to standard of what I've already seen from the director, it would be well worth watching - and Red Rock West is certainly a film that Dahl can be proud of. The plot focuses on the overly moral Michael; a man travelling across America looking for work. He ends up finding it one day when he stumbles upon a bar in Red Rock County - only catch is that the job is to murder a man's wife. He's been mistaken for a killer named Lyle, but instead of doing the job; he plays both sides against each other and eventually plans to make a getaway. However, his attempts to escape are unsuccessful and he finds himself in a bad situation when the real Lyle turns up...<br /><br />John Dahl appears to enjoy setting thrillers on the road; he did it three years earlier with Kill Me Again, and again almost a decade on from this film with Roadkill. It's not hard to see why Dahl chooses this sort of location, as it provides a fabulous atmosphere for a thriller the likes of this one. Dahl also provides his film with a 'film noir' like atmosphere, as the plot mainly focuses on the central character and the word he is plunged into is full of dark and mysterious characters. The acting is largely very good, with Nicholas Cage doing an excellent job in the lead role, and getting A-class support from Lara Flynn Boyle, J.T. Walsh and, of course, Dennis Hopper; who once again commands the screen with his over the top performance. It has to be said that the second half of the film isn't as gripping as the first, but Red Rock West certainly is never boring and the way that Dahl orchestrates the grand finale is excellent in that all the central characters get to be a part of it. Overall, Red Rock West is a film that you're unlikely to regret watching. It's thrilling throughout, and you can't ask for much more than that!
| 1pos
|
This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.<br /><br />The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.<br /><br />All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.<br /><br />FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!
| 1pos
|
I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as "Steamy Romance" I was a little bit skeptical. "Steamy"? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.<br /><br />I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.<br /><br />I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed.
| 1pos
|
Just like Al Gore shook us up with his painfully honest and cleverly presented documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth", directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield also remind us that it's about time to improve our way of life in order to save our beautiful planet. "Planet earth" is also a wake-up call that the global warming of our planet has disastrous consequences for all living creatures around the world. Al Gore showed us the bleak future of planet Earth by presenting hard facts backed up by documented examples through long yet always interesting monologues. The creators of this documentary choose a different yet equally powerful way to accomplish this. They do not present us with a future representation of what might occur to our planet if we don't radically change things around, but they rather show us the genuine beauty of planet Earth in all of its amazing glory. We see places that we knew that existed but never thought they could be so beautiful. In this movie, we see a wide array of the most extraordinary places such as forsaken deserts, giant forests full of fauna and flora and icy-landscapes as far as the eye could see. And in all of those immensely different environments, we see the most beautiful animals trying to survive.<br /><br />This is exactly the kind of movie that had to be made, in combination with the one from Al Gore, in order to make us realize that our planet is too precious to meddle with. The voice-over by Patrick Stewart is always relaxing and thus very well done although at first it sounded as though I was watching an X-men movie instead! The cinematography is probably the most remarkable thing of this documentary. At times: what you see is so unreal that you tend to forget that a man with a camera actually had to film all of that delightful footage.<br /><br />In short: This is definitely a must-see for everyone since it concerns every single person on this beautiful planet Earth! The truth is: I never thought our planet was so astonishingly beautiful!
| 1pos
|
"De Dominee" is based on the life of a real dutch gangster,Klaas Bruinsma! In the movie he is called Klaas Donkers! I have my doubts that events presented in the movie have something to do with what really happened! But that doesn't really matter! Because it failed to grab my attention! This movie bored the crap out of me! It lacks substance and style! The substance part could have been forgiven if the acting was any good and if the director tried to do something original! Without the substance you at least have to bring some style or decent action! Don't we need to be entertained? It would have helped if the director had seen more gangster movies! It is obvious that he didn't! Otherwise he wouldn't have made this the way he did! This movie got a lot of publicity because of a little scandal surrounding Klaas Bruinsma and a member of the Dutch Royal family! This scandal has nothing to do with the movie what so ever! Without it "De Dominee" never would have been successful! I am sure of it!
| 0neg
|
I saw this film early one morning in the early 90s when i was about 12.I have been trying to find what it was and finally today i did!I remember enjoying it and being a little bit freaked out at the ending when it showed the gravestone of the young boy and his ghostly face!Please could anybody let me no if i can get a copy of this as i would love to see it again.I remember the kid getting stuck down a cornish tin mine and then befriending a boy.cant remember that the kids were stuck there with miners but must have been.the boy helps them out of the mine and turns out to be the ghost of a boy who had died while working down there i think.
| 1pos
|
What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie! This is my absolute favorite Troma flick, and i have seen almost all of them! Penis monsters, cecsarian births to live rats and popcorn, lesbianism, steamy sex scenes in plexiglass boxes, incest, nipple piercing, dismemberment, shameless Troma plugs, and computer masturbation...How can one go wrong? It amazingly follows the original story very closely. YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! OH, and speaking of shameless plugs...Check out Jane Jensen's "Comic Book Whore" CD on Interscope records. It is awesome!
| 1pos
|
After reading several good reviews as well as hearing nice things about it by word of mouth I decided to rent Come Undone. I must say I was rather disappointed. The story was hard to follow because the film is set as a series of flashbacks between the present and recent past that are very poorly executed. The characters, despite the actors best efforts are flat and uninteresting. The sex is and nudity are more explicit than they need to be. I've never seen a film where they seemed so unnecessary to the plot. The ending is very anti-climatic and leaves many unanswered questions to a story line that wasn't explained well to begin with. In my opinion, a waste of time.
| 0neg
|
It has been about 50 years since a movie has been made about romance and mysticism. The only two movies I can think of is "Enchanted April" (1992) and "The Enchanted Cottage" (1945). Both movies used wonderful actors not stars. In both movies, all the actors gave their best romantic performances.<br /><br />"Enchanted April" is about four English women after WWI who are unhappy with their lives and find happiness in Italy while on vacation. It is amazing "Enchanted April" was made in 1992. It stands out as an enjoyable classic.
| 1pos
|
SLIGHT SPOILERS (but it doesn't matter anyway).<br /><br />An exercise in gobblygook of catastrophic proportions not even worthy of the l0 lines I need to put these remarks on the netwaves. This is the single worst episode of the Masters series to date and the first that qualifies for the defunct Mystery Science Theatre treatment. Even if it took me a full half hour to realize the intended ironic angle, it was still a very lame mess. Its sole value lies in the perspective that forces one to realize that in addition to gore and ugly masks the genre only succeeds when the classic cinematic notions of photography and lighting, dialogue and acting, editing and timing are put to use. Here they are absent and John Carpenter is no master. Period. And no trite analysis of the easy social comment herein will change that. Oddly, Carpenter never has been anything more than a B director, but at least such films as 'Fog' and 'The Thing' had terrific atmosphere (the latter is one of my cult favorites).<br /><br />Abominable acting. Camera angles stuck in cement. Tensionless rhythm. Yet perhaps the single most obnoxious element of the episode is the storyline which of course JC cannot really be blamed for (unless the writers were buddies of Cody.) The initial two minute slo-mo of a girl running through a forest only to be nearly run over by a would be Scully-Mulder duo is the first and last thing that works in the film. But come on, a girl hurtling through a deserted woods to nowhere in particular in desperate need of an abortion fortuitously rendez-vous with the fender of a pair of 'women's rights' MDs whose clinic just happens to be at the end of the road around the corner. Oh, and I won't even nitpick about how the doc whips the accidentee into the car and speeds away at 0 to 60 in six seconds. Does wonders for possible broken ribs or concussion.<br /><br />Then things fall apart real quick. The vacuous dialogue "I just want to help you", the interminably sluggish back and forth at the gate, grandiose battle tactics like cutting the telephone line (in the age of cell phones?) followed by the the shoot-out: a born-again Ramboesque clinic director vs Ron Perlman and the high school bullpen out for a few kicks at Easter break. Another lovely line: "So what are we going to do?" from the kid who had just been sitting on a pile of assault rifles in the back of the van. Er, no it isn't yet pheasant season. So who needs those teen boys anyway. What about the good old tried and true method of the lone lunatic who bashes his way through the gate with his all-American SUV?<br /><br />As for the exchange of bullets scenes themselves, the cuts here were as stiff as the staccato of a DC comics strip. All that was lacking were the Wham, Bam, and Whiz of the balloon titles. And all to the tune of a soundtrack worthy of an old Mannix episode.<br /><br />At one point we learn that Daddy isn't really the daddy, but at this point we haven't been led to care much any more either. This story's single source of drama is the conflict between the pro-life father and his pregnant daughter who is only thankful she's not having twins. Yet there is not a single scene, flashback or not, where they are actually ever found together. They remain mere abstractions to each other throughout.<br /><br />With the exception of the gatekeeper every single one of the characters is absolutely dislikeable. Bland, hysterical, dull-headed, macho. As perfectly flat as human wallpaper can be. None of the doctors seem to have anything medical about them. And there's that bickering Dad who rails at his pregnant daughter as though he himself were the stressed out boyfriend. He fortunately got his. There are two great MST-worthy comic moments: the gusher when Angelica's plumbing goes out and later the new-born lobster with a glued on baby's head. Also cute was Angelica's rugby ball belly before she finally popped the right-to-life little monster from Hell. As for that audacious male abortion scene...well, they should have retained Miike's episode and banned this one instead.<br /><br />In short, a 3rd rate Rosemary's Baby meets Alien set on the turf of a M.A.S.H. episode. This stinker alone, appreciable only to today's permissive under-16 generation, will assure as someone else said here, that this series will not be renewed for a third season. A real shame, since there have been a number of brilliant productions, including such really decent spoofs as Dante's 'Homecoming' or McKee's deliciously quirky 'Sick Girl'. Not to mention the superb imagery of Malone's 'Fairhaired Child'.<br /><br />Sorry John Carpenter, I believe your directing days are over. It's time to run for President.
| 0neg
|
This game has cartoon graphics, not much violence and really short levels - then why do people say it is so brilliant?!? Because it always holds your attention, it captivates you and refuses to let go! You will try for hours to try and find that damn flight recorder, try to work out how to get into the room without alerting the guards, etc! The levels are short only when you know what to do - until that, you will spend hours trying to figure out where to find correspondences, where to find helicopters and so on! And you'll have fun all the while you are doing it! Well worth a rent!
| 1pos
|
One type of western I greatly enjoy is when the apparently weak, which is reluctant to fight and answer the challenge of the strong, finally decides there is no other way. There is a great moment in this film when John Parrish (Glenn Ford) goes into the saloon and decides to stand up to the gunfighter Wade Matlock. It is the type of scene that makes the audience applaud. In my opinion The Violent Men is a great western, I would rank it among the best. It makes great use of the wide screen, a spectacular scenery of the mountains. The women have a crucial part. Caroline (May Winn) is engaged to Parrish, but you feel that she is only using him as a means of getting out of there and moving east. She wants him to sell the ranch no matter what price. Martha (Barbara Stanwick), is tired of helping her crippled husband Lee (Edward G. Robinson) but she will do anything to have an always bigger ranch and more power. Meanwhile she is betraying her husband with his brother (Brian Keith). Her daughter Judith (Diane Foster) is seeing all that happens but feeling impotent to react because she does not want to hurt her father. Parrish unites all the small farmers and uses the strategy he learned in the army to go against the Anchor ranch. Like he had warned Lee, "Don't make me fight because you won't like my way of fighting".
| 1pos
|
Such a delightful movie! Very heart warming. One can't help falling in love with the character of Gigi. He's adorable as a child and grows into a sensitive artist. The whole movie revolves around him. He lives in a wonderful world living all life curiosity, desire and anticipation. There is an elder brother who tries to steal his glory but really remains in the shadow all his life. The father is very stereotypically Italian and so is the mother. I wanted the father to come and reunite with the mother in the last scene and have them cry and laugh. I also wish that there was at least something redeeming about the elder brother. His personality seems to have been trashed entirely. Passion and ardour that's the key to life. And looking through the camera focusing on small details and savoring the delicate details of life.
| 1pos
|
Operation Scorpio (AKAThe Scorpion King) doesn't slip into top gear until the last 25 minutes or so, but when the action does hit top speed, it delivers some truly amazing martial arts scenes that demand the viewer's attention. That is not to say that the first hour is worthless just that compared to the final fight-fest, it seems a bit underwhelming.<br /><br />The plot revolves around Yuk-Su, a talented comic artist who dreams of being a herojust like those he depicts in his drawings. When Yuk-Su rescues a young maid, Siu-Yu, who is being sold into prostitution, he incurs the wrath of her evil boss, Wa. Led by Sonny, master of scorpion style kung fu, Wa's henchmen give chase to Yuk-Su and the maid. Yuk-Su's father intervenes but he is injured. After being rescued by some friendly bodybuilders, the three eventually hide out at a noodle restaurant, owned by their friend, Master Yat.<br /><br />Yuk-Su learns to cooks noodles, but also regularly sneaks out in order to secretly build his strength and learn kung fu under the tutelage of Jean, the teacher of the musclebound hulks who rescued them. When Master Yat must leave on business, Yuk-Su is left in charge of the kitchen; however, he pops out to practise his skills with Jean, leaving Siu-Yu to serve the customers. Sonny and his men visit the restaurant and, disgusted by the noodles they are served, trash the restaurant.<br /><br />When Master Yat learns that Yuk-Su has been sneaking out, he tells him that he should have learnt kung fu from him; it transpires that Master Yat used to be a top Triad assassin, until he decided to try and change his ways. Under the guidance of Master Yat, Yuk-Su improves his skills, even learning the art of the shadowless kick! Yuk-Su eventually gets a chance to try and become a real hero when his friend, Fatty, announces that his maid has also been sold into prostitution. With Jean, they visit Wa posing as French brothel keepers looking for new women. When Fatty's maid is presented to them, she accidentally blows their ruse and at last the action kicks off big style. Despite his best efforts, Jean is badly beaten by Sonny and he and Yuk-Su are forced to flee. On returning to the restaurant, Yuk-Su finds it ablaze; and worst of all, the bad guys have found Siu-Yu! Yuk Su, accompanied by Master Yat, returns to Wa's place to try and rescue Siu-Yu...<br /><br />Despite some fairly entertaining training scenes, the slow build up to the final action at Wa's house is rather too drawn out and devoid of any serious fight scenes. It is a shame that the tedium wasn't broken up by a decent scrap midway, rather than saving all of the juicy stuff until the end.<br /><br />The last fight, however, is worth the wait in the end; Won Jin gives a jaw dropping performance as the high kicking Sonny who scuttles, flips and spins with amazing skill and dexterity, and Chin Kar-Lok gives a solid performance as Yuk-Su, the artist-turned-fighter. Also particularly good is old-school kung fu star Lau Kar-Leung (AKA Liu Chia Liang) as Master Yat, proving that this old-timer has still got what it takes to kick ass! Although not a perfect film, Operation Scorpio has enough standout action in its finale to definitely warrant a viewing.<br /><br />NB. I may have got some of the names wrong. My DVD calls characters by different names than those listed on IMDb.
| 1pos
|
One of the best,Lackawanna Blues<br /><br />Great movie,great cast,great music,this is one of those movies that is so good that when it is over you wish it would go on for another 90 minutes,I will w3atch this one many times. <br /><br />This is one of those movies that grabs you from the beginning and twist and slams you emotionally throughout the feature. The cast is extraordinary without the faintest hint of anyone being uncormfortable in their role. You get the sense that you're really there taking all this in. A great deal of care was given in the sets, costumes and music of the period. The relationship between the characters we meet is both simple and complicated as the movie goes on, but the steady performance of Ms. Merkerson is so powerful that the movie ends before we've had our fill of the wonderful misfits. To single out anyone other than "Nanny" is an injustice because we have very good performances by great veteran actors including:<br /><br />Jeffery Wright, Jimmy Smits, Terrence Howard and Delroy Lindo. But it is Marcus Franklin, Macy Gray and Ms. Merkerson that makes this a wonderful experience.<br /><br />The movie moves rapidly and is short by todays standards, but it is without question one of the best movies you're going to see this year. If you like good period pieces that will challenge you emotionally, tug at your heart, lift you joyfully and have you tapping your feet at the same time, then this is the movie for you. I've shown it to several friends and they all want my copy, that says it all, the movie is that good. Check it out for yourself.<br /><br />danceability-1, Amsterdam Holland
| 1pos
|
After a quasi-Gothic, all-fruity music video, the movie starts with Cassidy the lead singer killing herself. In a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. We don't live n that world. The insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. When I say clown, I mean actual clown. He tell them they're all going to die via Cassidy's ghost (the spirit possesses Dora, one of the band-mates) We couldn't care less as the characters are all boring, vapid, and extremely horribly acted. Written by Adam Hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one), and directed by Corbin Timbrook (who after The attendant, and Tower of blood, HAS to know that he keeps making crap for a living), this movie s a constant battle between the film's incompetence and the viewer's need to stay awake. Not enough blood to appease gore-hounds, nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. This movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Amanda Carraway gets topless <br /><br />Where i saw it: Starz on Demand
| 0neg
|
"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.<br /><br />Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.<br /><br />The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots. <br /><br />The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.<br /><br />Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.<br /><br />Grade: C-
| 0neg
|
Stephen Feinberg, who Played the Proctologist and was one of the writers of the movie, passed away in early 2006. I met Steve in Portland in 1993, it was a year latter when he told me that he had been a writer in Hollywood years earlier, working mostly on TV promos. He asked me not to see 'Tunnel Vision', but it was too late, I had seen it already! Actually I had seen it years before, when it was released. At that time I didn't think it was that bad a movie. However seeing it as an adult my opinion was somewhat different. Yes is is a bit puerile as well as dated. Steve admitted it was not a very good movie. That said he was just a little proud of 'The Proctologist' sketch.
| 0neg
|
Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi are both Beautiful films, but this final installment of the trilogy is a major let down. They got too carried away with stock footage and photography, so little content. The executive producer puts his own image in the film... Its just pretentious. Maybe if they had more than $3 million to spend maybe it would have been something. I actually thought Steven Soderbergh directed it because it was so bad, but Godfrey Reggio the director of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi directed this. I'll have to assume that they just didn't have the budget to make a decent film. You would think that Francis Ford Coppola would have wanted to be a part of this film and help get more money together.
| 0neg
|
What a drawn out painful experience.<br /><br />That's over two hours of my life I will never get back.<br /><br />This Film Festival Director's delight - is awash with overuse of the long slow shot....however - that's not the only thing that makes a script.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs.
| 0neg
|
While not as wild and way out as some of Takashi Miike's later films this is a very good crime drama. <br /><br />The basic story is the story of a cop of Japanese cop with Chinese parents trying to take down an up and coming Chinese mobster. Complicating things is that his younger brother is acting as the lawyer for the villain and his gang. The film is actually much more complicated than that with several complications which both keep things interesting and distract things from the central narrative thrust. Its this complication and loss of way about an hour into the film that makes this less than a great film.(It is a very very good one) This is definitely worth seeing especially if you don't mind a no frantic pace.<br /><br />A word of warning, the violence when it happens is explosive and nasty. There are also semi-graphic depictions of gay sex. If thats not your cup of tea, proceed with caution.<br /><br />7 or 8 out of 10.
| 1pos
|
Even though I saw this film when I was very young, I already knew the story of Wild the Thief-Taker and Shepherd who famously escaped from Newgate prison.<br /><br />Apart from the liberty taken right at the end, the film more or less faithfully follows the true story. The temptation to bend the facts which is the hallmark of so many so-called historical films is resisted in this film and the film makers must be praised for that.<br /><br />Of the performances, There is scarcely a poor performance, and Tommy Steele is ideally cast. Also good is Stanley Baker as the Thief-Taker and Alan Badel is good as always.<br /><br />Because the film sticks to the facts, it makes it suitable to be watched by all the family.
| 1pos
|
Another exquisite taste of what a superhero movie should be after Batman:Dead End that just helps stimulate our taste buds and leave us wanting more! This is what a real superhero movie should look like and feel like! Even tough this is a fanfilm of sorts. The attention to detail, character and action is undeniably real. Although this is a limited resources production, it puts to shame big budgeted, star-casted, hyped productions "other" superhero related movies. Here the main and supporting characters act and look like they are real life people. Finally, a Superman that actually looks "super" and looks like the real thing! Batman the way it should be, without the flashy rubber-casted , ripped body armor to hide scrawny physiques for over paid actors that don't deliver. I just wish that some sensible Warner Bros. exec gives the OK to produce a full length adaptation of this jewel. I don't care if it goes to theaters or straight to DVD, I would never get tired of watching it. Just the plot itself is worth my hard earned dough for this. Hope the "bigwigs" at Marvel & DC productions take a look and see what a real well produced superhero movie should look. No more "Batman & Robin" fiasco, or Hulk, Daredevil, etc. Learn from these small time directors and learn that there shouldn't be any reason to "reinvent" the hero for the movie, just to have it "bomb" in theaters. Mr. Collora...We need more directors like you!!
| 1pos
|
Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper still can turn the world on with their smiles. The combined talent of these two wonderful stars make this combination reunion/newstart movie work. Watch it and look forward to hitting sixty! Mary defies the youth oriented society with wit and charm. A touch of drama adds 2000 realism. A TV series follow up would broaden the new characters and give us a chance to occaisionally see Lou Grant, Phyllis, Sue Ann, Murray, and Georgette!
| 1pos
|
Making a film based on a true story, particularly one as incredible and horrifying as the 1972 Andean plane crash, is hard for even the best filmmakers. But the Mexicans behind this forgettable and cheap exploitation flick don't even try! The actual names of both the survivors and the casualties of the Uruguayan air force plane crash have ALL been altered, the crash itself is obviously staged in a very slip-shod manner, and the cannibalism aspect has been unnecessarily and gorily played up. Shockingly, it made a ton of money on both sides of the border. Thankfully, thought, it has mercifully been forgotten. But the same people behind this would later give us the equally revolting GUYANA: CULT OF THE DAMNED!<br /><br />This cheap horror exploitation flick necessitated the making of ALIVE some fifteen years later. That film was a masterpiece. SURVIVE!, to put it mildly, is not.
| 0neg
|
1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.<br /><br />The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).<br /><br />And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...<br /><br />4/10.
| 0neg
|
I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever.
| 0neg
|
As a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of BSG and the stand alone feature BSG Razor I was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. Usually I have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. If the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little CGI money spent. This prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. The virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. These kids are definitely not from this planet. The movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. The scene with Eric Stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. But this old concept was far better portrayed & much more believable in the brilliant, classic original "Frankenstein" with Boris Karloff. Caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old Hollywood horror film. No surprise there! Overall this movie was bland & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll be watching this space soap when it premieres on the Sci-Fi channel. Unless of course I happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. Zzzzzzzz
| 0neg
|
This is no walk in the park. I saw this when it came out, and haven't had the guts to watch it again. You will never see a more horrifyingly devastating or depressing movie. I felt like I'd been severely beaten. What kind of world are we living in when we have children who are treated worse than garbage? This is our world, what we have created, what we have allowed to happen. And I would hesitate to say that I-ME-WE are not responsible for this. Babenco made this film to wake us up, to shake us to our very core, and he succeeded. How can we be cruel, or self-indulgent, or neglectful of our children, when we see the graphic results of such behavior? He is pointing a finger of accusation at us all for doing this to the lowliest and least powerful of our society. And if you aren't doing something each day to prevent it, then you are part of the problem. I am NOT a religious fanatic, but this movie made me think about the state of my soul.
| 1pos
|
I'm sure all of the Canadians on IMDb are all too familiar with Canadian content, and how much of it is... well, shall we say, lackluster. There are a select few Canadian shows that are actually worth watching, however, this is definitely one of them.<br /><br />Simple premise. Two guys picking up girls in a bar with certain guidelines and rules, add in some witty and clever commentary from a group of surprisingly likable self-proclaimed "Alpha Males" and you have yourself some very entertaining programming. Each episode is solid. If the "players" are sub-par, there are some awkward moments to be had, and there is some gentle fun poked at them. If the "players" are good, it leads to moments that you just have to stand up and applaud, and some comical praise lavished at them.<br /><br />The premise is kind of trashy, I know, and as a guy who usually takes pride in the fact that I'm elevated himself above typical, terrible reality television, it takes a lot for me to admit that this show is actually funny and enjoyable.<br /><br />One thing that must be pointed out is how The Comedy Network did a terrible job marketing this show. For the longest time, I didn't even know the premise, and all I knew was that there was somehow a shirtless guy who "loves cougars" involved. However, after actually watching the show, I was surprised by how surprisingly slick it looks for Canadian content (despite a pretty lame opening credits sequence). So give it a chance. I have yet to find someone in the target demographic (18-30 year old males) who have actually watched the show (and not just the annoying commercials) who hasn't liked it.<br /><br />Bring it back for a third season, Comedy Network. It actually has a good premise, as opposed to some other Canadian shows you've had (cough*girls will be girls*cough). I usually reserve 10/10 ratings for "works of art," but I just have so much fun watching this show and I think that it has been unfairly judged my many, that I just had to.
| 1pos
|
The Andrew Davies adaptation of the Sarah Waters' novel was excellent. The characters of Nan and and Kitty were superbly portrayed by Rachael Stirling and Kelley Hawes respectively. The whole series was a total joy to watch. It caught the imagination of everyone across the board, whether straight or gay. I wish there could be a sequel!
| 1pos
|
This is a great premise for a movie. The overall plot is very original,interesting, and something to think about. However poor production, an obviously small budget, crapy acting from the main character, and several side actors really detract from this would be classic. An up and coming producer should try to resurect this story and give this basicly half hearted atempt a proper release.
| 0neg
|
I thought that Mukhsin has been wonderfully written. Its not just about entertainment. There's tonnes of subtle messages that i think Yasmin was trying to bring across. And yes, it might be confusing to some of you(especially if you didn't watch Sepet and/or Gubra for 76 times).<br /><br />I bet u noticed how they use characters from the two movies before right? Its really ironic how the characters relate. Like the bossy neighbour is that prostitute from Gubra. And the chick at the snooker pad turns out to be the religious and wife of the pious man in the future. <br /><br />And i absolutely love the voice-overs. Its crude yet awakeningly fresh. Like, when they took a shot of the Rumah Tumpangan Gamin signboard, then there was suddenly Mukhsin's voice saying 'Bismillahhirrahmannirrahim..' (the scene when he climbed the tree).<br /><br />It captured Malaysian's attitude(and in some mild way, sniggering at how pathetic it is) portrayed in the character. For example, even the kids can be really sharp tongued(complete with the shrill annoying voice) and simply bad mouth ppl all movie long. And how you can be such a busybody and talk about ppl, when ur own life isn't sorted out. <br /><br />All i can say is, this movie totally reached my expectation if not exceeded it. <br /><br />It kept me glued to the screen, i couldn't even take my eyes off it. Not even to make out in the cinema. Ha ha.
| 1pos
|
as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.
| 0neg
|
I mostly rented this movie to see Shannon Elizabeth. She played well in this movie, but the plot sucked. The movie wasn't really about anything just about trying to stay single after making a pact when one of Jerry O' Connell's friends gets married. The other friends put together this money and who's ever last to get married get's the money ($10,000) from all his friends. Anyway the movie just try to follow through by making no since and trying to make it more funny then making since. I'm glad I only paid .50 for this movie. It really wasn't good at all. I rated it **** out of 10 stars!
| 0neg
|
In the spirit of the classic "The Sting", this movie hits where it truly hurts... in the heart! A prim, proper female psychiatrist, hungry for adventure, meets up with the dirtiest and rottenest of scoundrals. The vulnerable doctor falls for the career badman, and begs to be involved in his operation. While the movie moves kind of "slow", it's climax and ending are stunning! You'll especially enjoy how the doctor "forgives herself"!
| 1pos
|
If you want to see a great little horror comedy with an eerie feel to it this is the one. If you are expecting a blood and guts gore flick thats going to scare your pants off- then this isn't the one for you.<br /><br />For the budget that this movie was filmed on, the music was particularly amazing! Even though the film was filmed on a bargain budget the music and audio was definitely better than most movies with a huge budget!<br /><br />The story was truly well done and the director is to be commended. There is an almost perfect blend of comedy to horror in this movie! The acting is top notch and leaves room to make a sequel which I am definitely holding out for! I have no doubt that this movie will become an instant cult classic.<br /><br />In a nutshell this movie chronicles the life story of a boy who enters into the career of becoming a grave-robber. It tells the story in flashback of each of the more fantastic experiences that the robber duo encounters. Vampires to Zombies and even aliens! Our stars start out as simple grave-robbers stealing for jewellery but quickly become body snatchers for a mad doctor (Angus Scrim) who requires bodies for his medical practise. When the duo find a way to have a vampire dispatch their cruel employer the grave-robbers discover that trafficking in undead corpses is much more profitable than just stealing regular dead bodies. The only problem is that there is another gang called the house of Murphy that is competing for the same undead corpses- and thats where both grave-robbing gangs clash head to head with dire consequences.<br /><br />This movie is one of the most refreshing and exciting horror comedies that I have seen in years and reminds me of the Evil Dead. Don't miss this one, you will regret it!
| 1pos
|
The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.<br /><br />Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.<br /><br />Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10
| 0neg
|
I was a little afraid when I went to the cinema to see this movie. Indeed, it is always tough to make a movie from a comics and the first episode of the adventures of the French two greatest heroes was good but not fantastic. Finally, it is very funny from the beginning to the end with unexpected gags, some cartoon scenes, no timeouts, great FX, a great cast, great landscapes, great everything !!!<br /><br />However, I wonder how they will manage to translate all the French names in English or German, because it is certainly funny in French but how will it be in another language ???
| 1pos
|
In my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.<br /><br />I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.<br /><br />At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.<br /><br />Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.<br /><br />All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.
| 0neg
|
I have not seen and heard the original version.<br /><br />I am no Russian, but I am learning right now.<br /><br />I also have no preferences for Russia, Bulgaia, the US etc.<br /><br />But what I have to mention is:<br /><br />In the German synchronisation in the whole film all Russians speak with Russian accent. Americans talk "Hochdeutsch" (without accent)! I have never heard such a stupidity! Besides, this is boring.<br /><br />I hope the original is better.<br /><br />The rest is a simple thriller, not really good ideas. Like a cheap version of a James Bond film.
| 0neg
|
Seems everyone in this film is channeling Woody Allen. They stammer and pause and stammer some more. Only for REALLY die-hard DeNero fans! It tries to appear as edgy and artistic - but it comes off as looking like a very, very low budget film made by college students. The most often used word in the whole film is "hum". The film does peg the atmosphere of the late sixties/early seventies though. If you like films where people are CONSTANTLY talking over each other, horrible lighting (even if it is for "art's sake"), and makes you feel like you are sitting in on a lame political meeting, then you might like this - but you need to be really bored. I found this CD in the dollar bin and now I know why.
| 0neg
|
This film to me is a very good film!!<br /><br />I have a German Shepherd myself and I wish to god he was like Jerry Lee!! I hope too that there is another K-9 in the running!! With Jerry Lee and Dooley in them!! I don't care what any one say these two films were excellent!!
| 1pos
|
THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(35mm and 70mm release prints)<br /><br />A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.<br /><br />Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.<br /><br />Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.<br /><br />(English version)
| 0neg
|
I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right? <br /><br />Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.<br /><br />Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.
| 0neg
|
I think this was the most outstanding edge-of-your-seat thriller that I have seen in a long time. The research for the film was thorough, the writer Kelly Sane has left no loose ends. The cast was seasoned (fantastic performances all round). Omar Metwally was outstanding.<br /><br />The cinematography is poetic, music enchanting and the overall effect highly satisfying.<br /><br />Rendition goes into territory that even the media fears to tread. It is really a wakeup call for those involved with espionage and the legal web that is the "War on Terror". <br /><br />A woman walked out of the theater and asked me "does this really happen"? That in itself speaks of Gavin Hood's masterful achievement.
| 1pos
|
One of Starevich's earliest films made in France is possibly his only political satire. The story of The Frogs Who Wanted A King mirrors its title as a group of high "croakers" feel that democracy has gone flat so they demand a king from Jupiter to rule their land. When he sends down a stump, the frogs ask for another king, saying the stump is but "political timber." Jupiter sends down a hungry stork this time whose frog lusty eyes devour the town's residents. As the original "croaker" is about to slide down the stork's beak, he speaks his moral: "let well enough alone." This film features a few beautiful crowd scenes of dozens of puppet frogs. Starewicz tricks the audience into believing they are all moving at once by keeping the background in constant motion and animating only about six frogs or so at one time. The slightly corny dialogue and problems with lighting in a few places diminish the quality of repeat viewings, however its historical significance in Starewicz's life make it of importance to watch. His feelings towards government immediately following his flee from Russia are likely expressed in this film. In addition, the technical accomplishments of animating so many characters at once in a stop-motion film is astounding.
| 1pos
|
Nope, I am just not going to get with it here. I refuse to go along with the program. Don't you supposed that perhaps this movie is just a tad over-rated? Look at the reader comments and their star ratings: Most are 6/10, 7/10 or better. I think this is an instance when the ratings may say more about the people rendering them than the movie itself, which is unique. How many other sex fantasies about simulated bestiality complete with horse couplings have become mainstream hits as catalog DVD titles? I watched this movie with a pervading sense of anticipation, expecting fireworks, and instead got someone popping a Gucci shopping bag. It looked great, but once the thrill had been spent even the twist ending didn't do much to save it.<br /><br />The film's background story says it all: Director films about 25 minutes of borderline hardcore fake bestial sex for another movie, is informed the footage will not be appropriate, sets it aside, waits two or three years for a smattering of critical acclaim to build up, then constructs an entire feature around that 25 minutes, filming roughly 70 minutes of otherwise unrelated, excruciatingly boring footage and inserting the 25 minute chunk in as a dream sequence. That the 25 minutes of film in question is strikingly odd, original and shocking in a deliberate, calculated manner goes without saying. But we aren't here to evaluate that 25 minutes alone, we must consider the entire film, and ask ourselves why people are so enthusiastic about the movie? Or are they just enamored by it's background story and history of having been banned by people who were stupid enough to be offended by it?<br /><br />Perhaps it is an anti-clerical agenda that appeals to them. Hating the western religions of catholicism and Christianity is one of the few remaining socially acceptable bastions of intolerance -- Just today it was revealed that the BBC routinely skews their broadcasts with anti Christian & anti Western sentiment in the furtherance of political correctness. You can say anything you want about the Bible, pedopheliac priests, the institutionalized cruelty of the church, and how much white men and their inhuman religions suck the dimpled skin off a golf ball ... But say one negative thing about non-westernized religions, and you are toast. This movie was tailor made for such a sentiment, with a wrinkly old dried up priest who has an entirely unwholesome on screen relationship with two pretty 14 year old French boys complete with inappropriate touching, fawning, fondling, fumbling, groping, and patting of the backsides. Ewww.<br /><br />And then there is the horse couplings, photographed in such fetishistic closeup detail that portions of the film could be used as visual aids for a biology class on animal husbandry. Yes I understand the thematic relevance of the imagery -- large animal phallus's with a wealth of reproductive fluids just waiting to be unleashed like fire extinguishers -- but if I wanted to watch horses, you know, do it, I would like go live on a farm. Having their genitals in my face is about as entertaining as watching someone use a bathroom.<br /><br />Is this movie just a sort of artsy diversion for social deviants? Probably, though I will grant the artistic execution of most of it, filmed in a kind of arty Euro detail that even has a dappled forest pond right out of a Monet painting, complete with a spanning arched bridge. And the ending (which even I managed to be surprised by) does sort of wrap it all up into a neat if distasteful package. But you have to remember that there are certain things that cannot be deconstructed for their design elements and many artists are guilty for exploiting them in their work to lend a sort of gravitas that would not have been achieved without it. That isn't fair, and even Clint Eastwood has fallen prey to the urge with his new movie about Iwo Jima. Whether or not his film is any good stands as a separate consideration from whether or not that battle was a noble cause fought by men who were heroes. The problem is that most people will not be able to separate out the two aspects of the movie and will be lining up to give it Oscars because of it's noble message -- not because it is a particularly good or original movie.<br /><br />While it may seem like an odd parallel, I see one with THE BEAST: How can anyone not see the basic beauty of nature in the sight of two horses mating? And who cannot see the logical culmination of the repressed sexuality from fairy tales in the film's explosive set-piece where Beauty and the Beast finally do the nasty? Somehow I managed to miss both points, and am delighted that I have seen this film so that I can trash it as being what it really is: 25 minutes or so of eye opening over the top adult fairy tale imagery surrounded by 70 minutes of skull drainingly boring artsy-fartsy Euro Trash dreck about some guy getting a haircut, and a great ending. It's art for sure, but it sucks hard.<br /><br />3/10
| 0neg
|
with that, carry the same dark weaknesses we all unfortunately possess: lying, deception, laziness, the list goes on.<br /><br />However, as an American, I was shocked to see that corruption and racism exist in today's police force as is reflected with the Duval County Sheriff Department's horrible detective and police work with the murder of a white female tourist and a 15-year old accused black youth. I shook my head in shame that detectives were protected from their abusive work while a young man's LIFE hung in the crooked balance of justice.<br /><br />However, there is also a story of hope with our judicial system and how poorly-paid public defenders stuck by their guns (irony intended) and forced the truth from the detectives. I wanted to fly down to Florida and tell anybody with influence what a great public defender team they have in Duval County; those lawyers care about the "little" man and, most importantly, for justice.<br /><br />The other story line is about faith and family. Praises to the accused's family and their strong Christian (submit any dedicated religion) beliefs and wonderful family values. I hope they win their lawsuit against the Duval County Sheriff's Department.<br /><br />Bravo for justice!!! Bravo for the little guy!!!
| 1pos
|
Legendary director Sidney Lumet gives us one of his finest films in his historic career in this very tense, and ultimately shocking story about a family that includes dysfunctional as one of the children. With an A-list cast headed by Philip Seymour Hoffman (an Oscar-worthy performance here), Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney, Lumet has captured not just elements of botched crime stories such as Reservoir Dogs, but also family stories such as Ordinary People.<br /><br />Many viewers might be confused and feel underwhelmed at the construction of the plot Lumet has gone with here. Instead of showing it in a linear manner, he has gone the Tarantino route and shows the central scene of a robbery gone wrong from different points of view all out of order. I personally found this to be very satisfying and left me constantly guessing what was going to happen next. The script is very strong with some excellent scenes between husband and wife Hoffman and Tomei, as well as between father and son Finney and Hoffman. All the actors are totally engaging to watch and Lumet is obviously having fun in directing a style he usually doesn't delve in. Plenty of action and suspense to hold the audience for the two hour running time, this is a rare movie that doesn't disappoint for one moment.
| 1pos
|
Henri Verneuil's film may be not so famous as Parallax View, 3 Days of the Condor or JFK but it is certainly not worse and sometimes even better than these classic representatives of the genre. Action takes place in fictional western state where fictional president has been killed. After several years of investigation, special government commission decides that president was killed by a lone gunman. But one man - prosecutor Volney, played by Yves Montand - thinks there's something more to be investigated and so the film starts. This movie doesn't deal with some exact theories, but it embraces the whole structure of relationship between government and society in today's world. Such film could be made only in the 1970-ies but it will never lose it's actuality. Furthermore, it's even a bit frightful how precise are it's oracles. 10 out of 10.
| 1pos
|
Since many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't do it.<br /><br />However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film. <br /><br />Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true.<br /><br />There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ramón Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious of those are the family. For instance, Ramón's sister-in-law never talks for or against euthanasia. Another such character is Gené (the social rights activist) who, in the last moment, tells Ramón to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows that she doesn't want him to die.<br /><br />Then there are characters who are clearly against euthanasia. Ramón's brother is clearly against it, as is his father ("There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that wants to die.") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ramón and the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ramón is GOOD and the priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ramón to keep on living using arguments totally alien to Ramón's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line of "God gives and God takes", "We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong to God"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ramón is atheist and all the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense.<br /><br />This film is the antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the subject and make up his/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of FREEDOM.
| 1pos
|
This movie is very important because suggested me this consideration: sometimes you can wish to be sick ... sometimes you can wish to have a syndrome ... sometimes, for example, you can wish have Goldfield Syndrome... that way you'd not remember this boring movie ... and above all you'd not remember Adam "superfluos" Sandler... sometimes, simply, you can wish... have rented another movie...<br /><br />My vote? 3 out of 10. My suggestion? If you are neither a fan of boring romantic comedies or Adam Sandler (...it's a joke don't exist Adam Sandler's fan...I want to hope it), save yourself... Someone to save? Drew Barrymore. ... perhaps.
| 0neg
|
*SPOILERS*<br /><br />I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.<br /><br />Or so they thought.<br /><br />This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.<br /><br />This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say "Dada!" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.<br /><br />Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.<br /><br />This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good "bad" movie.<br /><br />*** out ****
| 1pos
|
This is a very intriguing short movie by David Lynch, and saying the name David Lynch is probably enough for a lot of people. This is your typical Lynch short. A blonde and a brunette are in a dark room. The blonde has been crying, the brunette is talking in a threatening way to the blonde, and that's about it.<br /><br />With a lot of silent moments, but with the haunting music from Angelo Badalamenti, there is a strange form of suspense. This short feels a little like 'Mulholland Dr.', a movie I loved, and therefore I liked this one as well. It is probably especially for Lynch fans but there is a chance you like this.
| 1pos
|
Seven months since a revelatory viewing of Faces, I finally found a rentable DVD copy of Cassavetes' first feature. Shot on a shoestring in Manhattan and in his acting workshop on ad hoc sets, Shadows was the culmination of months of improvisational rehearsals, in which the (mostly amateur) actors developed bonds with one another, invented their characters, and polished their techniques to give their filmed performances just the right tenor of spontaneous familiarity. This intimate approach led to some incredibly daring work in Facesi.e., Seymour Cassel cramming his hands down Lynn Carlin's throat in an attempt to revive her from an overdosejust as the actors' utter conviction here yields blisteringly honest moments like Lelia and Tony's post-coital assessment of their relationship and Ben's revulsion at a black woman's touch as a manifestation of his racial confusion and self-loathing. A homemade production in the best sense, the out-of-sync dubbing and sound recording, and the granular cinematography and up-close camera setups, build an immersive atmosphere that perfectly suits Cassavetes' nuanced vision of human relationships as perpetual works in progress, marked by desperate emotional fluctuations and wistful attempts at communication and understanding. Charles Mingus's largely improvised jazz score is an ideal complement to the film's vision of living by the moment, a mantra by which Cassavetes worked and seemingly lived.
| 1pos
|
This was what black society was like before the crack epidemics, gangsta rap, and AIDS that beset the ghettos in the eighties. Decent, hardworking families that struggled to get by and all the traumas and tribulations they faced. Black America was a different group of people in the seventies. Still full of hope and flying high on the civil rights movements of the sixties, times were hard but still worth fighting for. Keepin' your head above water, making a wave when you can, this show showed how black society struggled to work together as people and families, before they started to prey on each other and everyone else in order to survive the horrors of the ghettos. It is heart-breaking to see what the black ghettos were like then and what they have become now.
| 1pos
|
It's hard to criticize this movie, because I dislike the story itself, and no amount of good acting would have saved it. Think "Raising Arizona" with a mean streak. The acting is passable, but Jennifer Tilly is way over the top (yet not enough to make this a nice camp film) as usual, coming in somewhere between "Misery" and a sarcastic DMV employee. The rest of the cast have their brows perpetually knitted in consternation, either from the stress of their parts or the stress of the whole futile exercise. A real degrading few hours of film. Darryl Hannah spends most of the movie weeping too hard to be understood. I wish I could tell you how it ended but I walked out, sorry.
| 0neg
|
The 3-D featured in "The Man Who Wasn't There" stands for DUMB, DUMB, DUMB! This inept comedy features lousy 3-D effects that makes the 3-D effects in "Jaws 3", "Amityville 3", and "Friday the 13th Part 3" look better by comparison. Not to mention the movie is asinine to the extreme. This was one of many 1983 movies to feature the pop-off-the-screen effects. Steve Guttenberg and Jeffrey Tambor got trapped in this mess, but at least it didn't kill their careers. Tambor would go on to star on HBO's "The Larry Sanders Show" and Ron Howard's box office smash "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", while Guttenberg followed this flop with "Police Academy" and "Cocoon". What them in those projects instead of them here in "The Man Who Wasn't There". If you do, you'll regret it.<br /><br />1/2* (out of four)
| 0neg
|
Streisand fans only familiar with her work from the FUNNY GIRL film onwards need to see this show to see what a brilliant performer Streisand WAS - BEFORE she achieved her goal of becoming a Movie Star. There had never been a female singer quite like her ever before, and there never would be again (sorry, Celine - only in your dreams!), but never again would Streisand sing with the vibrancy, energy, and, above all, the ENTHUSIASM and VULNERABILITY with which she performs here - by the time she gets to that Central Park concert only 2 or 3 years later, she'd been filming FUNNY GIRL in Hollywood and her performing style has become less spontaneous and more reserved, more rehearsed (and, let's face it: more angry) - there's a wall between her and the audience. Live performing was never what she really enjoyed - she did it because she knew it was her ticket to Hollywood, and once she no longer had to do it she's done it as little as possible (and oh, that legendary stage fright provides such a good excuse!).<br /><br />Her vocals here and on her earlier Judy Garland Show appearance are incredible: Streisand could truly make an old song sound new again, and composers such as Richard Rodgers and Harold Arlen loved her for it. But by the 1970s Streisand was trying to be a "rock" singer, her albums pandering to the younger audiences, with over-wrought shrieking of songs that were unworthy of her effort or her voice. <br /><br />In the '80s she came back with that brilliant "Broadway Album," but went on and on about what a struggle it was to get it done, how "they" told her not to do it, etc. Oh please - when has anyone told Streisand what to do? She could have been doing good stuff like that all along, bringing audiences UP to her level instead of stooping to what she thought the young public wanted. (The "Back to Broadway" sequel wasn't nearly as good, as Streisand seems to feel it necessary to improve on other composers' work: if he were alive at the time, would Richard Rodgers have even recognized his own "Some Enchanted Evening"? Rodgers, notorious for taking singers to task for playing around with his melodies, would undoubtedly have been after Streisand to sing what he'd written! She also blows Michael Crawford off the CD in their duet of "Music of the Night" - apparently reminding him just whose CD this is. Why does she insist on taking songs that are duets and singing them by herself, and songs that aren't duets and singing them as duets with someone else who she then goes on to diminish?)<br /><br />Supposedly Judy Garland took Streisand aside and advised her, "Don't let them do to you what they did to me," advice Streisand wasted no time in heeding - despite her protestations to the contrary, surely it looks like it's always been her way or the highway. Just imagine - SHE told the CBS brass how her first TV special would be done - no guests, just HER.<br /><br />But nobody can argue with the results that are so evident here. Treat yourself to this brilliant musical phenomenon BEFORE she was a legend - you'll be absolutely amazed at the difference!<br /><br />PS - I watched this again last night (12/01) after not having seen it for many years - it was even BETTER than I remembered! The 1st Act begins with "I'm Late" and includes "Make Believe" and "How Does the Wine Taste," and Barbra's homage to childhood, "I'm Five" - it climaxes as Streisand appears with full (and I mean FULL) orchestra to sing "People" - she wasn't bored with the song yet and although it's a somewhat shorter rendition it really soars - compare it to some of her later "auto-pilot" versions. The 2nd act (after Streisand's "kooky" schtick-patter, which hasn't changed much over the years) is the famous series of Depression songs set amidst the extravagance of Bergdorf-Goodman's.<br /><br />The 3rd Act is the stunner - call it "Streisand, the Orchestra, and the Audience" (although we never see the audience that supposedly witness this historic event). With her fear of audiences and dislike of such performing, this may have been the toughest part for her, but if so, to her credit it doesn't show. She tears through "Lover Come Back to Me" and the torchy "When the Sun Comes Out" (though I can't remember in which order!), the poignant "Why Did I Choose You? (one of my all-time favorite Streisand performances) and offers a medley of FUNNY GIRL songs, including (of course) "Don't Rain on My Parade" and my favorite song from the score, "The Music That Makes Me Dance". Explaining that "Fanny Brice sang a song like that in 1922, and it made her the toast of Broadway", Streisand then sings "My Man", and it's almost a dress-rehearsal template for her later screen rendition in the FUNNY GIRL film (the main difference being that the black gown here is sleeveless - her film gown had long sleeves and against the black background all we saw were her hands and face), but the vocal here is more urgent and charged than her later film vocal. (Her performance of the song has everything to do with Streisand and nothing to do with Fanny Brice who, of course, never sang the song in such an all-out manner as Streisand does here or in the film - see THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD for a glimpse of Brice's more understated version.) The show ends with Streisand singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" over the credits.<br /><br />When it was over I said to the friend I was watching it with, "She has NEVER, EVER, done anything better!"<br /><br />And she was TWENTY-THREE YEARS OLD!
| 1pos
|
And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in "Celebrity." It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.<br /><br />This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.
| 0neg
|
I am a current A.S.L. Student & was forced to watch this movie in class, and what I got out of it was the blatant bias involved in the film. The film is obviously leaning towards to P.O.V. of the "common deaf perception" their is no middle ground. Also, the film didn't make mention or take into account other situations that are also under debate in this topic. I.E. Deaf People who were born hearing and later went deaf. Is it right or wrong in that instance? The film is biased and virtually all in the opinion of the Deaf w/ a capital "D". Not that this is bad, but for it to be a true documentary film is should attempt to be slightly unbiased.
| 0neg
|
Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.
| 0neg
|
Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.
| 0neg
|
I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!
| 0neg
|
Let's see, cardboard characters like Muslim terrorists have forced a cardboard scientist to perform some exotic drug tests on some cardboard people who have been drugged and kidnapped. You'll be sure to laugh when these pathetic excuses for humanoids get their just deserts! Turns out the drug experiments have given them the ability to sense another world....the world of religious fantasy!--complete with cardboard demons who look like they are made of Papier Mache. Everybody gets dragged off to Hell except for one poor chap who goes to Heaven where he can presumably spend Eternity with the blockheads that created this Masterpiece of the Absurd. I think I'd opt for Hellfire myself. Go see something else, unless you are stoned, in which case, you might actually like it! Couldn't hurt!
| 0neg
|
This is a great comedy, highlighting what it was like to live next door to racist bigot. But also shows that both main characters are actually as bad as each other. Based on the hit ITV comedy, this is very politically incorrect. And its all the better for it, comedy after all is to entertain. The movies only real drawback is there isnt much of a plot. However the cast are as great as usual. Jack Smethurst and Rudolph Walker make one hell of a team, playing off each other in a oneupmanship kind of way.It's been many years since i saw this movie and last week was finally able to buy it on dvd. The fact that the movie still contains genuine laugh out loud moments, means that i can recommend this movie, just like i would of back in the 1970's.
| 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.