text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS<br /><br /> The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.<br /><br /> The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.<br /><br /> The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.<br /><br /> Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.
| 0neg
|
This movie made me want to bang my head against the wall. It is hard to compare such badness as this to anything, but some say that watching this movie is similar to bleeding from under your fingernails. And that comment comes from the writer's cousin. This movie was so flipping bad, it made "Hulk" (The second worst movie ever) look like "The Departed" (One of the greatest movies in cinematic history). If you like boring family movies with predictable plot lines, then you will absolutely love this movie. If you have a brain, then you definitely will not. When I rented this movie, I actually fell asleep while watching it. The next day, I finished it from where I left off, and it was the worst decision of my life.
| 0neg
|
In this film, made JUST as the production code was being enforced, Jean Harlow is Eadie, and Patsy Kelly is the wisecracking, man-chasing sidekick "Kitty". Girl from Missouri starts out with the girls getting on a train, with Eadie making a promise to herself to earn money while looking for a millionaire husband, staying whole-some in the process. It doesn't take her long to meet up with Frank Cousins, (Lewis Stone, was the kindly Doctor in Grand Hotel, as well as Judge Hardy in the "Andy Hardy" films.), but all is not as it seems...The censors must have LOVED Harlow's line "A girl couldn't accept an expensive gift like that from a gentleman unless she was engaged." Later, someone says "You know we've never been alone together" and Eadie replies "Yeah, and we're not going to be!" Lionel Barrymore is T.R. Paige, another rich, uppercrust who comes to her rescue when trouble comes looking for Eadie. At one point, Paige declares "You oughta scratch me off your list - I'm not a ladies man".... I wonder what that line would have been just a couple years earlier before the Hayes code came rolling into town. What was he really saying? Carol Tevis seems to be the high-pitched "Baby Talker" as listed in the credits on IMDb. Looks like she was only in showbiz from 1931 - 1939, with "Munchkin" in Wizard of Oz being the last part she played. Fun, cleancut romp as the girls chase men around the country. Look for Nat Pendleton as the lifeguard, who was an Olympic Wrestler 1920 (silver medal winner) turned film star (he was in many of the Dr. Kildares, and would appear in four of Harlow's films.) Mistaken identity, plot twists, a young Franchot Tone, love stories, even Jean Harlow in a bathing suit in "Palm Beach", although the outdoor scenes of downtown appear to be a backdrop.
| 1pos
|
Boogie Nights is full of surprises, nothing quite prepares one for it its soul. Yes, it does have soul, whilst tackling the tackiest of subject matter, with both a wry smile and respect. Brillantly cast and wonderful character development, the performances somehow combine the best of stage acting with improvisation within a cinema verite style.<br /><br />The plot proved richer than I expected and the underlying themes are teased out quite profoundly as each "B grade" human being is brought, through crisis, into perspective.<br /><br />A sociologist's dream case study, the film resonates the raw truth of what we all know about self-esteem, parental love and lack of it, attention/love deficit and its manifestation in adulthood, the desperate need to belong. Something for everyone here.. almost camouflaged as issues of untouchables and their separate milieu but of course they are universal.<br /><br />The film works on a number of levels. The ironic loop is that the milieu portrayed exists only because of the voyeur, who happens to be watching the film...<br /><br />Boogie Nights is non judgmental of its subject matter and characters, a rarity. It deserves every accolade it has achieved and more.
| 1pos
|
badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor.
| 0neg
|
Yes sure, this is a Friday the 13th rip off but I have no problem with it. It's a good effort, the killings aren't that gory but the acting of one girl carries the movie, what a scream queen, Jennifer Ritchkoff. For a low budget movie the effects are nicely done, okay, sometimes you can guess how it is done. Some people have problems with the use of the camera, I can't see what's wrong with that. It's so strange that so many people dislike this movie, I really enjoyed it. Of course the script isn't original but give me one that is, I mean, so many slashers are made in the woods. maybe it is all predictable but it's a worth see, I have seen a lot worser, I can tell you that
| 0neg
|
As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout! <br /><br />One point is knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far.
| 1pos
|
Within the first 5 minutes of this movie I knew I was in for one of those "pick at the faults" kinda movie. The acting was terrible, the script was even worse. Who ever let these people write write such crap for a movie need to be feed the Komodo's themselves. With Russian Mig jets posing as U.S. Air Force jets, and pistols that can miraculously shoot 50 - 60 rounds rapid fire without reloading is poor detail to any story. In one scene komodo are killing special forces troops at night, while in another they are explaining how the komodos and cobras are cold blooded and don't come out night!!!! Also with fantastic special effects available in today's movie industry, they were only average even for this low budget movie.<br /><br />All that being said, I did watch it to the end curious as to what other wonders bad film making could produce. Shame Shame Shame, for producing such rot!!!<br /><br />This movie should have been left on the cutting room floor!!!
| 0neg
|
Some of the best movies that are categorized as "comedies" actually blur between comedy and drama. "The Graduate" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", which were made also in the late 1960's are perfect examples. Are they comedies with dramatic undertones, or dramas with a lot of humor? In many respects, "The Odd Couple" falls into this same category of being both comedy yet highly dramatic with deep underpinnings about human nature. Much of what happens may be funny to the audience but the characters are not laughing.<br /><br />Despite the rather light-hearted TV show of the 1970's, the original "Odd Couple" is not merely about a neat guy and messy guy who are forced to live together because of their marital situation. It's really about two opposites who must face why their marriages fell apart and how their detrimental idiosyncrasies reveal themselves outside of their marriage. Neatness, the characteristic of Felix Ungar (Jack Lemon perfectly cast) and messiness, the characteristic of Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), are only the beginning and somewhat superficial. As the story unfolds, we find there is a lot more to these men than simply neatness versus messiness.<br /><br />Briefly, the story is really about Felix Ungar, who has to face an impending divorce from his wife Francis, who we never meet but is an important character throughout the story. On the verge of suicide, Ungar goes to the only place he knows: the apartment of Oscar Madison where a group of poker buddies hang out every so often. We learn that Ungar is not only a member of this "poker club" but the group knows what's happening to him and try, in their inept way, to help out. Madison figures the best way to help Ungar is to let him move in with him until his suicidal tendencies wear off.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Madison, he doesn't know what he's getting himself into. Madison is a carefree happy-go-lucky if rather irresponsible slob who's refrigerator was last cleaned probably when Herbert Hoover was still in the White House. Madison's idea of serving snacks is grabbing moldy cheese and sticking them in between two pieces of bread, and then throwing the contents of a bag of chips on the table. On the other hand, he enjoys booze and women, in short having a good time. <br /><br />Ungar is not only altogether different, he is diametrically opposite. He is not only an obsessive neatness nut that finds more joy in disinfecting the apartment than meeting women but he knows more than most women do about cooking and fine eating. At one point, he calls his ex-wife, not to talk about reconciling, but to get her recipe for meatloaf. At another moment, Ungar was going to spend the rest of the evening cutting cabbage for coleslaw. When Madison seems unimpressed, Ungar finally confesses he was only doing it for his roommate because he can't stand coleslaw. Who is this guy? But he has another endearing trait: Felix is also a hypochondriac. He obsesses about his health to the point where he makes strange noises in public places claiming he's helping his sinuses. He seems to have every health condition in the book. And if they made up more, Felix would probably have them. Ultimately, he is overly self-absorbed.<br /><br />Running throughout the movie are references to marriage. At one point when Madison is trying to convince Ungar to move in, he says, "What do you want, a wedding ring?" But little does he know that it is not the neat guy who can't deal with the messy guy, but the other way around. Their friendship becomes an inadvertent hellish relationship. And the climax occurs when Oscar invites two lonely British sisters for a get-together with both comedic and tragic results. This is one of the best comedies of its type ever written and not to be missed, with superlative performances by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon in roles that are hard to imagine better played by anyone else. It is unfortunate that writing of this caliber is sadly lacking from most comedies being produced today.
| 1pos
|
Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA!
| 1pos
|
Superb and charming. Justin Henry is beautiful as a blissed out and mischievous Howard Kaylan, lead singer for the top ten hit making band, The Turtles. The real magic is the titular sequence with an academy award worthy turn by Royale Watkins. A performance that completely captures the mystical and yet down to earth Jimi Hendrix. Not many films, unbelievably so, can find the essence of a special moment in a life and times. I'd like to see this available at any home video retail outlet without any hassle. Uh..what's the deal?<br /><br />Thanks Eddie. A worthy addition to the history of the psychedelic sixties. A definite twinkle in the mind's eye.
| 1pos
|
Got the chance to see this at a friend's house today, and was impressed with what it achieved on such a small budget. Not that this ever bothered me anyway, since I love low budget sci-fi like Dr Who, Blake's 7 and Dark Star. Hell, even Outland wasn't a big budget affair, so whilst money helps, it takes more than throwing cash at things to make them good.<br /><br />The story is straightforward at first, with a group of mercenaries paid to escort a prisoner through space. Their ship is attacked and they are forced to land on the nearest planet. They then discover the prisoner has made it too, he's a stone cold nut case and that's only the start of their problems.<br /><br />The effects, except for the gunfights, are minimalistic and add to the film without overwhelming it. Computer effects look a bit dodgy at times, but serve their purpose well and add to the story, lending a futuristic feel to the proceedings. Films like I, Robot could have benefited from this approach instead of being largely style over substance and substituting special effects for a plot, like all too many of Hollywood's offerings.<br /><br />Whilst none of the actors get Oscar material, it's tightly scripted and shot and at an hour and ten minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. The characters don't get fleshed out much, but then they didn't in Predator either, which it resembles in feel. Big man Mike Mitchell is a good stand in for Arnie and is a good combination of brains and brawn.<br /><br />Some people may be annoyed at the lack of explanation towards the end, but I like it. Unlike a lot of films and shows which leave things unexplained, it is not so obscure that you can't get a handle on it at all, and I'd like to see a sequel where the nature of the aliens is explored further.<br /><br />A cracking little film from an enterprising team, done on the cheap but a fun way to pass an hour. If this is what they can do on a shoestring I'd like to see what they would do with a bit more cash, and hope the film industry and the talentless armchair critics don't knock all the creativity out of them first.<br /><br />Recommended.
| 1pos
|
It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.
| 0neg
|
Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say. <br /><br />As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.<br /><br />Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!
| 0neg
|
a really awful movie about a 30 meters long shark. bad story bad discussions bad characters bad plot even a confusing ending a complete. a waist of time in my point of view I thought it was a TV movie, but then I saw it was not I cant imagine having paid to see this load of crap please avoid this movie at any cost. even if u liked jaws, which I averagely did, don't see it even if you have interests in paleontology, don't see it even if you like corny movies with corny actors, corny plots during corny TV time, do humanity a favor and do not, I repeat, DO NOT pollute your mind with this ridiculous excuse for a sci-fi animal thriller still, some people gave it a ten ranting... don't know if they were serious or not (but sincerely expect they weren't)
| 0neg
|
Greetings All,<br /><br />Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?<br /><br />I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about "Flatliners" to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.<br /><br />Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought "Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition".<br /><br />Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !<br /><br />Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.<br /><br />I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.<br /><br />In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 / 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 / 10 at best.<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini.
| 0neg
|
Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some "mood enhancers" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's "A Christmas Carol". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find "To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos!
| 0neg
|
It's just such a joy to have watched this intriguing project. So refreshing and educating. Not only to a filmmaker, who can learn what can be achieved in 5 minutes of screen time, but also as audience, who may not be so ready for so much love in such short time.<br /><br />20 short films about love in Paris are all unique, but some of them, as expected, stand out. I thought the Tom Tykwer (Natalie Portman) segment was the best, although the mimes made me smile inside just the same.<br /><br />I clicked on "spoilers" option for this review bus alas...what you read is a spoiler enough. Just watch it. Don't read what I write, but watch the movie instead.<br /><br />And smile.
| 1pos
|
I'm somewhat of a fan of Lynche's work, so I was excited when I found this DVD. Unfortunately, I was very let down. It's a series of short cartoons which attempt to show a disturbing and disgusting sort of humor. The animation is very crude, no doubt done using Macromedia. Each cartoon has a big fat guy beating up his family and generally acting like a jerk to everyone he knows. <br /><br />For people who are not familiar with this vein of animation, they will probably be somewhat impressed by it. However, if you've spent much time on Newgrounds.com, like me, then these cartoons will be no different than any of the other stuff you've seen before. Many of the popular amateur artists on Newgrounds are doing much better work than what was shown on this DVD. If Lynch submitted this work to the website, then he would blend in perfectly with some of the better of Newgrounds artists. But, since I saw this on DVD, instead of on Newgrounds, I give it a 4/10, instead of a 7/10, as I would have otherwise. These cartoons are fit for the internet, but with a name like David Lynch on it, I expected better quality both in story and in animation.
| 0neg
|
This movie has an all star cast, John Candy, Richard Lewis, Ornella Mutti, Cybill Shepard, and Jim Belushi to name a few, run amuck in Monte Carlo, as well as some other beautiful European locations, and is very funny. The trouble that everyone gets in when they lie to protect themselves is great, and I highly recommend that you see this movie, it is well worth it! John Candy is in top form in Once Upon A Crime, as is everyone else! If you and your family are looking for a great family film, this is your ticket. Everyone gives stellar performances, great acting, great comedy, and great timing, which is rare in movies these days. Great plot, great mystery, (which I love anyways) and overall, well worth the money you spend on it. So get the kids, grab some popcorn, juice, or tea, or sodas, and enjoy the show!!!!
| 1pos
|
This is Jackie Chan's best film, and my personal favourite. After the disappointing U.S made 'The Protector' directed by James Glickenhaus, Jackie took the concept and placed it slap bang into Hong Kong. This is also probably Jackies most violent movie, with the audience cringing at the bone breaking stunts.<br /><br />The action is fast and furious, Jackie and his crew really did put max effort into the fight design. Bones were broken and blood spilt in the process of making this film as you'll see in the credits.<br /><br />The script is a simple cops and robbers affair, nothing special, after all it was written around the action. I must say that the english version has some dodgy dubbing, but it shouldn't put you off too much.<br /><br />So, get the lads round, crack open the beers and enjoy. By the way, the film was nicknamed 'Glass Story' by the stunt crew. Why? I'll let you find out for yourself!!
| 1pos
|
This movie is a nonsense/spoof comedy, in the lines of The Airplane or Naked Gun, but it doesn't even come close to this two, because it lacks originality and a little more intelligent jokes, rather then just throwing you with the same old easy jokes.<br /><br />You can figure out some references to other movies, from the top of my head I identified Dodgeball and Rocky, so you can have some fun with that, trying to find out what movies are spoofed.<br /><br />The movie also offers you an occasional laugh, but nothing that can cause you injuries, thus nothing really funny.<br /><br />I liked the character IPod in some ways (even though some of the jokes with him are standard comedy 101).<br /><br />I think this movie (and like most of nonsense/spoof comedy) depends on the mood you are in, so if you think you will laugh to any joke watch this movie. If you are in a serious mood forget about this (re)watch The Airplane instead, it will definitely make you laugh
| 0neg
|
Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.<br /><br />The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.<br /><br />The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.<br /><br />The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.
| 0neg
|
One of the best comedians ever. I've seen this show about 10 times and will probably watch it at least 100 more. My friends and family quote from this DVD so often, you'd think we did nothing other than watch it. The beginning part about Alcatraz is a little bit slow, but either wade through it or zip on through to the part where Eddie is on stage. Watch for the "Cake or Death" part (Joking about the Church of England) and the "Hitler/Pol Pot" part (Hard to explain, just watch it). The best part of the show may be Eddie's facial expressions. He can really say a lot with his eyes. (Mascara, eyeliner, and eyeshadow probably help, huh?) Fair warning: Eddie does have a tendency to throw a lot of four-letter words in.
| 1pos
|
Not too long ago I bought a cheap VHS tape entitled "Just Rambling Along" supposedly featuring Laurel and Hardy. Being somewhat familiar with their output and not recognizing this title, I made the agonizing decision to part with a whole dollar and buy it. Upon playing it, I identified the film as HOP TO IT. Of course, Mr. Laurel was nowhere in the cast, making the packaging of this product criminally deceptive. Even worse, the quality is terrible. It looks like it was duped from an 8mm film source. It did have a somewhat appropriate musical score. Actually, in all seriousness, the tape is worth a buck if you just want to get an idea of what the movie is like. In my opinion, it is a decent but unexceptional short. IMDb should add JUST RAMBLING ALONG as an alternate title for this film, which incidentally was the name of a 1918 Stan Laurel film!
| 0neg
|
A friend gave me this movie because she liked it. I decided I would finally watch it. It was sooooooo long. I kept waiting for the suspense to happen but it never did. I kept waiting for something to happen after the opening scenes, and it never did. I stopped the movie and came back later. I actually forced myself to watch the rest of it hoping it would get better. It got worse. I kept asking myself, who are these people? Do they have feelings? are they just robots? I'm glad I didn't pay to see it or pay to rent it. The end would have been better if Dutch died from the gunshot wound. At least we would have gotten some emotion from the audience. Or maybe not.
| 0neg
|
To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID
| 1pos
|
This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick.
| 0neg
|
"Broadcast News" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.<br /><br />Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.<br /><br />You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.<br /><br />7.0 out of 10
| 1pos
|
I've waited to see this movie for a long time and at last I could manage to see it in Istanbul Film Festival. Maybe because I expected too much from this film and that's why i was slightly disappointed. I was not the best movie from Korea but still it is really worth watching.<br /><br />The subject was nice and the film makes you keep watching without getting bored though it is long. But there are gaps in the movie and you jump from one point to another. However, the acting of Jeon Do-Yeon is incredibly beautiful. It was was one of the best performances in the early cinema history and I think this movie wouldn't be that nice if she was not in the leading role.
| 1pos
|
It's hard to imagine in this day and age how popular and how much of an impact a Norwegian immigrant and would be chemist had on the American public and how much of a national tragedy his sudden death in 1931 was viewed. But Knute Rockne was an extraordinary individual who both revolutionized and popularized college football and put a small obscure Catholic college on the map.<br /><br />I've heard clips of Rockne's famous pep talks and it is uncanny how Pat O'Brien got the voice and the inflection perfectly. In what turned out to be his career role, Pat O'Brien captures the integrity and fighting spirit that was Rockne. Rockne is assisted by well by Gale Page as Bonnie Stiles Rockne who complained about her home being a training camp for Notre Dame, but never threw anyone out of her house.<br /><br />Rockne's first impact on football was as a player with Notre Dame not a coach. One fine day in the second half of a losing football game against heavily favored Army, Rockne and team mate Gus Dorais played by Owen Davis used the forward pass as an offensive weapon. Before that football was simply a game where you just got bigger guys for your side and ran through the defense. Rockne didn't invent the forward pass, but he popularized and football became a game of strategy as well as brawn after that. <br /><br />Rockne knew how to work the media also. Those well publicized pep talks of his were not just to inspire his players. They were well publicized and it was in a lot due to him that college football became a major sport in that Golden Age of Sports in the Roaring Twenties. <br /><br />Playing a small, but key role is Ronald Reagan. As George Gipp, the first player Rockne coached to achieve greatness, Reagan not only got a good performance, but forever after a name that was handy in his subsequent political career. That deathbed scene which Rockne swore was accurate became a Republican battle cry as many a GOP underdog went out to win one for the Gipper.<br /><br />I still remember a widely distributed photograph in 1981 that was one of the first of recovering President Ronald Reagan at Notre Dame's graduation with his old friend Pat O'Brien. Reagan always credited O'Brien and Dick Powell of all the Warner Brothers stars of the period as the ones who were the kindest and most encouraging to a young player on the lot trying to make good.<br /><br />Notre Dame itself owes its prestige to Rockne. It's quite possible that Notre Dame would be an obscure small Catholic College without the reputation that football brought to it.<br /><br />Though George Gipp and the later famous backfield of the Four Horsemen certainly had their place in the sun it was Rockne who had the reputation. It's no accident that Warner Brothers was able to get Amos Alonzo Stagg, Glenn 'Pop' Warner, Howard Jones, and William Spaulding, Rockne's contemporaries and coaches with great reputations in their own right to appear in Knute Rockne, All American. It was there way of honoring the guy who was number one in their profession.<br /><br />I think more than football fans will enjoy Knute Rockne, All American. Though you might become one after seeing the film.
| 1pos
|
The only reason I gave this episode of "Masters of Horror" a 2 instead of a 1 is because the two lead actors are good, and it wasn't shot on VHS. The story, the dialog, and the plot are ridiculous. <br /><br />Talking / Driving zombies who come back to vote and sway the political tide against the war! Give me a break! What next, zombies who come back to go skydiving? Maybe zombies who come back to host QVC shows? <br /><br />I never supported the Iraq war, but I do support the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces; and "Homecoming" was disrespectful in that it mocks the TRUE horror of war. <br /><br />With zombies being mass produced in today's market... this is the SPAM of zombie-related entertainment. How "Homecoming" made it onto "Masters of Horror" is beyond me.
| 0neg
|
This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..<br /><br />As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the "directing" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.<br /><br />The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..<br /><br />I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.<br /><br />It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.
| 0neg
|
Child 'Sexploitation' is one of the most serious issues facing our world today and I feared that any film on the topic would jump straight to scenes of an explicitly sexual nature in order to shock and disturb the audience. After having seen both 'Trade' and 'Holly', one film moved me to want to actually see a change in international laws. The other felt like a poor attempt at making me cry for five minutes with emotive music and the odd suicide. <br /><br />I do not believe that turning this issue into a Hollywood tear jerker is a useful or necessary strategy to adopt and I must commend the makes of 'Holly' for engaging subtly but powerfully with the terrible conditions these children are sadly forced to endure. 'Trade' wavered between serious and stupid with scenes involving the death of a cat coming after images that represented children being forced to commit some horrendous acts. I found this unengaging and at times offensive to the cause. If I had wanted a cheap laugh I would not have signed up for a film on child trafficking. <br /><br />For anyone who would like to watch a powerful film that actually means something I would suggest saving the money on the cinema ticket for the release of 'Holly'.
| 1pos
|
Kusturika made it again. Another masterpiece. A coral comedy full of his own landmarks, with a frenetic rhythm and many glorious moments, we laughed and laughed, what a party! The music is everywhere, and also the shooting, the animals, the crazy bastards, sex and amazing gadgets and inventions, everything colorfully visual to entertain only. Pure cinema in essence. A wonderful experience to watch. And one is specially grateful since good comedies are so rare, and so wonderful. Well, this is one, and if you enjoyed Kusturica's previous films, you'll love this, although, as in all comedies, it is about a chemical reaction, and you have to be in the mood for it.
| 1pos
|
i completely agree with jamrom4.. this was the single most horrible movie i have ever seen.. holy crap it was terrible.. i was warned not to see it..and foolishly i watched it anyway.. about 10 minutes into the painful experience i completely gave up on watching the atrocity..but sat through until the end..just to see if i could.. well i did and now i wish i had not..it was disgusting..nothing happened and the ending was all preachy..no movie that bad has the right to survive..i implore all of you to spare yourself the terror of fatty drives the bus..if only i had heeded the same warning..please save yourself from this movie..i have a feeling those who rated it highly were involved in the making of the movie..and should all be wiped off the face of the planet..
| 0neg
|
Really started the 80s trend of disgusting violence masquerading as a "horror film". I was the target audience for this repellent piece of trash and I was disgusted then as now.<br /><br />Oh, where do we start. Let's see, the setup: You can bring people back to live IF they died a violent death. So that laughably weak premise is the excuse to butcher people in horrible ways, because, well, that's needed to bring them back to life! This might have worked if played over the top for black laughs a la Re-Animator or something. But no, it's played straight. There is a whole terrified family in a wagon that gets hunted down, one of the few scenes at least where their demise is off screen. However, just about everything else is on screen. There is actually a scene where a young girl walking along is beaten and killed by zombie townspeople, who are all filming it and grinning with several cameras. Then, there is a closeup of her face as the filmmakers lovingly--and time consumingly--reveal in time-lapse photography her beaten face being carved down to a skull and rebuilt to look "normal" again. This done, of course, by a slumming Jack Albertson as the mortician behind it all. He likes to drive around in a ambulance/hearse playing old Tommy Dorcey tunes, I guess that is supposed to be cute.<br /><br />In the end, of course, even the Sheriff is undead and the doctor offers kindly to fix his rotting hands. Not clear why the Sheriff is not out with the other townspeople killing children with glee and slicing their faces off, sticking needles in burn-victims eyes, etc.<br /><br />I wonder, really wonder, what people see in a geek show like this to give it any kind of rating at all. It's not scary, the twists are laughable, and overall it's kind of sick. It's not even well enough done to "see it on a dare" or enjoy on a level you might watch a bad HG Lewis film. It's just God-awful trash, made for people who get off on this type of pointless gore, and made by people slumming for a paycheck.<br /><br />Sad that Albertson was even involved.
| 0neg
|
Well unlike most people.... I went into this movie expecting it to not be that good and it turned out to be an awesome film. Pretty cool plot I love the idea of it but what really made this movie was the actors. they all did an incredible job and it was pretty cool to see fishburn and dillon work together. It's a movie where you go in thinking right away you will be able to predict whats going to happen but it doesen't quite turn out how you predicted. I don't want to give away anything about the story so I wont... but I suggest giving this one a chance. If you saw the movie Money Train and enjoyed that you would love this movie. Maybe everything Lawrence Fishburn touches is gold?
| 1pos
|
because that is the only way you won't think this film is a TOTAL waste of time and money. A remake of "Heaven Can Wait", (which was at least worth watching) is a poor excuse for a romantic comedy. It is more a vehicle to give Rock some time on film for weak stand up comedy which doesn't play well on the big screen. Especially because his jokes generally are supposed to be from the body of an old, fat, rich, dead man but are shown coming from Rock himself. As he insults Blacks and Whites the chemistry is all wrong. The movie is not funny, poorly shot the acting is weak at best. Go rent "Heaven Can Wait" and a live Rock video and you'll be way ahead of the game.
| 0neg
|
This movie is juxtaposition of various super bad tough guy biker characters, loosely connected but with no real storyline. Some of the scenes are nicely filmed. If they took the same cast and crew, and made a movie called the Gent who was the coolest character in the film and came up with an interesting and continuous story maybe it could be decent. As it is, prepare for a lame series of tough guy character intros, all of whom do nothing but ride bikes around the desert all day and cause trouble while all staying never getting sunburned and keeping their hair and clothes perfect and never needing to look for a home or money, etc. There was a sort of background story about the characters pasts various people that were killed and a treasure that was probably supposed to be the plot.
| 0neg
|
I can't remember the series, I believe it may have been "American Masters", but it was broadcast on PBS around 1980. Most people have some knowledge of the development of the A bomb, and those that have little, or none, probably think it is a pretty dry subject. Anyone who has viewed this 7 part series does not feel that way. You get to know the turmoil in Oppenhemiers mind, and how the development changed his life forever. You understand the tragic figure he became, and why. With 7 episodes you get to know the major players, and the intrigue and backstabbing. I have contacted PBS about the chance of obtaining a video, or DVD, but have never received a response. Too bad, I would love to see it again.
| 1pos
|
Eric Bogosian gives as great a performance as you'll ever see in an Oliver Stone film. His Barry character is an assault rifle disguised as a man and he blows away anyone, on or off the air, that offends him. Adapted from Bogosian's stage play, "Talk Radio" is a vicious and frightening ride that doesn't let you off until it's too late. By then, you've become familiar with the fringe of racists, rapists, paranoids, wannabe assassins and mere prank callers who listen, speak and lurk in the dark of Dallas nights. <br /><br />Stone behaves himself, if that's even possible, letting Bogosian dominate every scene, from Barry's humble beginnings to the make or break point when his radio show can reach national syndication. The rest of the cast are uniformly excellent as the lovers and/or co-workers that all have being used and tossed aside by Barry in common. <br /><br />The only thing I'd change is the recurring theme music, "Bad To The Bone". I'd have used Bachman-Turner Overdrive's "Not Fragile". A better song, one I haven't heard in a film so far and a driving, relentless tune whose ominous riff is like the true soundtrack to Barry's life.<br /><br />Listen if you dare!
| 1pos
|
I remember seeing this movie shown several years ago on the Lifetime TV network and thought it was an interesting story. Several years later I see it again and fall head over heels in love with this movie. The story behind the movie is fascinating in and of itself. The cast just makes it that much more appealing. Meryl Streep is definitely at the top of her game in this picture. She nails Mrs. Chamberlain's mannerisms, the accent, and even look. She shows the pain, hurt, surprise, and anger that Lindy had to endure, and in the process it's hard to remember that it ISN'T Lindy. In my opinion, this performance of Meryl's was better than her Oscar-winning turn in "Sophie's Choice", and should have garnered her her third Oscar. Sam Neill is perfect as Michael Chamberlain, and for some surprising reason, wasn't recognized by the Academy with at least a nomination. In all, this movie only receive ONE Oscar nod (Streep's for Best Actress.) However, it did receive several Australian Oscars and nominations.<br /><br />Definitely a top-rate movie: it tells a great story and you get great performances from the entire cast.
| 1pos
|
Director Michael Ritchie and actor Robert Redford's second documentary-style drama, 'The Candidate', is a political satire that still seems fresh and pertinent today. So it's a pity that 'Downhill Racer', made a short time before, seems so dated by contrast. The music is ugly, and the perhaps innovative ski-ing sequences are now standard in televisual coverage of the sport. The world of ski-ing seems strangely amateurish (probably accurately, given the time the movie was made, but it's hard to relate to today's professional world), and the theme of Americans in Europe likewise seems hundrum in an age of ever easier travel. Perhaps the biggest problem is the flat plot, centred on the arrogant but enigmatic hero; unfortunately, it's a dreary performance from Redford, offering us little insight into his cares or motivations. And a character-driven film without much of a character is never a good bet. I expected much, but sadly this is a boring movie.
| 0neg
|
The "Confidential" part was meant to piggy-back on the popular appeal of the lurid magazine of the same name, while the labor racketeering theme tied in with headline Congressional investigations of the day. However, despite the A-grade B-movie cast and some good script ideas, the movie plods along for some 73 minutes. It's a cheap-jack production all the way. What's needed to off-set the poor production values is some imagination, especially from uninspired director Sidney Salkow. A few daylight location shots, for example, would have helped relieve the succession of dreary studio sets. A stylish helmsman like Anthony Mann might have done something with the thick-ear material, but Salkow treats it as just another pay-day exercise. Too bad that Brian Keith's typical low-key style doesn't work here, coming across as merely wooden and lethargic, at the same time cult figure Elisha Cook Jr. goes over the top as a wild-eyed drunk. Clearly, Salkow is no actor's director. But, you've got to hand it to that saucy little number Beverly Garland who treats her role with characteristic verve and dedication. Too bad, she wasn't in charge. My advice-- skip it, unless you're into ridiculous bar-girls who do nothing else but knock back whiskeys in typical strait-jacketed 50's fashion.
| 0neg
|
As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said.
| 1pos
|
From the What Was She Thinking? file: Whoopi Goldberg plays a cop in the future who is teamed with a talking dinosaur (!) for a crime case involving a madman who wants to start another ice-age. Straight-to-tape oddity is embarrassing and ridiculous, a high-concept in search of itself. Apparently this was a labor of love for its writer-director, Jonathan Betuel (who also served as one of the producers); sadly, the end results are anemic, to be charitable. Goldberg's mere presence on-screen can often spark good will and laughter no matter how poor the script, but here she's drowning and you can see the unfunny results. NO STARS from ****
| 0neg
|
When I saw this movie i expected it to be a cheesy American movie done on the cheap with appalling actors. I was really surprised to find that i was totally wrong. The movie centres around Bartely or B who has been rejected from all of his colleges- the actor who play B is very natural and makes his character seem real- and decides to create a pretend school so his parents stop harassing him. However loads of people see his fake website and join. Feeling their sorrows B can't turn them away much to the chagrin of his best mate. The college is the ideal place with you learning what you want or doing nothing. The school faces opposition from the proper college which ends up closing it down. The film ends on a high and i recommend you watching it. Its does have it flaws but it is a feel good cheerful film with a few unpredictable twists.
| 1pos
|
Alleged "scream queen" Debbie Rochon and her group of frontier prostitutes travel west to the title location and encounter grisly killings that turn out to be the work of a cult of ex-Confederate psychopaths attempting to resurrect the south through pointless massacre.<br /><br />Action and suspense take a backseat to loads of boring dialog and uninteresting character development.<br /><br />Billy Drago is good in the thankless (not to mention pointless) role of the town mortician but everything else about this wannabe slasher western is extremely poor, including the town and the fort, both of which look like modern made western tourist traps and costumes that look like they were bought at Party City.<br /><br />Do yourself a big favor and watch Ravenous instead.
| 0neg
|
It starts quite good, but after a while you start to expect more from this film than you are actually getting. Everything becomes unclear and unclear it stays. Czech filmmakers were good 20 or more years ago. But after they transfered to Capitalistic country, here it is, Czech unofficial but well known mentality ... COPYING ... COPYING ... COPYING of everything they consider good, when they see it in another movies or countries or elsewhere. I think that this is a good example of making "art" and "politics" and "horror" and "humor" and "film" and money. And it remains me of the /One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/, which can not be compared to this film in the way of ART and ACTORS and STORY and POLITICS. I think this film is boring. It could be done better. At least, they tried. Sorry guys. :-( CANOT NOT Recommend
| 0neg
|
For anyone who wishes to get an impression of the Soviet view of modern Russian history this monumental film is a treasure. The story starts at the turn of the century (1900) in the yellowish sepia colours of old photographs which improves to black and white during the middle of the century and to full colour when the story approaches modern times (i.e. the 1960s).<br /><br />The story focuses on a boy in a remote Siberian village, who is marked by the arrival and arrest of an anarchist during the czarist era. He later joins the Bolsheviks after the revolution and brings soviet communism to his village. His son, by the local beauty, fights the Germans during the Second World War. When he returns to the village, the oil industry takes off and we are treated to some Soviet economic idealism.<br /><br />This film is long and slow, but utterly logic and very well made. It can be seen in three parts.
| 1pos
|
I saw this movie only because Sophie Marceau. However, her acting abilities it's no enough to salve this movie. Almost all cast don't play their character well, exception for Sophie and Frederic. The plot could give a rise a better movie if the right pieces was in the right places. I saw several good french movies but this one i don't like.
| 0neg
|
Dictated by thin experience (of both life and industry) and no cash Sofia Coppola's early short is almost by necessity an observational piece set on a high school campus. The cast are rather weak and do not benefit from being shot in b&w (it's difficult to tell the characters apart). The sound editing does little to help a simple story of fickle teenage allegiance.<br /><br />Yet there are one or two things to note. Inamongst the inconsistent editing the high school campus is filmed with a balance of aspirant wide and intimate close-up shots. The editing-to-music also creates an interest and momentum (without descent into the netherworld of the Music Video). Coppola clearly made an attempt to vary the pace of the film. The dramatic turn is cut fast and to-the-point and the second act is almost non-existent; we recognise it's actually been played out in tandem with the first, which is the point of the narrator-on-crutches trope (who is an otherwise curiously appended character in that first act).<br /><br />Despite these notes it's an awkward short. 2/10
| 0neg
|
The best romantic comedy I've seen in years. Not the kind of slick over the top Hollywood stuff by Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler and a lot less syrupy than a Hugh Grant epic. Julianne Nicholson and Jay Mohr are perfectly cast and both deliver smoothly professional performances as the engaged couple who decide to spend a little time sowing their sexual oats before marriage. Instead of playing it strictly for laughs the writers and director concocted a nice blend of human feelings and comedic action. Nicholson is just great as the awkward seductress and Mohr does a great job as the man who reluctantly enters into the game but soon finds himself enjoying his flings a little too much. We see just enough of the supporting characters to nicely round out the plot without distracting from the main story. Andy Richter (earnest friend) and Helen Slater (distraught single-mom) are particularly good. There is enough meaning and emotional complexity to make this a lot more than a standard boy-girl farce. Indeed, with just a little better pacing and a tiny bit more cutting this film would be a top ten comedy.
| 1pos
|
LACKAWANNA BLUES is a fine stage play by Ruben Santiago-Hudson and an even finer film as the author adapted his own life story for the screen. This brilliant film ignites the screen with rich colors, fine music, brilliant editing, superb direction by George C. Wolfe, and a cast so stunning that they make an encore viewing compulsory! Yes, it is just that good.<br /><br />The story is based on the author's life as the child 'Junior' (Marcus Carl Franklin) raised in the inimitable home of soulfully empathetic Rachel "Nanny" Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson), a lady who devoted her life to aiding the disenfranchised by transporting them from the South, from mental hospitals, and from the streets to Lackawanna, New York. The boy recalls all the lessons he learned about life from the inhabitants of the house - odd characters with painful pasts - and from the disintegration of his racially mixed biological family rescued by Nanny. The myriad characters of the home are too numerous to outline but they are portrayed by some of the finest actors in the business: Terrence Howard, Rosie Perez, Mos Def, the beautiful Carmen Ejogo, Louis Gossett Jr., Jeffrey Wright, Ernie Hudson, Charlayne Woodward, Jimmy Smits, Patricia Wettig, Macy Gray, Liev Schreiber, Kathleen Chalfant, Lou Myers, Hill Harper - the list goes on and on.<br /><br />In the course of the film we are introduced to the cruelties of racism, the history of desegregation, the dynamics of drug abuse and violence, the infectious joy of African American music contributions to our musical culture, and the courage of one fine woman who battled all the hardships the world can dish out to maintain the dignity of those with whom she came into contact. S. Epatha Merkerson is wholly submerged in this role, a role she makes shine like a beacon of reason in a world of chaos. She offers one of the most stunning performances of the past years, and had this film been released in the theaters instead of as an HBO movie, she without a doubt would add the Oscar to place along side her Golden Globe award.<br /><br />The entire cast is exceptional and Wolfe handles the acting and the story like a master: like riffs in a jazz piece, he pastes tiny moments of conversation with each character and Junior along with flashes of scenes from the story with the matrix of dance fests at the local clubs brimming over the top with incredible blues, jazz, dancing, and joy. The production crew has mounted this little miracle of a picture with extreme care and never for a moment does attention lag from the momentum of the story. Highly Recommended, almost Compulsory Viewing! Grady Harp
| 1pos
|
I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.<br /><br />Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of "cloth", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...<br /><br />Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in "9". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...<br /><br />And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and "9" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...<br /><br />Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like "No, don't do it!" "I will do it!" "But... you cannot do it alone!" "We can do it together!" "But there are rules!" "But we have to save him!" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop "Ahh" and "Ohhh" and"Ehh", and "Oooh", and "Whatchout", and "Run!" and "OhOhh!" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.<br /><br />Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO!
| 0neg
|
For a mature man, to admit that he shed a tear over this film is a mature response, to a mature film.<br /><br />If one need admit more then perhaps one could say that, "Life" can never be the same, after viewing such advent for it has moved us to the next level.<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
There's really not a lot to say about Las Vegas Lady. It's harmless enough, but it is little more than a dull heist film from the 70s. The movie is neither as clever nor as sexy as it strives to be. The plot is a retread of the tired old casino robbery storyline that's been done to death. Except in the case of Las Vegas Lady, I think the robbery plot was designed by a 3 year-old. The plan involves three women one to unnecessarily and in plain view scale the outside of the Circus Cicus building, one to pose as a waitress only to blow her cover at the first opportunity, and one to stand around exposing her cleavage. That's pretty much it. Intricate, huh? Other than Stella Stevens and her aforementioned breasts, the other women involved in the plot aren't particularly memorable. Las Vegas Lady co-stars Stuart Whitman. When not pawing Stevens, his involvement in the movie is highlighted by one of the most idiotic gun fights ever put on film.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie. It does have that 70s feel to it that I always enjoy and some nice shots of Las Vegas circa 1975. But the movie itself is too dull to rate any higher than a 4/10 and that's probably overstating it. In the end, Las Vegas Lady is a waste of some perfectly good cleavage.
| 0neg
|
I wanted to like this movie, but there is very little to like about it. It starts out with Jean Stapleton and a Randy Newman song in Iowa (Northwest Iowa, I guess), reminiscent of Norman Lear's Cold Turkey, which was one of the best movies ever made, according to people on IMDb. So far, so good. And the idea of the archangel Michael living at Pansy Milbank's motel on earth? Well, give it a chance, it's supposed to be a comedy. Okay, so far, so good. But Michael does things that an angel not fallen would never do, and that completely blows any credibility the movie might have had. The other characters in the movie don't have much appeal, either. Michael brings a dog back to life, and we're supposed to be in awe of that. The people make up corny country songs. In the end, Stapleton dances with Travolta. Big deal. If she was smart, she wouldn't even be in this movie. When it was over, I thought, "Gee, what a stupid, tasteless, boring, corny, sacrilegious movie!" It's not fit to be seen by children or anyone else.
| 0neg
|
Although credit should have been given to Dr. Seuess for stealing the story-line of "Horton Hatches The Egg", this was a fine film. It touched both the emotions and the intellect. Due especially to the incredible performance of seven year old Justin Henry and a script that was sympathetic to each character (and each one's predicament), the thought provoking elements linger long after the tear jerking ones are over. Overall, superior acting from a solid cast, excellent directing, and a very powerful script. The right touches of humor throughout help keep a "heavy" subject from becoming tedious or difficult to sit through. Lastly, this film stands the test of time and seems in no way dated, decades after it was released.
| 1pos
|
I was watching an NFL game and started surfing during a break and found this on one of the HBO type channels. I missed the beginning but when I started watching Deadly Voyage the clicker was put down and not even thought of until the credits rolled. You will find yourself rooting against the villans and on the edge of your La-Z-Boy throughout this one. If you get the chance take the time to watch it. Every once in a while I think about having the cable company take off my Movie channels but when you stumble across great ones like this you know why it is worth paying extra for them. Happy Holidays to all from Cape Cod !!!
| 1pos
|
I wanted to see Sarah Buffy on the big screen, so I first bought tickets and then checked the reviews at IMDb. I worried about seeing a bad movie. Well, I had fun watching the movie. Some parts, which obviously were meant to be scary, were actually quite humoristic, almost as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.<br /><br />I don't consider this a bad movie. It's not a great movie either. Just a rather well made horror movie. It does not rely heavily on special effects, but on camera angles, acting, music. In my opinion, the acting was OK. Sarah did a very good job, quite convincing. The other actors were definitely not bad either, I liked Yoko.<br /><br />The sets are nice (and I don't care that the sets are the exact same ones that were used in the Japanese original).<br /><br />The scary moments were often predictable. But not always. I have seen quite some horror, and did not expect to be scared now, but it happened at least twice. Nice.<br /><br />The movie had some nice scenes that were almost original, like the trails of rubbish, the simple special effects for he ghosts, the eyes of the boy, the cat that made eery noises, the gurgling of the dead boy and his mother.<br /><br />Don't go if you want to see Sarah in another Buffy episode, because it is very different from her Buffy work, much more serious. Don't go if you only want to see movies that gather Oscar nominations. It's a good horror movie, enough suspense. I gave it a 7.
| 1pos
|
I didn't realize just how much of this episode was taken from The Enemy Below until I finally saw the movie (it has since become my fave war flick). There were a couple of elements lifted from Run Silent Run Deep as well. Nothing wrong with stealing ideas, as long as you do something cool with them. And boy did Roddenberry and company do something cool with this one.<br /><br />The story begins when the Romulans violate a 100-year old treaty and by crossing the neutral zone and destroying a series of Federation outposts along the zone, ostensibly to test their superior weaponry and invisibility screen (and subsequent shift in the balance of power between the Romulans and the Federation, in their view) as a prelude to an all-out invasion. Kirk has to decide whether it's worth risking war to try and stop the Romulan ship, or if in fact the greater risk lies in letting the invaders go after they destroyed 4 military outposts. Kirk wisely chooses the latter.<br /><br />This is our first look at an enemy of the Federation, the Romulans, a warlike, yet in their own way honorable race who are distant relatives to the Vulcans. However, unlike their peaceful cousins, the Romulans did not renounce their emotions and violent and imperialistic ways, even as they advanced technologically.<br /><br />None of this matters to Mr. Stiles, the ship's navigator and this episode's chief antagonist on board the enterprise (the Romulan commander has his own problems with a gung-ho junior officer). All that matters to him is he hates Romulans and Spock looks like one..until the end when Spock saves his life (naturally). This contrasts sharply with Captain Kirk and the Romulan commander, neither of whom has any personal ill will towards the other at all. Both men are simply doing their duty. In fact there's a mutual respect. This is the first Trek episode to deal directly with prejudice, and it does so deftly (as opposed to season 3's not-so-subtle "Let That be Your Last Battlefield").<br /><br />Like The Enemy Below, we have a classic chess match between two ship commanders who are actually very much alike. You see right away that both of these captains are good..VERY good. If you were going into battle you'd want either of these man as your leader. Both are honorable and decent men who are duty bound. Yet even though the Romulan commander is bound by duty to his home world, he still finds himself wishing for destruction before he can make it home rather than start another interstellar war. Yet he still does everything he can to make it home, just as Kirk does everything he can to stop him.<br /><br />This is, in my opinion, one of Trek's 5 best. It has everything: Plenty of action, suspense, great dialogue, fine acting (I still maintain the Romulan Commander was Mark Lenard's best Trek role), and it manages to make its social commentary without being overly preachy. A pity Roddenberry forgot about the last part when he did TNG.<br /><br />Watch this episode, then watch The Enemy Below.
| 1pos
|
I rank OPERA as one of the better Argento films. Plot holes and inconsistencies? Sure, but I don't think they impair this film as much as many other reviewers seem to. A lot of elements that are in many of Argento's films are kinda "off-the-wall", but that's part of the draw of his films...<br /><br />Short story: psycho stalks the opera's new leading lady. The typical Argento twists and turns ensue, leading up to a decent payoff of a climax. Not Argento's best, but I still pull this one out from time to time. Definitely worth a look if you like his other stuff - just don't get this one mixed up with the abysmal PHANTOM OF THE OPERA remake that Argento did, that one is truly awful... 8/10
| 1pos
|
THE MATADOR is hit-man movie lite....if you can say that about a hit-man movie. The violence is never really shown but often introduced. At first I was scared I was in for another retread of mid-90s gangster-hit-man-hipster-dark comedy BUT was happily surprised when I realized this is just a sweet and humorous story about friendship. Nothing terribly exciting happens in this film but every bit of it is kept me grinning. The three leads have the best chemistry the big screen has offered in recent years and it looks like they had a great time making this film together. The writing is sharp though at times it felt as if the script had been adapted from a stage play because of the one set dialog scenes. This is a good film that I probably won't remember for too long but at the time it was a complete joy. Good film.
| 1pos
|
Even a awful 1 is to much for this film, everything form start to finish made you cringe. I don't think it would be possible to cram more overly clichéd moments, into one piece of mind numbingly numbingly waste of film.<br /><br />Prisoner cell block H meets Thunderbirds, hell even Virgil's expressions were more life like than his son.<br /><br />I haven't even finished watching this and I'm on here now.... Oh no, the cheesy clapping of 3 actors and a backdrop done by a child with adobe premiere. This truly is the end of my "I've started so I'll finish watching it" phase.<br /><br />Oh joy, the credits have come to rescue me. (and relax)
| 0neg
|
If I compare two films with Sacha Cohen, Borat and Ali G then Ali G is immeasurably better. I'ts no master piece, but it's a film at least. Borat is complete garbage and I do not understand how it rated better then Ali G.<br /><br />I cannot put my finger on it, there something wrong with the Ali G script: half of the jokes are as if written by a 15 years old, not by an adult scriptwriter. And a number of jokes including Mr Cohen's lower body are quite tasteless. <br /><br />But the film actually comes together as a comedy and there are some valid jokes too that are funny: such as how Ali G becomes a member of government for doing something scandalous and stupid in the public (sadly true in today's western society: people get careers for doing stupid things in public), also Ali's advice about immigrant policy and some others. <br /><br />Ali G overall remains a sympathetic character, even though a kind of mentally underdeveloped for his age. But it's OK to watch,it's quite funny.<br /><br />But never ever watch Borat, it's awful and makes every intelligent movielover sick.
| 0neg
|
Firstly let me say that I didn't like the fact that The Rock won the title that is so gay. Next I feel Regal should have got back his European title, Jeff Hardy is a crappy champ. Rob Van Dam had the Intercontinental title too long already Brock should have won it. I am pleased with Storm and Christian being tag champs, best match was the Booker T and Big Show match in my opinion.
| 1pos
|
Seldom do I ever encounter a film so completely fulfilling that I must speak about it immediately. This movie is definitely some of the finest entertainment available and it is highly authentic. I happened to see the dubbed version but I'm on my way right now to grab the DVD remaster with original Chinese dialogue. Still, the dubbing didn't get in the way and sometimes provided some seriously funny humour: "Poison Clan rocks the world!!!"<br /><br />The story-telling stays true to Chinese methods of intrigue, suspense, and inter-personal relationships. You can expect twists and turns as the identities of the 5 venoms are revealed and an expert pace.<br /><br />The martial arts fight choreography is in a class of its own and must be seen to be believed. It's like watching real animals fight each other, but construed from their own arcane martial arts forms. Such level of skill amongst the cast is unsurpassed in modern day cinema.<br /><br />The combination provides for a serious dose of old Chinese culture and I recommend it solely on the basis of the film's genuine intent to tell a martial arts story and the mastery of its execution. ...Of course, if you just want to see people pummel each other, along with crude forms of ancient Chinese torture, be my guest!
| 1pos
|
Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of "Picture of Dorian Gray" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence.
| 1pos
|
To think this film was made the year I was born. To think people are still having their constitutional rights taken away, now in the name of "homeland security". To think this movie was intentionally banned from the American public. PUNISHMENT PARK addresses the political divide in the United States better than any movie I've ever seen. Had it been more widely seen, would it have changed anything? A movie like this is so polarizing, it has the potential to cause riots. It shakes you up and forces you to take sides. It makes you face the issue: are you for the people's right of dissent in a time of war, or for the constitution being compromised in the name of "national security"? The protagonists are forced by the government to race to the American flag in a game that undermines the very ideals the flag stands for. The acting is totally convincing. So much so, I can't see any acting going on here at all. If this is a scripted documentary, it's more convincing than any reality show on television today. PUNISHMENT PARK is possibly the most important film ever made. It really makes you think.
| 1pos
|
Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.<br /><br />Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.<br /><br />What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean.
| 1pos
|
The problem with this- and with all Vietnam War films- is that they're all too biased. Antiwar films overlook the fact that the vast majority of U.S. soldiers were heroes, while prowar films overlook the fact that a lot of the soldiers did indeed commit atrocities like the one in this movie. This film sucks. It's time for a movie that is neither prowar nor antiwar, nor liberal nor conservative, but COMPLETELY UNBIASED.
| 0neg
|
While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here.
| 1pos
|
Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.<br /><br />There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.<br /><br />A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser.
| 1pos
|
While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.
| 0neg
|
In the late sixties director Sergio Corbucci made four spaghetti westerns in a row--the classics THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE, THE SPECIALISTS, and COMPANEROS. Three of these, all except THE SPECIALISTS, are constantly turning up on ten best lists when spaghetti westerns are rated. Until recently all I had seen was a very poor quality compilation with some English, some Italian, a fuzzy picture, and it was nearly incomprehensible. Now, having seen a beautiful widescreen version with subtitles (still in two languages, however), I can safely include THE SPECIALISTS in that group of four classics. Johnny Halliday is very good as the charismatic Hud, a notorious hand with the gun returning to Blackstone to investigate the death of his brother, who was lynched by the townspeople for losing their savings. It involves a voluptuous beauty who owns the bank, a Mexican bandit leader, El Diablo, who was once friends with Hud, an honest sheriff who dreams of better days, and a small band of hippies--well, it was the late sixties, and hippies were everywhere, even apparently in our westerns. It's not a desert western, shot in the alps somewhere, and is lovely to look at. There is a bit more nudity than I expect in a western, but that's not a bad thing. Sylvie Fennec is lovely as Sheba, who may be Hud's niece, or dead brother's girlfriend...that's never made clear. This film deserves to be seen, and once again, we plea for a nice DVD with all the trimmings--I think THE SPECIALISTS would be as well known as any of Corbucci's other westerns, and that's high praise indeed.
| 1pos
|
*The ELITE sniper team that has inserted 24h or so earlier have instead of digging in and making them selves invisible decided to take cover behind a big rock in one of the first scenes. *When the hero "runs" to rescue his wife he actually jogs. *When inside a building and aiming for a target only some 20-30 meter away the hero USES HIS SCOPE. Besides the fact that most non elite soldiers would make that shot from the hip and still hit there is also the fact that the scope probably wouldn't be able to focus that close. *There is a satellite that can actually look horizontally into buildings.<br /><br />The list is endless... and the film is the biggest heap of crap I have ever put in my DVD player.
| 0neg
|
Having looked at some of the other comments here, I have a main complaint with this presentation. <br /><br />The two primary characters are attractive in their own ways - the beautiful "victim," and the handsome, obviously extremely "off-center," blue-collar protagonist (if just short of "totally-deranged") - take turns beating the hell out of each other, sort of like a Caucasian Kabuki scenario.<br /><br />This is all right, and this is, of course, mainly a "turning-the-tables" story. However, my referenced complaint is that I believe the director got caught-up in his desire to display Farrah's well-known and obvious physical attributes. Beginning with her being enticingly clad in a thin robe, and with a number of scenes displaying more than needed for any dramatic effect - while immensely pleasing to the eyes, these distract from the poignancy level of the drama.<br /><br />Her roommates I'm certain give performances as written and directed - however, their respective skepticism and histrionic babbling and sobbing, don't ring true -- based upon Farrah's previous experience with this guy, the obvious evidence of his having come to their premises with only the worst of intentions, and that she would have absolutely no grounds to be exaggerating what has occurred.<br /><br />But this is a film and story, compelling as much in spite of, as because of, the director's work.
| 1pos
|
!!! Spoiler alert!!!<br /><br />The point is, though, that I didn't think this film had an ending TO spoil... I only started watching it in the middle, after Matt had gotten into Sarah's body, but then I became fascinated by the bizarreness of the plot, even for a Channel 5 movie... and couldn't possibly see how Matt wld end up happy. What about his fiancee? At one stage looked like he was gonna get with his best friend, surely icky and wrong... and then the whole 'oggi oggi oggi' thing does NOT WORK as a touching buddy-buddy catchphrase, tis just ridiculous... so was going 'surely he can't just come back to life? and yet how can he live as a woman?' and then the film just got over that by ending and not explaining anything at all!!!!! What's that about??? I was so cross, wasted a whole hour of my life for no reason at all!!! :) but was one of the funniest films I've ever seen, so, swings and roundabouts
| 0neg
|
There have been very few great comedy films in the history of Hindi Cinema. Andaz Apna Apna happens to be one of them. The film is based on a very simple story of two poor young men (Aamir and Salman) who dream of becoming rich by marrying a millionaire's daughter (Raveena). Aamir and Salman Khan try their best to outwit each other and woo Raveena. The plot thickens when Paresh Rawal & Co. plan to take over all the wealth. The movie is well paced and very funny. Rarely does one come across a Hindi comedy which is both funny and intelligent. This is one of the few films with Aamir and Salman together (probably the only film!). Unfortunately it did not succeed at the box-office, and we might never see a film of this calibre again. Aamir Khan is brilliant in the film and has proved his versatility as an actor in this film. Salman Khan gives a very good performance as a dim-wit. Raveena plays a convincing role as a confused rich girl, and Karishma who is Raveena's assistant/friend is also funny. Paresh Rawal, Junior Ajith, Shakti Kapoor, Deven Verma, Jagdeep and Tiku Talsania just add to the flavour of the film! All in all, the best Hindi comedy ever made and I wish they make more quality films like this one. You will want to watch this film time and again.<br /><br />P.S - For those of you who have watched this film, I also suggest Gol Maal, Chupke Chupke, Chhoti Si Baat, Naram Garam, Hera Pheri (old and new), etc.
| 1pos
|
I saw this film at the Galway Film Fleadh the year it won best short film. I have to say that i thought the direction was fantastic and the performances from the key cast members were very memorable. Both of the main cast are definitely names to watch out for.<br /><br />The final shot over the cliff was mesmerizing and i for one would like to find myself there if i was waiting for the end of the world to happen. The kiss was definitely a great payoff, done with great enthusiasm's!! <br /><br />I can only assume that the film was shot on film, and i have heard that the DOP won an award at the Tribeca Film Festival for his work on this film and i must say.... well deserved.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to anyone who was a teenager in the 1980s. It brought back some great memories and some scary ones.
| 1pos
|
Saw this as part of the DC Reel Affirmations Film Festival. I hope they got better movies than this, because this film failed to deliver on any of the hopes that audience may have entertained, from the fantasy of seeing James Franco without his shirt, down to more simple wishes, such as decent acting, coherent direction, character development, or actual production values. Plagued by film school effects such as freeze frames to show moments of emotional distress, and obvious influences ranging from My Own Private Idaho to Terminator 2, this film failed on almost every level to engage the audience. After the first twenty minutes of valiantly trying to take it seriously, the audience collectively threw up it's hands and just started to enjoy the inherent crappiness of the film. I could be upset that I paid nine bucks to see it, and it was two hours I'll never get back, but on the other hand, it was an entertaining two hours I'll never get back. This would have been a classic Mystery Science 3000 episode.
| 0neg
|
This is a great movie. I read the brief synopsis and was unimpressed but as I watched it (mainly for Caroline Dhavernas) it grew on me.<br /><br />It's such a nice change to see a movie where girls/young women are not punished for their sexuality. The girls are given full license to explore and even the chance to make mistakes without ridiculous repercussions.<br /><br />Some of the scenes are absolutely hilarious - and many of them the supposedly erotic scenes - which were not over the top or distasteful. The male characters in the movie were brilliant - David Boreanaz was great as the fickle hunk - and what is great is that the movie doesn't make us hate him all that much. The other two younger male characters were good too, without being overbearing.<br /><br />This is one of the best movies I've seen that has girls growing up and is quite empowering to see how the they realise their mistakes but eventually come through and carry on with their lives rather than drag their mistakes along with them.
| 1pos
|
Strange how less than 2 hours can seem like a lifetime when sitting through such flat, uninspiring drivel. If a story is as personal as this supposedly was to Sally Potter, wouldn't you expect a little passion to show through in her performance? Her acting was completely detached and I felt no chemistry between Sally and Pablo and the tango scenes, which should have been fiery given the nature of the dance, were instead awkward and painful to watch. Obviously, revealing such a personal story on film can be daunting, and as such Sally Potter would have been wise to let a better actor take on the task rather than let her passion fall victim to her own sheepishness.
| 0neg
|
This low-budget erotic thriller that has some good points, but a lot more bad one. The plot revolves around a female lawyer trying to clear her lover who is accused of murdering his wife. Being a soft-core film, that entails her going undercover at a strip club and having sex with possible suspects. As plots go for this type of genre, not to bad. The script is okay, and the story makes enough sense for someone up at 2 AM watching this not to notice too many plot holes. But everything else in the film seems cheap. The lead actors aren't that bad, but pretty much all the supporting ones are unbelievably bad (one girl seems like she is drunk and/or high). The cinematography is badly lit, with everything looking grainy and ugly. The sound is so terrible that you can barely hear what people are saying. The worst thing in this movie is the reason you're watching it-the sex. The reason people watch these things is for hot sex scenes featuring really hot girls in Red Shoe Diary situations. The sex scenes aren't hot they're sleazy, shot in that porno style where everything is just a master shot of two people going at it. The woman also look like they are refuges from a porn shoot. I'm not trying to be rude or mean here, but they all have that breast implants and a burned out/weathered look. Even the title, "Deviant Obsession", sounds like a Hardcore flick. Not that I don't have anything against porn - in fact I love it. But I want my soft-core and my hard-core separate. What ever happened to actresses like Shannon Tweed, Jacqueline Lovell, Shannon Whirry and Kim Dawson? Women that could act and who would totally arouse you? And what happened to B erotic thrillers like Body Chemistry, Nighteyes and even Stripped to Kill. Sure, none of these where masterpieces, but at least they felt like movies. Plus, they were pushing the envelope, going beyond Hollywood's relatively prude stance on sex, sexual obsessions and perversions. Now they just make hard-core films without the hard-core sex.
| 1pos
|
Yaitate!! Japan is a really fun show and I really like it! It was shown in our country just recently in Hero TV and ABS-CBN every 5:30. It is about Azuma Kazuma who is trying to fulfill his dream to make Japanese bread that will represent his country. He is working in the Southern Toyo branch of Pantasia and he is also helping his friend (Tsukino Azusagawa) along with other bakers (like Kawachi Kyousuke and Kanmuri Shigeru) to beat St. Pierre and take control of Pantasia. They fight other skillful bakers from many other countries and not only learn to make different kinds of bread but also learn to cook other food. It is a really funny and unique anime because they also mimic characters from other anime(like Naruto, Detective Conan and One Piece)and famous people from real life. It is one of the best works of Takashi Haschiguchi and is really a must-see for people of different ages.
| 1pos
|
Normally I am a typical "creepy-crawly-hatin'" girl, but after watching this film (on YouTube of course), I'm having different perspectives. And also I did not know that my favorite animation studio - Fleischer's made another film that's about community of insects whose city garden home is threatened by humans (lighted cigars and cigarette butts,footsteps,etc.), and how a plucky young grasshopper named Hoppity saves the day and wins the heart of Honey the bee; I love the lovely Ms. Honey. You know, after watching the film, the bugs reminded me of the some of the "jitter-bugs" from Don Bulth's Thumbelina. And out of the songs in the film, I love "We're a Couple in The Castle;" when I sing that song, it almost made me cry.<br /><br />This wonderful film was the second (and final) feature to come out of the Fleischer studio. The film was originally going to be released on November of 1941, but since the Fleischer's rival, Disney, released Dumbo weeks earlier, Paramount changed the date to December of the same year, but Mr. Bug unfortunately went into a, then unrealized, trap of terrible timing. Having the misfortune of opening two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bug was a financial disaster and led to the ousting of Max and Dave Fleischer, from the studio they had established in 1919, and reorganized the company as Famous Studios. Another huge factor in their departure was the fact that Max and Dave Fleischer were no longer speaking to one another due to disputes (how sad it was). Overall I love both films from the Fleischer bros. - Gulliver and Mr. Bug.
| 1pos
|
I hate guns and have never murdered anyone, but when even half of the events that take place in 'Shuttle' happen to you or close ones and you find a gun, YOU SHOOT YOUR ATTACKER. THREE TIMES. FIVE TIMES. Whatever makes the pulse stop on them and increase on you. I think even God would say, "Good call." In a very 'Hostel'-type film, but more realistic as this really could happen to anyone, well, if you're a pretty young woman, that is 'Shuttle' was a decent film, though on the long side. A few good shocks (always call AAA even just to change a tire), basically just one surprise but for the most part, you could see things coming. And aside from the typical "tie him up" instead of the previously mentioned shooting him, the most annoying part was the revelation towards the closing from one best friend to the other. Getting past those, it's enjoyable for what it is. Basically, we have two unsuspecting females traveling alone from Mexico home (wow, that's original) and one lost her luggage preventing them from leaving the airport until late. And after an obvious foreshadowed sign-language scene, they enter a "too-good-to-be-true" half-price shuttle ride. Clichéd jocks, previously introduced, con their way on the shuttle, to join what appears to be Alan Ruck's stunt double from 'Speed.' From here, it's obvious what happens (I did mention it was a 'Hostel' knock off) but still, I didn't find too much horrible, yet nothing spectacular. Though, it would've served the audience better with roughly 15-20 minutes deleted, I would recommend if you have almost 2 hours to kill and are into sick horror.
| 0neg
|
One of the things that interested me most about this film is the way the characters and their associated histories are developed on the fly. I suppose the writers wanted us to gain interest in the characters by not force feeding their characters. The premise of using the art and craft of furniture design and construction was a unique theme and/or analogy for what families/siblings go through in life. The complexity of having a twin serve as a surrogate father and even husband added great tension towards making this film emotionally interesting. Also, although the story was not one that the masses might directly relate to (i.e. Jewish/twins/family business) the themes are fairly universal as every family has a black sheep in it. That made it very engaging.
| 1pos
|
You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.<br /><br />Disney continues to firmly hold the title of "Greatest Animation in the World", with "A Bug?s Life" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful "out-takes" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features "Gerry?s Game" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.<br /><br />This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? "Antz", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, "Antz" is largely cast with big name "movie" stars with a few familiar "TV" star voices, where "A Bug?s Life" is just the opposite, loaded with "TV" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.<br /><br />Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.
| 1pos
|
OK so some of the plot points might be a bit obvious but over all an interesting idea which works towards a tight ending. The acting is solid particularly Lachy Hulme who plays one of the central characters in this ensemble piece. He certainly has a screen presence and he is interesting to watch. It has a low budget feel which works for the sort of thriller/horror genre Four Jacks belongs to. The film doesn't try to take itself to seriously which adds to the overall charm. The character of Phil(Dave Serrafin) has to be one of the most annoying character seen on screen since Rupert Pupkin/ King of Comedy. Worth adding to a weekend pile of DVDs.
| 1pos
|
After watching about half of this I was ready to give up and turn it off, but I endured to the end. This is a movie that tries to be a romantic comedy and fails. The acting is poor---much worse than the acting in 80s T&A movies.<br /><br />There are several attempts at humour that fail miserably and the movie is 100% predictable. Perhaps if you are a teenager this movie will hold some appeal, but for those that have seen many movies, you will know how the film turns out after the first 10 minutes. The rest of your time will be spent in agony waiting for the ending credits to roll.<br /><br />Don't waste your time watching this.
| 0neg
|
This is an excellent stand-up DVD! Eddie Izzard is the funniest person I have seen in years. His routine is hilarious and makes for great conversation with others who have seen it. I HIGHLY recommend this one. The part about the history of Europe is a bit slow, but the ending jokes in French are quite good, because you don't have to speak French to get it (although if you do, it is still hilarious). Also, the parts about being a transvestite are quite good. The first scene (about San Francisco) is not great, but funny the first time. Skip over those if you can. It's almost not worth watching. However, this really is a funny, funny stand-up show that everyone should see. "I was dead at the time!"
| 1pos
|
Im not a big Tim Matheson fan but i have to admit i liked this film.It was dark and a small bit disturbing with some scenes a bit edgy,i don't know were to classify this film its a bit SF and a bit horror slash thriller.I saw this at about 2.00am or so on my local channel there was nothing else on so i decided to watch it.If you have not seen this film id recommend it its not really that bad,the characters are interesting enough but not really explored to their full potential which could have made this film even more better.I don,t know if this film went to the cinema but it felt like it was made for TV or went straight to video,i for one would buy this if it,s on DVD it fits well with my type of film and has a small bit of the X-FILES story attached to it.Government undertakings or shifty corporations involved in dodgy shadowy dealings.Overall a good film.
| 1pos
|
Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked!
| 1pos
|
I enjoyed the movie and Kellie Martins performance immensely. It's the kind of movie I can show my family and has an example of a young woman placed in extraordinary circumstances finding the courage to do the right thing in the face of extreme danger.
| 1pos
|
I found this movie to be a great idea, that didn't deliver. It seems they found a way to build suspense, but couldn't stage their payoffs very well. In one case the police, are on the clock to find the hideout of the kidnappers. They painstakingly go from dentist to dentist to match a dental record. At the same time, the kidnapped man (Mason) escapes through the elevator shaft. After all the build up, the police arrive at the same time he gets free, which is very anti-climatic to say the least. There are also large narration scenes that take us "inside the thinking" of the terrorized husband and wife, which detracts from the suspense rather than adds to it. We are fully aware of their tension, and the voice-over is an insult and robs the viewer of any chance of a personal experience with the fear, as Hitchcock proved time and again, is far more effective. The greatest disappointment, is to sit through the whole movie, and the get the quick, rather bland ending. I mean it just..."ends" in a snore.
| 0neg
|
When I first saw the Premiere Episode of Farscape, I had no idea what to expect. I was immensely impressed and satisfied with "Premiere". Subsequent re-watches, however, have made numerous flaws apparent to me that I missed initially. "Premiere" is not a great Farscape Episode, but it deserves credit for successfully and efficiently setting up the plot and giving the basic back stories to many of the regular characters.<br /><br />The episode begins with John Crichton (Ben Browder), an astronaut and scientist, preparing to launch into space in the Farscape Module, a small space ship perfected by Crichton and his friend DK. Crichton has a revealing conversation with his father, Jack Crichton, and then begins his test flight in space. Of course, everything goes wrong and Crichton is "shot through a wormhole" and winds up in "a distant part of the galaxy".<br /><br />After exiting the wormhole, Crichton's module is pulled on board a living space ship. From here, the characters and story line for the Farscape series are introduced in an entertaining albeit rushed manner.<br /><br />The regular characters are properly introduced during the first half of the episode. Of course, there is Crichton, played well by Ben Browder. He offers a the audience a sympathetic character to identify with. He's lost and has no idea how to do much of anything. In "Premiere", Crichton has to choose between joining the prisoners or the Peacekeepers. He knows nothing at all about either side, but in helping Aeryn (a captured Peacekeeper pilot) it becomes clear that he intends to help the Peacekeepers. He probably would not have ended up siding with the prisoners if it hadn't been for Crais, a Peacekeeper captain, declaring Crichton to be the murderer of his brother. This puts Crichton in an interesting situation: he's stuck with bizarre, violent escaped prisoners in a far-off galaxy about which he knows nothing at all. Crichton's total lack of knowledge of the Farsape world makes him a particularly interesting protagonist during Farscape's first season.<br /><br />The supporting cast is just as compelling. There's Zhaan, a blue Delvian and former prisoner. She's peaceful and reasonable, as opposed to fellow prisoner Ka D'Argo, a powerful and hard-headed warrior. Virginia Hey is totally covered in blue makeup, allowing her character of Zhaan to appear cool and convincing. D'Argo's mega-makeup, in contrast, is below-par. He looks kind of silly with his giant tentacles and strange nose, and there is something peculiar about his eyes. They look as if they have had some sort of allergic reaction to his makeup. Farscape would give some improvements to his makeup in Season 1, but the overall costume would, for me at least, remain as a problem until Season 2.<br /><br />The puppet/digital characters of Rygel and Pilot are, to put it simply, excellent. Rygel is a tiny Hynerian Dominar who floats around on some sort of hovercraft. In "Premiere" he is given some good dialogue but not much else. Pilot nearly steals the show as the liaison between the living ship, Moya, and Moya's passengers. Even in the first episode, Pilot gives off the appearance of being a real, living alien; he never once in the show seems to be a giant, expensive machine.<br /><br />The Peacekeeper characters introduced are quite interesting as well. The Peacekeepers are made up of a race called Sebaceans, who look just like humans. The chief antagonist is introduced in "Premiere" as Captian Crais, who believes that Crichton killed his brother. In reality, Crais's brother's death was merely an accident resulting from an accidental collision with Crichton's ship. Aeryn Sun, a pilot who Crichton helps escape, tries to explain that the death was an accident, but Crais just claims that she is "irreversiby contaminated" and refused to change his mind. Crais obsession for revenge, warranted or not (it should be clear to Crais that Crichton isn't responsible), is mysterious in "Premiere", but would be explained later in the season. Aeryn herself provides an extremely interesting character. By being forced to leave the Peacekeepers, she changes her whole way of life, and is in that regard in a similar (though less severe) situation as Crichton.<br /><br />The actual episode, as mentioned earlier, feels somewhat rushed and clunky. So much happens that not enough time is spent on anything. Also, D'Argo (for now) looks kind of silly running around in his mediocre costume trying to appear menacing. Still, "Premiere" is solid entertainment. The special effects (such as in the starburst sequences) are impressive. Most of the costumes and the sets on board Moya are original. Despite its flaws, "Premiere" is a must-see for Farscape fans. 3/4
| 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.