review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
First of all, this movie is gross to the point of nauseating, and my advice is to avoid it at all costs if you ever want to eat ice cream again. I tried watching it because it looked like it might be funny, but it soon became quite disturbing with the ice cream made out of body parts and surprisingly graphic effects. It opens with a boy named Greg witnessing the gruesome murder of an ice cream man (Greg subsequently goes crazy and grows up to be the title character) by what appear to be mob assassins. There is no explanation for this murder, making it the biggest WTF moment in the entire movie. Other, lesser WTF moments include the surreal asylum Greg goes to (featuring evil clowns), a woman speaking in tongues because she has been possessed by the Holy Spirit (what this has to do with anything I don't know), and the fact that Olivia "Holy crap has her career tanked this badly" Hussey is in it.<br /><br />None of these are good enough reasons to watch it. The only reason is for the character Tuna, who is a skinny kid with pillows stuffed under his shirt so that he looks like a fat kid. For some reason this struck me as hilarious. I stayed up far longer into the night than I should have watching this movie just to figure out if there was some reason they couldn't use an actual fat kid for the role. Although I fell asleep before the end, I've gathered from other reviews that Tuna ends up losing the "weight." Okay, so they didn't have the budget to pull this off realistically. Suggestion to the director: how about making the character... not overweight? <br /><br />That's it; if the prospect of Tuna has not interested you enough, there is no other reason to acknowledge this film's existence. If disgusting horror movies about ice cream are your preferred source of entertainment, check out the far superior "The Stuff" instead.
|
negative
|
A sequel to (actually a remake of) Disney's 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmations. Cruella deVil (Glenn Close) is released from prison after being "cured" of her obsession with fur by a psychologist named Dr. Pavlov (ugh!). But the "cure" is broken when Cruella hears the toll of Big Ben, and she once again goes on a mad quest to make herself the perfect coat out of dalmation hides.<br /><br />This movie is bad on so many levels, starting with the fact that it's a "Thanksgiving family schlock" movie designed to suck every last available dime out of the Disney marketing machine. Glenn Close over-over-over-over-acts as Cruella. With all that she had to put up with in this movie -- the lame script, the endless makeup, getting baked in a cake at the end -- I hope they gave her an extremely-large paycheck.<br /><br />(Speaking of which, where in the world are you going to find a fur coat factory, a bakery with a Rube Goldberg assembly line, and a candlelight restaurant all located within the same building -- as you do in the climax of this film?) Of course, the real stars of the movie are supposed to be the dogs. They serve as the "Macaulay Culkin's" of this movie, pulling all the stupid "Home Alone" gags on the villains. (Biting them in the crotch, running over their hands with luggage carts, squirting them with icing, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.) I have to admit, the dogs were fairly good actors -- much better than the humans.<br /><br />Gerard Depardieu is completely wasted in this movie as a freaked-out French furrier. The two human "dog lovers" -- rehashed from the earlier film, but with different actors -- are completely boring. When they have a spaghetti dinner at an Italian restaurant, the movie cuts back and forth between the two lovers, and their dogs at home, watching the dinner scene from "Lady and the Tramp." I thought to myself, "Oh please, don't go there!" I half-expected the humans to do a satire on the "Lady and the Tramp" dinner scene -- as Charlie Sheen did in "Hot Shots: Part Deux" -- doing the "spaghetti strand kiss," pushing the meatball with his nose, etc.<br /><br />And don't get me started on the annoying parrot with Eric Idle's voice.<br /><br />The costumes were nominated for an Oscar, and the costumes in the movie *are* good. But they are the only good thing in the movie. The rest of it is unbearable dreck.
|
negative
|
'The English Patient' can rightly be compared to the films of David Lean, whose sweeping epics such as 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Bridge on the River Kwai' must have inspired the director Anthony Minghella. The film is beautifully photographed, and like 'Lawrence', is set in Northern Africa, but during the second world war. The story is complex, but it boils down to a forbidden love between an opinionated and often difficult archeologist played by Ralph Fiennes and a married woman played by Kristin Scott Thomas.<br /><br /> The story, based on a novel by Michael Ondaatje, is told in flashbacks by Fiennes' Count Laszlo de Almasy - the titular character. The fact that his name does not sound like he's English plays a key role in what unfolds. He has been badly burned in a plane crash, occurring just as the film opens, and is being cared for back in Europe by Hana, an army nurse played by Juliette Binoche. What makes this story epic is the vast sweep across place and time, and the development of characters beyond that of the two ill-fated lovers. The film makes clear that true love and passion, even with dreaded consequences, can make life worth living, or worth dying for. If you're a romantic at heart, and can appreciate a film without the standard happy endings and simple moral codes, you may find that 'The English Patient' speaks directly to you.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I found this film to be quite an oddity. From the very get go I found it extremely hard to like this movie, and now after a little thinking about it I can pretty much pinpoint the reason why. Jean-Marc Barr, although I love him to bits (I think Zentropa is one of the best movies ever made) is quite miscast here, and although I can't figure for the life of me who would be better, I am sure someone could have taken his place quite easily and make this film work. Everything else is fine, except for the stabs at weak comedy (A Meet The Parents Joke is not really needed, filmmakers!) and I really like Richard E. Grant as the British Major. It just suffers from one thing.. Jean-Marc.
|
negative
|
I wasn't expecting "Citizen Kane" but I was hoping for some extreme guilty pleasure! The script is bad, but the school exterior shots were obviously done with the same 5 extras on the same day & the dorm exterior shots were easily shot during a hurricane.<br /><br />The wardrobe was swapped around so much, I hoped the wardrobe mistress had some good strong soap to wash the panties. I know the budget's time but do you think they could have bought a couple of DIFFERENT styles of underwear? What oversexed up vampiric hot chick would wear boy-leg panties under latex trousers? I was relieved to see one appearance of thong in the penultimate scene.<br /><br />Good points: the actors were all *very* attractive, and the girls had natural boobs. Too bad they never took the bras off.<br /><br />The special effects were neither effective and could only be describes as special, if they rode the short bus to the edit bay. The final scene in particular is horrifically, laughably bad.<br /><br />-Lizzzzzzzz
|
negative
|
didn't sound like it was from a fantasy film. The film is dark, with dark overtones. The soundtrack way too uplifting to the point it intruded on the visuals. I'm sure they were aiming for something militant, but it just didn't work. The scene when Astin is attempting to escape is a perfect example. Why does it sound like the Goonies? There is no comedy, there is no brightness to this!! <br /><br />The idea of the movie is great, and the acting is very good as well. I enjoyed everyone's performances. It's available on Netflix's online viewing. <br /><br />Definitely worth a viewing, but write your own soundtrack!!
|
positive
|
This is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life.
|
negative
|
As someone who's never been into sports, it seems like it would be hard for me to get into the football (or as we Americans inexplicably call it, soccer)-themed "Bend It Like Beckham". But I gotta say, this was one cool movie! Anglo-Indian Jesminder Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and her WASP friend Juliette Paxton (Keira Knightley) love to play football (yes, I'm going to say it the British - and international - way) and just adore football player David Beckham. But Jesminder's traditional Sikh parents don't approve (her mother offers a really whacked-out description of football early in the movie). Okay, so maybe it was sort of a cliché in that sense, but you gotta love this movie! And if like me, you go to this movie not knowing the definition of "bend" in football...don't worry, the movie explains it (I'd also never heard of David Beckham prior to this movie). And we all know that Keira Knightley hit it big: a few months after "BILB" came out in the States, she starred in the equally cool "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl".
|
positive
|
1959 was a landmark in the world of film. Several great directors of the classic era were releasing career capping classics that ranked among their best. Just a look at the titles is instructive, Hitchcock's North By Northwest, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot, Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life. Add a couple from the previous year, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, Hitch's Vertigo, and Nick Ray's Wind Across the Everglades, and you've got a pretty good summing up of what was possible within the classic Hollywood style.<br /><br />At the same time, two films appeared that hinted at a whole new way of making films. One was Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless, the other was John Cassavetes Shadows. The two films had certain things in common, largely improvised acting by non stars, handheld cameras, low budgets, and a certain youthful, jazzy swagger. In certain ways, though, they couldn't be farther apart. Godard was still a believer in the director as arbiter of style. He knew more about film than most Hollywood producers, and Breathless was filled with the iconography of the classic crime film. Cassavetes, on the other hand, was an actor, and a refugee from New York's underground theater scene. His first film shows him little impressed with the cinema, and a big believer in actors. Godard's film constantly references it's own artifice, whereas Shadows aims for a certain kind of naturalism.<br /><br />It doesn't reach it, mainly because naturalism is a myth, particularly in cinema. But it feels powerful, kinetic but lilting like the cool jazz on the score, certainly the main inspiration for the filmmaking style on display here. It ultimately doesn't hold together, mainly because Cassavetes' actors here are amateurish beatniks, where Cassavetes style requires strong, imaginative actors. His later work with Gena Rowlands, Ben Gazarra, and Peter Falk blows this out of the water. Due to the director's technical inexperience, some bits of dialogue had to be redubbed later, which defeats the freshness of the improvisation. Still it's fascinating to watch, both for the great moments (like the scene where Leila Goldoni talks about her dissapointment with losing her virginity) and to watch a groundbreaking artist finding his way.
|
positive
|
I am a huge fan of the first four Ju-on projects. I own them, and watch them every few months. I lend them to co-workers and friends just so they can get a good scare from quality Japanese film making. I think Takashi Shimizu created a great story, and presented it very effectively in these four installments.<br /><br />I was somewhat excited about The Grudge 2 opening in theaters. I saw the first American Grudge before watching the four originals. The Grudge was actually pretty good. Of course, the originals are better, but I got a good Halloween scare from the 2004 American Grudge.<br /><br />The Grudge 2 started off badly, and went down from there. I kept waiting for it to get better, to make sense, to show Shimizu's talent - nothing like this happened. The thing that's great about Shimizu's Ju-on work is the story. True, it's usually told in a disjointed style that you have to think about to connect its components, but it is still a great story. There was no story in The Grudge 2. It was a series of gratuitous deaths from characters that you never had time to even start to care about.<br /><br />The editing was atrocious. Disjointed (as in the Japanese originals) is one thing, but the complete randomness of scene sequence was exhausting. I just kept thinking, "This is so stupid," and, "No - he didn't really sell out this much did he??" It made me want to walk out of the theater, run home, and watch the original work, simply to reassure myself that Shimizu has not always made this dumbed-down, generic, boring, non-sensical, thrown-together tripe.<br /><br />If you really have your heart set on seeing this movie, I suggest you wait the 2 months to rent it. Really. Two of the five people in the theater with me walked out about 45 minutes into it. I debated on whether to do that myself. Going home and cleaning the house actually sounded like a better way to spend my time at that point.<br /><br />I am truly shocked at how bad this movie was. Let's pray Sam Raimi doesn't put out more cash to make The Grudge 3. It's just not worth it anymore. Sigh.
|
negative
|
This film was utterly horrible. Stupid premise, and horrible acting by all. Whoever wrote this trash should be hanged. Reminds me of a hack student film, BUT WORSE. Who ever produced this should give up now. I know opinions are subjective and all, and some may think this "fantastic" as some think "Dune (1984)" was fantastic, well get off your horse and watch some real films. OK, the acting was tolerable, and with better direction could have been far better, but it didn't so it suffers. I don't know how much more I can say about this waste of film, other than to totally trash it. Anyways it was horrible and I recommend to avoid it like the plague, if you come anywhere near "dreamland", rent the movie beside it instead.
|
negative
|
All right, let me start by saying I love the original RS for the 64. The graphics were new, the ships were really fast and cool. The missions were a challenge, but you had a strategy to come up with. The computer didn't tell you every step of your mission, you could wander and explore. <br /><br />That's the first thing that's wrong with RL, everything you do is under a timetable and controlled by other people. I mean, shouldn't you, as the leader, be telling people how to handle each and every mission? <br /><br />And speaking of missions, why do they intersperse the original trilogy with completely made up crap? Never mind.<br /><br />I was so waiting for this game when I heard they were going to allow you fly through the asteroid field from Empire Strikes Back. I think anyone who is a fan of the films wanted to do this. So, they give it to you. It's the stupidest level in the game. You start by flying through the asteroid field with ties chasing after you, and your whole objective is to get farther into the field while shooting the ties. You have to kill them all to get ahead. Hey, remember how many Han killed when he was in the field? None, they all had poor piloting skills compared to him. I just wanted to be able to dodge the asteroids as they came at me, but instead I have to use my automatic aim guns to kill ties behind me.<br /><br />That was the biggest disappointment, you have no control over your flying, everything is sluggish. All except for the A-Wing, probably the fastest and most maneuverable ship in the entire fleet. But, oh yeah, didn't Han say the Falcon was? Anyway...<br /><br />You finally get to the Battle of Endor. Here is the ultimate level, you get to destroy the death star, everyone's first instinct is to pick the Falcon and be the leader. But, of course, you get there and have to do stupid pre-chosen strategies like finding (not to mention deciphering the difference between) the tie-bombers. This is impossible in the falcon, by the time you have spotted one group the frigate gets destroyed. The only way to get passed this part is to pick the A-Wing. After this you have to attack the star destroyers and that's a real stupid chore. This game makes you feel like you're the only one defending the rebel alliance.<br /><br />After you frustratingly get through that 'fun' fight, you get to the death star. And here, you might think 'yay! I get to destroy the death star', and again, like in the Asteroid field, you have to do some tedious thing while narrowly getting passed the tunnels of impending doom. Your mission is to protect the ship in front of you, remember that from the Return of the Jedi? It's so moronic because if you pick the falcon, you'll die because you're not maneuverable enough, but if you pick the x-wing, you have to keep locking and unlocking your s-foils. So it's a choice to either kill the bad guys, or try to catch up to Lando, who apparently doesn't know how to maneuver. Thus dying in the process.<br /><br />The bonus stages aren't even worth aiming for as each level just gets more and more frustrating. It makes me feel the way I did when I saw the new three films, upset and in need of killing something. Lucky for me, Smash Bros Melee exists.<br /><br />I hope with the Wii they come up with something a lot better and have the original trilogy levels to full capacity. I'm going to sell this game the first chance I get.
|
negative
|
I thought this was a very good movie. Someone said it was 'sick' so they couldn't watch it. I think if you realize its rated R then you will be prepared for the nudity and drug use. It is a good story and the acting is amazing. Just can't be a prude to appreciate it! Its basically about a mom who does drugs and wants to get clean so she calls a very wealthy old friend and he moves them to his estate and crazy things happen. I guess it is a drama. I am just so sick of people who don't like movies because of cursing or nudity. That is the world we live in. You obviously aren't comfortable with yourself if you can't see things like this movie. And it's rated R. So, that should tell you from the beginning that its not all peachy happy rainbows. I liked it. I think you will too!
|
positive
|
I have to totally disagree with the other comment concerning this movie. The visual effects complement the supernatural themes of the movie and do not detract from the plot furthermore I loved how this move was unlike Crouching Tiger because this time the sword action had no strings attached and most of the time you can see the action up close.<br /><br />I think western audiences will be very confused with 2 scenes one of which involves a monk trying to burn himself alive and the other concerning the villagers chanting that it is the end of the world. The mentioned scenes are derived from certain interpretations of Mahayana Buddhist text (Mahayana Buddhism can be found in China, Korea and Japan) and the other scene deals with a quirk in the Japanese calendar...people back then really thought that the world would come to an end... Gojoe has the action, story and visuals to mesmerize any viewer. I strongly believe that with some skillful editing it can be sold in the U.S. My one complaint is in the last fight scene (I can't give anything away--sorry).
|
positive
|
Pistol-packing Pam Grier takes names and kicks butt as the heroine in "Asylum of Satan" director William Girdler's entertaining blaxploitation actioneer "Sheba Baby," co-starring D'Urville Martin and Austin Stoker. "Sheba Baby" is one of several tough chick flicks that Grier appeared in during the 1970s, including "Coffy," "Foxy Brown," and "Friday Foster." The short-lived Girdler co-wrote this thoroughly routine private eye potboiler with producer David Shelton in one night and it features a headstrong female shamus that refuses to rely on a man to help her take care of business. Unfortunately, "Sheba Baby" isn't nearly as good as the blaxploitation movies that Grier made under the supervision of director Jack Hill. Hill helmed the African-American North Carolina native in "Coffy," "Foxy Brown," "The Big Bird Cage," and "The Big Doll House." Anybody that analyzes images of African-American women in cinema should be familiar with these epics. The chief problem with "Sheba Baby" is that our heroine gets too many convenient breaks. Naturally, the secondary villains are trigger happy clowns that couldn't hit the side of a barn with a howitzer. As the main antagonist, Dick Merrifield qualifies as both an egotistical as well as smarmy villain with choice lines like: "Anything worth having is worth stealing." Additionally, composer Monk Huggins does provide a strong, atmospheric orchestral soundtrack, and the best song, with Barbara Mason warbling it, is "Good Man Is Gone." "Sheba Baby" casts Grier as stylist Chicago gumshoe Sheba Shayne. She leaves the Windy City to return to her hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, to help out her father. When she arrives in Louisville, Sheba learns that her father, Andy (Rudy Challenger of "Detroit 9000"), is having trouble with a local black gangster nicknamed Pilot (cigar-chomping D'Urville Martin of "Hammer") who demands that Andy sell out his loan company to Pilot or die.<br /><br />Initially, Pilot dispatches a goon squad to trash Andy's office, but our heroine's father catches them in the act. They turn Sheba's father into a punching bag. Interestingly, during the fight scene, Girdler rarely shows fists smashing flesh. Earlier, Andy's right-hand man, Brick Williams (Austin Stoker of "Horror High"), had sent Sheba a telegram requesting that she return to Louisville, but she didn't receive it immediately thanks to her lazy partner who didn't know where to find her. Brick and Sheba hook up, rekindle their romantic flames, and share a night in the sack. Brick spends most of his time urging Sheba to remain calm in the face of adversity. As a former Louisville, Kentucky, police woman, Sheba prefers to shoot first and ask questions second. After she arrives home, Sheba borrows her father's car and barely escapes being blown to bits. As she is walking out the door to get into her father's car, Andy receives another harassing call from Pilot. Previously, Andy had refused to discuss the prospect of selling his loan company to Pilot, but Andy changes his mind and agrees to talk with the hoodlum. A gratified Pilot warns Andy about the dynamite that has been attached to his ignition with a delayed action fuse. In other words, cranking up the car won't trigger the explosion; the explosion comes ten seconds later. Andy and Brick rescue Sheba before the car blows up. Earlier, Sheba had agreed to let her father handle his problems without her interference. "Dad, I know you think I'm doing a man's job, but I'm not going to sit on the sidelines just because I'm a woman," Sheba tells him. After her near-death experience, Sheba vows to learn who sabotaged her father's car. She grilles an old contact from her days as a cop and threatens the guy with her gun to extract the information. Only after Sheba has ground the guy's face into a bucket of chlorine dust does he relent and tell her about a pay-off at the town's railroad museum. Brick accompanies Sheba and shooting ensues with a flustered Pilot getting away by the skin of his chin.<br /><br />Later, Pilot sends a quintet of out-of-town contract thugs armed-to-the-teeth to trash Andy's office. These gunsels ignore their no-kill orders. Not only do they shoot the loan company office to ribbons, but they also blast Sheba's dad with a shotgun. Sheba retaliates in short order. Wielding her nickel-plated revolver, she guns down three of the four assailants Dirty Harry style. The last hit-man discards his weapon and pleads for mercy. Sheba has her finger on the trigger when Homicide Detective Phil Jackson (Charles Kissinger of "Abby") and a uniform cop arrive on the scene. At the hospital, Andy Shayne dies holding his daughter's hand. Naturally, Pilot is furious at this revelation and his fury borders on apoplexy. Afterward, Sheba tracks down a loan shark, Walker (Christopher Joy of "Cleopatra Jones"), and pries information out of him about the Pilot while she holds him at gunpoint in a car wash. This is one of the better staged scenes with lots of ominous shots of the car wash equipment whirling and humming. Walker warns Pilot about Sheba. Pilot and his henchmen confront Sheba in a parking lot and swap lead. Sheba flees on foot to a nearby carnival. While the police corner one of Pilot's men, she deals with the others. Pilot shoots one of his own accidentally and Sheba runs him down. She pins Pilot to a roller-coaster track and threatens to hold him there until the roller-coaster cuts his head off. Pilot manages to escape after he has spilled his guts to Sheba about the identity and phone number of the big man, Shark (Dick Merrifield of "The Hellcats"), whose reputation is so immaculate that Detective Jackson describes him as "the guy with all the right answers." "Sheba Baby" isn't top-notch Pam Grier. However, the idea that our heroine can handle everything by herself without help from guys makes it interesting as well as entertaining chick flick.
|
positive
|
for all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??<br /><br />the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.<br /><br />don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.<br /><br />sadly, from a guy from wings.<br /><br />the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.<br /><br />if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better.
|
negative
|
Found this film for one dollar ($1.00) and the film was a complete waste of time. Reb Brown,(Mark Hardin), played a military adviser in South America and was successful in capturing the leader of rebel soldiers operating out of the dense jungles. However, Mark joins the opposite side after some horrible tortures were inflicted or women and men. In one scene as Mark is having a drink in a hotel bar, his eyes catch the glimpse of sexy long legs Sandra Spencer (Shannon Tweed),"Dead Sexy",01. Mark and Sandra have the extreme hots for each other and even make passionate love on some very hard rocks, with no time for the comforts of a bed. This is a horrible film and not worth wasting the time to even look at IT.
|
negative
|
When I saw the Dentist, I thought it was very cool. But this movie is not for everyone, especially people who do not like gory scenes as the Dentist has lots of gory scenes. That's why it has it's R18 rating. It's about a beverly hills dentist Dr Alan Feinstone, who finds his wife Brooke cheating on him with the poolman. It's best to go to your dentist "before" you watch this. But if you don't like going to the dentist already, then it's best not to watch this as you may be put off going for life. the Dentist has the best bloody revenge in it that I've ever seen. Who has ever seen a movie that has a dentist (Spoiler) pull out all his cheating wife's teeth and cut out her tongue with no anesthetic? Overall awesome flick, but not for everyone.
|
positive
|
I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.<br /><br />This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.<br /><br />Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself! <br /><br />The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!
|
negative
|
The name "cult movie" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.<br /><br />Despite the "Superwoman" connotation, "Superchick" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.<br /><br />Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10.
|
negative
|
I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run.
|
negative
|
What a tedious turgid boring mess. This is a classic example of all that is wrong with contemporary English theater & film. About as exciting as a closet full of dirty socks. The very opposite of living film. Only the presence of Joanne Whalley gives it any spark.
|
negative
|
I quite this Anne Rice book adaption. While most of the film is filmed here in Australia it offers a great amount of scenery and a fantastic area to shoot in. Lestat (Stuart Townsend) has recently woke up from a long period time of sleep and has decided to betray his vampire oath by revealing himself to a band. When he becomes a popular movie icon his fellow vampires, understadebly, go mad and plot his death. Meanwhile Jesse (Marguerite Moreau) a orphaned member of the supernatural studies, who has an ancient vampire family tree, has become deeply obsessed with Lestat. Her boss David (Paul McGann) understands her obsession and revaeals his obsession with the vampire Marius, (Vincent Perez)who is an ancient vampire and the man who made Lestat a vampire too. Jesse is given Lestats diary and reads of his first killing and an encounter with the Queen of the Damned- Akasha (Aaliyah). When Lestat holds a concert in Death Valley he receives news that not only will angry vampires be there Akasha may come as well. Meanwhile Akasha has other plans. She goes to a vampire coven, a bar, and kills everyone in her path. With Lestat tempted with royality and loving care by Akasha the ancient vampires consisting of Marius and Jesses Aunt Maharet (Lena Olin) plot against them. Join Her Or Die?<br /><br />I thought the film was fantastic, it had great fight scenes, great music and great locations. Aaliyah sadly passed away in a plane crash shortly before the films premiere, but she looked stunning on the set and off the sets.<br /><br />I gave this film 10/10 because it was a fantastic film and I urge you to see it!
|
positive
|
I began watching a replay of this TV movie on a Sunday afternoon, thinking it was just another dumb airplane disaster flick. I was wrong.<br /><br />"Pandora's Clock" is an intelligent political thriller that is far beyond the quality of most TV movies. It could just as easily have made its debut on the big screen.<br /><br />The cast is excellent, including veteran actors Richard Dean Anderson, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and Robert Loggia. Daphne Zuniga turns in one of her best performances as a medical specialist working for the CIA, and Frasier's Jane Leeves is also very good. <br /><br />The dialogue is well-written and the story is compelling throughout. In fact, the final hour is so filled with plot twists and suspense that you can't leave your seat for a second. If you get a chance to see this movie, invest the time -- nearly four hours. You will be richly rewarded!
|
positive
|
Rollerskating vampires?! I'm sorry but even for the 80's that's just way too cheesy to be remotely scary... You can excuse the original the odd kitsch moment because it was parodying old movies and TV shows, but that's been done once, so the sequel needed to be a little less camp, not even more outlandish! Plus, the first movie had the presence of Chris Sarandon - a man who could even make stalking discotheques in casual knitwear seem seductive! - that this one sorely lacks, so there was no 'danger' in anything that happened, it just seemed silly.<br /><br />Admittedly I only saw this once when I was 7, but by then already being a huge fan of the original I remember being disgusted. To me, there is no sequel to Fright Night, just a tacky spoof that doesn't deserve any appraisal whatsoever.
|
negative
|
- Let me start by saying that I understand that Invasion of the Star Creatures was meant to be a parody of the sci-fi films of the 50s. I understand that none of it is to be taken seriously. The problem I have is that none of it works. A parody should be funny and this one just isn't. Not once during the entire runtime did I so much as crack a smile. In general, I am easily entertained, but I couldn't find a sliver of entertainment anywhere in Invasion of the Star Creatures.<br /><br />- I knew I was in trouble right from the beginning. The two "stars" make their screen appearance with one of the lamest gags imaginable - a water hose they can't control that gets them both wet. These two come off as Bowery Boys wannabes. Why anyone would want to mime the act and persona of the Bowery Boys is beyond me. After the less than illustrious beginning, the movies goes on to feature comical chase sequences, dancing Indians, vegetable men, decoder rings, and other assorted unfunny bits. It's all just a complete waste of time.<br /><br />- I bought this on the double feature DVD with Invasion of the Bee Girls. That movie is Academy Award winning stuff in comparison with Invasion of the Star Creatures.
|
negative
|
Here is the explanation screenwriter Pamela Katz gave me for why MvT introduced JG as a specific character in the film:<br /><br />"...the historical record is very clear: Joseph Goebbels was directly responsible for the release of the Rosenstrasse prisoners, so we needed a way to get Goebbels himself into our film... For a woman like Lena, a woman from an aristocratic family with connections, it wasn't unthinkable that she would make an attempt to go to the top. The idea of getting to Goebbels wasn't impossible for her, so that became our hook."<br /><br />Those of you who insist on seeing an actual sex act here can read my new thread below & then fire away.<br /><br />Jan Lisa Huttner FILMS FOR TWO
|
positive
|
A great animation movie that really gets up to the level of oldies like "The Lion King" . <br /><br />I went to see this with one of my best Belgian friends who also watched the series on TV . I was lucky because I didn't know people in Belgium were aware of "Wallace and Gromit" . <br /><br />When it started and that good old theme started it started to bring back memories of me watching it when I was 5 .<br /><br />The humor itself was very funny . Some nice sitcom style scenes , some wordplay or just plain jokes . The animation isn't as impressive if you have know the series but it is still fun to watch is you realize how it gets done. <br /><br />My Conclusion : Not only can it keep my happy and entertained , some of the humor can easily appeal to older people so I say : Go and watch "Curse of The Were-Rabbit" as soon as you can .
|
positive
|
A mock documentary about a pair of Canadian producers, Bobby Myers (Matthew Modine) and Paul Linder (Saul Rubinek), trying to make their first film in the late 1970s. Hollywood North is the comic tale of their struggle to pull everything together, despite a number of conflicting threads.<br /><br />Hollywood North works as a film in a way very similar to why This Is Spinal Tap (1984) works so well. Namely, although exaggerated in some ways, it is very close to the truth, and the truth consists of "behind the scenes" facts that are very different than the public face of the industry. It isn't easy to make a film, and it must have been especially difficult in Canada in the late 1970s. Films involve tens, if not hundreds, of people. Many have incompatible desires, motivations and personalities. Especially crucial are the financiers and the on-screen talent, as if either drops out or becomes undependable at any stage while the film is in production, it could jeopardize the whole affair, either necessitating extensive reshoots or abandoning the film altogether.<br /><br />So it's not surprising that Hollywood North focuses on those kinds of relationships. The result is an excellent film that is both hilarious and tragic at the same time. The script is flawless and the performances are top notch. This is a must-see for any budding filmmaker and anyone with a serious interest in the craft of film-making. It should also be more than entertaining for any viewer with a modicum of intelligence and a sense of humor.<br /><br />A 10 out of 10 from me.
|
positive
|
What do you do with all the material that does not make the final edit of a film? You might keep it aside in case a director's cut or extended version is released one day. You might sell some it as stock footage to be used in a part of another film. You might just bin it. Or you might collect it, accumulating more and more from each film you make and then use it to make another film, disregarding coherence or any sense. Throw a very primitive skeleton of a narrative into it and line up a number opportunities (nay, excuses) to slot in your celluloid cast-offs. Excuse the abjectly nonsensical nature of the plot by framing it all in the mind of a horror film director and you've got yourself an awful film. This can all be done with just a few days shooting. And idiots like me will waste two hours of their life watching it. And then come on here and try to warn others away. The whole chain of events is one big waste of time.
|
negative
|
Well, on the endless quest for horror, we will come across this film, apparently re-released on DVD recently for some ungodly reason. The transfer is awful and the quality just sucks. I don't think this is due to a bad remaster or anything, I just think the film is poorly done.<br /><br />Obviously filmed at an abandoned school with a budget that was no doubt wasted on cheap beer and no talent hacks, "Slaughter High" starts out slow and doesn't pick up pace until about an hour in. First, we get to see a 'nerd' as he is picked on by a group of...I actually don't even know what they were supposed to be...jocks? The ringleader, with his ultra hooknose is so ugly he should have definitely been cast as the nerd. Then, there is a 'big guy' and a couple of dumb losers and chicks who are supposed to be 'hot' but aren't. It's a mystery why this group of rejects is picking on one of their own, but I guess the viewer is to assume these are 'cool kids' picking on a dweeb. The casting choices are horrendous as most of the high schoolers are played by thirty-somethings. As other reviewers on here have pointed out, the actors (if you can call them that,) are a bunch of Brits whose accents slip out numerous times throughout this piece of crap. We are left to assume that this group of 'children' were the only students at this school, as their 'reunion' is only them at the school, which is now shown to be abandoned, is just them.<br /><br />The kills are lame, the gore is not great and the script is like Scooby Doo with real people; lines like: 'This place gives me the creeps...' and 'Someone gimme a beer' are highlights...It's just not good. Skip this one unless you are getting wasted with some friends and wanna laugh at a real lame attempt at a slasher. If you wanna see good, get Bava's "Bay Of Blood," done 14 years earlier and a heck of a lot better. If you wanna see a good BAD slasher, see "Just Before Dawn" or "The Burning." 2 out of 10, kids.
|
negative
|
Well, after the hype surrounding the film and after Surya labeling the film as PATH-BREAKING, I went into the theatre expecting something big. Boy was I disappointed. <br /><br />First of all, the characterizations in the film are SO weird! Which wife would do what Kundhavi (Jyothika) did? An idiotic, coo-coo one? And what was the point of her standing in the rain with her child (Baby Shreya) after she and her husband had a fight? What was the purpose of that scene anyway? To start a vulgarly shot "Maaja Maaja"? Not only was the song not canned aesthetically, it was just not needed in the screenplay. NOT NEEDED AT ALL! Secondly, the first half of the had practically NO STORY. The entire first half was a FREAKING drag. Every scene in the first half of the film had no significance what so ever to the real story of the film. And also, how did Aishwarya (Bhoomika Chawla) change so radically all of a sudden? And how did Gautham (Surya) and Kundhavi lead a happy live together after six years even though they were SO unhappy about marrying each other? And if Gautham did love Aishwarya like he claimed he did, why DID he even marry Kundhavi even if it was his uncle's death wish? WHY? That's the question you keep asking whilst watching the film! And how fair is the ending to Aishwarya? After all, she was Gautham's first wife? Krishna, the director of the film, claimed he worked on the script of this film for two years, but his script is filled with flaws and leaves the audience utterly irritated! Thirdly, Krishna's un-imaginative picturizations of Rahman's awesome is just disappointing. Surprisingly, Anthony's editing (usually superb) for the "New York Nagaram" song just sucks! The whole song looked like it was a slide show made on Microsoft Power Point! "Munbe Vaa" Rangoli chorus was wasted showing Gautham PLAYING FOOTBALL!!! Who wants to see the freaking dude playing football during such a beautiful chorus?!? Whats more, the whole movie only needed TWO songs. Munbe Vaa and Kummi Adi. The rest of the songs inclusive of "Machakari", "Maaja Maaja", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" are just not needed. Rahman's fine efforts are simply wasted on a stupid film directed by an amateur director! Fans of Rahman, you ask why Rahman keeps moving to Bollywood. After looking at the way his songs are picturised in Kollywood, why would he want to stay here? What's more irritating is that after Krishna decided to include Machakari into the film, the song was cut by half which truly, truly annoyes.<br /><br />Surya looks handsome in his new get ups save the ones during the college scenes and packs in a so-and-so performance. His expressions during all the songs he was featured in really do not fit the way the singer sings the songs. Was Jyothika even acting in the film? All she did was CRY! Would you call all that crying acting? One of her worst performances ever! What's more, her new hairstyle does not suit her. She looked way better in Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu. Her costumes during the "New York Nagaram" song are way off. Bhoomika Chawla is just gorgeous during the film and does justice to her role. Vadivelu's comedy is ANNOYING. When one is watching him, one wishes they could slap him on the face. It is Santhanam who is the show stealer during the comedy scenes. And why the heck did Sukanya even agree to do such a minuscule role which could have done by just anyone? And why is her make up so heavy when she has perfect complexion? Music by A.R. Rahman is just awesome. "Machakari", "Munbe Vaa", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" deserve special mention. R.D. Rajasekhar's cinematography is OK and isn't as good as his previous films though the scenery during the "Kummi Adi" song deserve special mention. Anthony's editing is really really disappointing. The film is just so freaking draggy and could be trimmed severely.<br /><br />Krishna's direction just sucks. Dialogues (A.C. Durai and Krishna) are just too corny to digest especially the part where Bhoomika professes her love for Surya. The screenplay and script (Krishna) are horibble. The film moves in the more un-interesting pace ever. And Krishna's script is just filled with unexplained sub plots.<br /><br />And for goodness sakes, why was there so much advertising in the film? Pepsi, Maggi, Suzuki, you name it. Was the producer of the film (K.E. Gnanavel) low on budget or was he just desperate? Overall, Jillunu Oru Kaadhal is a damp squib. With a title like that, one would expect a heart warming and cooling love story but what you end up is a painfully botched up love story. Really, really disappointing.
|
negative
|
Winning 26 out of the 28 awards it was nominated for, there is no doubt that this film will stand as one of the best of 2007. The fact that it was made with non professionals who were trained to act and dance makes it that much more special.<br /><br />It is not a Bollywood production, but it is about art. A lower caste girl wants to sing and dance. She wants to move up in society, but there is a limit. Everyone cannot be President in India, there is a caste system, and the narrow minds will not allow it to be breached.<br /><br />Vanaja (Mamatha Bhukya) quits school at 15 and goes to work for the Landlady (Urmila Dammannagari), who was once an accomplished dancer. After some time working the animals, she is taught to sing and dance. The film is strikingly beautiful with rich color. It is amazing what can be done with $20,000, as this film was a Master's project for the writer director.<br /><br />The Landlady's son (Karan Singh) returns from America to run for office and is struck by the girl. But, she is lower caste and can only be a vessel for his lust. Things are no better at home as her father drinks and eats and steals her money. She ends up pregnant and has to sell the baby to the Landlady.<br /><br />In the end, she never rises above her caste, but the story was fascinating and the acting was really good.
|
positive
|
I had fun watching Red Eye. It's not a masterpiece, but it's well directed and structured. Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams are perfect in the role. Yes, it's the same old story with a different setting but Wes Craven gave it a good pace. At least not another Scream with the usual college killer. It's nice when you can see a clean, coherent thriller even when originality doesn't stand out as its main character. Particularly from a film-maker like Craven that has brought so many innovative ideas to the thriller and horror genre in the past and that now just lends himself to bringing home what could have been a good TV movie had it not been released theatrically. Good job!
|
positive
|
Lucasarts have pulled yet another beauty out of a seemingly bottomless bag of great games. If any further proof was required that they rule this genre of gaming, then this is it. Before actually playing the game, there was a little concern about how the writers were going to keep up the pace of gags after the first two games. Fears were rife that it was going to wear a bit thin.<br /><br />Play the game and see how quickly those fears are allayed. From the introductory video with Guybrush in the dodgem boat (!), to the closing stages in the funfair, the jokes just keep on coming. I was a great fan of the first two games and the other Lucasarts works (Day Of The Tentacle, Sam & Max, etc) and this one does not fail to deliver the quality. You will not be disappointed. (Well, I wasn't.)
|
positive
|
OK, a film about a film that takes a crack at Video movie making could be entertaining. Could be, should be, funny, edgy, even controversial, or at least interesting, and yet... This film is the bizzaro negative version of that. Hamlin was entertaining as a 'B' Film producer. Shatner played crazy yet likable, and had all the best lines. The rest of the characters were boring, predictable, boring, underdeveloped, boring and boring. The production value was lame. You'll actually see the boom come down in one scene. The sound was awful in some of the scenes. Hey I'm a big fan of Shatner's and of Hamlin now, but their talents are wasted here. At least the story had a clichéd ending.
|
negative
|
This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.<br /><br />Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.<br /><br />Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'. <br /><br />There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.
|
negative
|
There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the "godfather" to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichés (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, cliché or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, "re-imagining" of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilà! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age.
|
positive
|
Maybe people do like having the devil around more than God. Maybe we like that safety net of a reason; making a mistake only to blame the devil for the pain and suffering in the world. There is so much hardship, spilling out into the masses, that it is difficult to not see the sadness on the faces of all you pass. Leland P. Fitzgerald understands all of this; he knows that maybe everything won't be OK, and maybe helping someone leave this Earth to avoid the pain their life has waiting for them is a risk he needs to take for someone he loves. Credit goes to screenwriter/director Matthew Ryan Hoge for creating a lyrical prose about two suburban families who have crossed paths in good times and bad. Just looking at the cast of almost all A and B list actors shows that the material really resonates with its audience. Emotions don't need to be worn on one's sleeve to exist. Sometimes all we want to do is end the suffering.<br /><br />Ryan Gosling brings an understated performance to the table here that encompasses the inwardness of his character Leland's emotions. He is a very passionate and intelligent young man, cutting through the BS of life, knowing what he sees and accepting the worse with the better. The film is a catharsis for the souls of those affected by the horrific event of Leland killing his ex-girlfriend's mentally challenged brother. In the confused mind of this teen, he goes into the incident knowing full well what he was going to do, he was going to stop the pain that he sees everywhere, but most of all on the face of young Ryan Pollard. Almost immediately he realizes that he has made a mistake, that maybe playing God is not a job he has been put on Earth to do. Whether or not this is true will soon be put to debate as the murder begins a chain of events, which finally bring meaning to many people's lives as they wake up to the tangential fragility of life. This boy has opened their eyes to both sorrow and rebirth.<br /><br />With haunting ballads sung by former Sunny Day Real Estate frontman Jeremy Enigk, the movie goes through a journey of small vignettes of two families' lives in the aftermath of tragedy. The acting is superb throughout with special mention to a few. For someone who plays the naïve lug in most films, Chris Klein actually does well with much the same material here, yet also with an evolution into a man of purpose. His aloofness is effective when utilized in the right part, similar to his success in Election, and I am interested to see if directors will be allow him to expand his talents and sink his teeth into something more substantial. Jena Malone is effective in much the same effect as well, playing the role of troubled youth as she has in Donnie Darko and Life as a House; Don Cheadle is a stalwart of professionalism giving us a different take on the compassionate therapist from the one he did in Manic; and Martin Donovan is brilliant as the grieving father trying to keep his wits together and eventually realizing he must keep his family from falling apart as well. Also, it is great seeing the beautiful Sherilyn Fenn in a small but important role.<br /><br />When tragedy hits, people band together to get through it all. As Leland astutely points out at one point, you see men and women helping others out and hugging when they see the pain and suffering surrounding them, but after a couple of days everything goes back to normal. Cheadle's character extrapolates the optimistic viewpoint that at least we get a glimpse of people's true nature of wanting to help and be good to each other, only to be shot back at with the retort, "well at least we do during tragedy." Maybe we don't want to think we are good natured because it does make us feel we should be good all the time, and that when bad, must have in-turn meant to be so. By being flawed we allow ourselves to rebound and try again. Leland's mistake lets him see the love he had for those close to him as well as opening the eyes of others to wake up and not let their loved ones drift any further from them. One can't focus on the sadness of others when they must first come to grips with their own. Hoge has crafted a parable for this and a truly effective piece of film-making with hopefully many more to come.
|
positive
|
This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!<br /><br />The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.<br /><br />In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.<br /><br />I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".<br /><br />I rated this movie 1/10.
|
negative
|
There's nothing left undone about this Perry and Croft masterpiece - as good as any of the best episodes, thankfully it was still filmed in time before the late James Beck sadly passed away to be included in it to show his talent.<br /><br />It shows right from the start, how the platoon is formed from the state of national emergency, showing the boys as inept under Captain Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe) and Sergeant Wilson (John Le Mesurier) as they usually are through the series.<br /><br />Along the way, Mainwaring does his usual longing to show authority but the chaps can't help but let him down at every turn, during wargames and suspecting an invasion. They have a chance in the film though to redeem themselves when they actually capture the Nazi airmen who take the church congregation hostage.<br /><br />That was a nice finale especially as Mainwaring had been able to prove himself to the General, being given one last chance to shape up. A great film, plenty of good lines and laughs, it's another one for the DVD cupboard - I'm glad the BBC is repeating it - and on this day 2.8.08 they deservedly had 'Dad's Army Night'. Not to be missed!
|
positive
|
I think the filmographic lineage may run like this. Pay attention, please, because I had to look this up. In 1967 Peter Yates, an ex auto racer, directs the English caper movie "Robbery," the most thrilling part of which is a car chase through the streets of London, down alleys where there are crowds of children playing and all that. It's a success.<br /><br />A year later, Yates directs "Bullet", starring Steve McCool, I mean McQueen, featuring another even more spectacular car chase up and down the San Francisco Hills, with dumbfoundingly authentic engine sounds that seem to include double clutching, full race cams, no mufflers, twelve-cylinder engines under forty-foot hoods, supercharged, superdupercharged, and all five-thousand horsepower running at full tilt. Lots of shots of McQueen's gum-chewing visage scowling with concentration as he tries to bump another car off the highway, though a passenger in the other vehicle totes a shotgun. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Bill Hopkins drives the criminal vehicle.<br /><br />A year or two later, sensing a good thing, Bill Friedkin directs "The French Connection," featuring a chase between a commandeered cop car(Gene Hackman) and an elevated train in New York City. Lots of shots of Hackman's cursing face as he wrestles the battered car through the streets. The chase is staged by Philip D'Antoni. Academy Awards follow.<br /><br />Sensing a good thing, a year or two more brings us "The Seven Ups," featuring a chase between a car driven by Roy Scheider, with lots of shots of Scheider's cursing face as he tries to bump the other car, which is driven by Bill Hopkins, off the road, although the criminal car, to be sure, carries a shotgun-toting passenger. No hills in New York City, just bumps, but they are still sharp enough to elevate the cars a few feet. The pursued car screeches around a corner and dashes down a street on which a dozen children are playing. Shots of the screaming kids as they scatter off the pavement and allows the car to zoom through. But once is not enough. The children immediately run back into the street and must repeat the retreat for the pursuing cop car carrying Scheider.<br /><br />I once witnessed a pursuit at high speed on the streets of Philadelphia. Both the criminal and the cops drove through the streets at about 25 miles an hour, coming to rolling stops at each Stop sign and red light -- very dull stuff compared to this movie.<br /><br />Speaking of this movie, it's pretty good. "Robbery" and "Bullet" were cool. Everyone dressed neatly. But the New York movies are filthy. There's garbage all over the place and the subway cars are covered with graffiti. Shoot outs and beat ups take place in vacant lots surrounded by crumbling brick buildings, or in disposal dumps for industrial-sized freezers.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good too. Roy Scheider seems whippet sleek. The other actors have faces made for the camera, especially Richard Welsh. And the story is engaging, if not entirely unfamiliar. What's best about the film is the way it captures New York City in its almost total indifference to human depravity and nobility. At a funeral, the limo drivers stand around with their collars up, butts hanging out of their mouths, kicking their cold feet together, utterly bored at the ritual goings on. The film wants us to believe that The Seven Ups are an elite group of untouchable cops who stop at nothing to get the job done, and here it's a bit of a sell out. They always seems to be threatening to do something unethical and illegal -- beat hell out of a suspect or physically damage a hospitalized and helpless hood -- but they always manage to avoid doing it. (If they actually did it, their characters would become lifelike and ambiguous and we'd rather have our heroes and villains of a more Biblical nature.) Very enjoyable, even if you've seen it before, and you very well may have in one or another of its previous incarnations.
|
positive
|
When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5.
|
negative
|
After growing up in the gritty streets of Detroit, MI, and having friends who traveled to New York balls, I fell into the lifestyle of being a House member. I joined the House of Theieves. We adapted the same rules as most houses, but we were professional crooks that would boost and commit credit card fraud to obtain the fabulous jewels and clothes we desired. I even learned how to profess the making of checks and driver's license and cash them in over seventeen states, until a jealous queen called the Secret Service on me and I went to Federal prison. But, I learned a lot from these queens in this movie and I highly recommend you watch it yourself. You can even read about how I grew up in the houses here in Detroit and the criminal activity we indulged in. My book, Identity Schemes is available on sale at Amazon dot com or at Identity Schemes dot com. But trust me, It is a lot better than Paris is Burning, because its a 2005 make.
|
positive
|
I'm racking my brain, but I can't seem to think of another movie quite like The Valley of the Gwangi. A Western with dinosaurs? What could be more natural? You gotta wonder why John Ford and/or John Wayne never tried it! <br /><br />The plot While searching for a mythical miniature horse for her circus, TJ Breckenridge (Gila Golan), Tuck Kirby (James Franciscus), and the rest of the cast/characters enter a strange, lost valley. There they find not only the miniature horse, but some other, more fearsome creatures as well. Dinosaurs rule this place. Now wouldn't that be an attraction at TJ's circus a caged T-Rex? <br /><br />It's not that I find The Valley of the Gwangi a bad movie, I just don't seem to have enjoyed it as much as many others who have posted comments on the movie. There are some parts that I actually find almost unwatchable. For the first half of the movie, there just doesn't seem to be much going on. I wasn't necessarily bored, but I did want something to happen. Plodding would be an adjective I would use. To top it off, the movie features a very contrived love story. It feels forced as if the writers decided that the male and female leads just had to get together. But The Valley of the Gwangi isn't a total waste. There are moments I really enjoyed. Who doesn't get a kick out of the scenes of the cowboys on horseback trying to lasso a T-Rex. You just don't see stuff like that every day. Ray Harryhausen's creatures are impressive. There are some really cool shots of Harryhausen's miniatures interacting with people and horses. It might not represent the best of his work, but the effects are very nice. Still, at least in my mind these good moments aren't enough to overcome the negatives. As much as I hate to do it, I've got to rate The Valley of the Gwangi a 4/10.
|
negative
|
I would not hesitate to put this adaptation of 'Death Trap" in a top 5 list of the best stage-to-movie adaptations ever. Caine and Reeves (an underrated actor who never really got a chance to do more than soggy romances and "Superman") play off each other extremely well here. Even Dyan Cannon - who I normally don't care for - is perfectly cast in a role that exploits her annoyance value as an actress.<br /><br />I'm not sure that comparisons of "Deathtrap" with "Sleuth" - another brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation featuring Michael Caine - are valid, or even fair. Yes, the two stories have a lot in common. But "Sleuth" is as much about class warfare as the battle of wits, and the house in "Sleuth" is set is at least as much a character in the movie as the two actors - the house doesn't really have an equivalent in "Deathtrap". And "Deathtrap" isn't so much a battle of wits as it is a pointed vignette about how people are no damned good (and never as smart as they think they are) and deserve everything they get. I'll just say that both movies are superb examples of the genre, and well worth your time and money. This is America, after all. You don't have to choose! <br /><br />I won't give away the twists and turns of the plot, but I don't think it matters anyway. I've watched the DVD eight or nine times in a dozen years, and still enjoyed the chemistry and the timing and the mean, scary moments when things go "all pear shaped". It's all done so well that the ride becomes more important than the actual destination.<br /><br />Anyone who likes black-hearted comedy and suspense in the Hitchcock style of film-making will probably enjoy "Deathtrap" immensely.
|
positive
|
Intriguing. Exciting. Dramatic. Explosive. Complex. Epic. Words that only touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of the grand story that is LOST being told.<br /><br />From the acting down to the rare visual effects, LOST is the essential show on television for fans of science-fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, and lots and lots of mystery.<br /><br />Each cast member is so well chosen, and so good in their roles, that you either love them, or hate them, or downright wish them dead.<br /><br />The visual effects, when used (which is rare) are actually quite well done considering the usual production of shows. Be it the "smoke monster", to the polar bears, LOST is believable in terms of eye-candy.<br /><br />As far as story goes, nothing can compare to the vast complexity this show has made viewers like me endure. Beginning to End, continuity is virtually perfect, characters are developed, and the ever-evolving story slowly gives the answers to its questions so many crave.<br /><br />Overall, there is practically no flaw in LOST. It does for dramatic/sci-fi television what Arrested Development did for comedy: it has set the bar.<br /><br />I highly recommend LOST to those that are patient, intellectual, and love every moment of the ride, no matter how long it takes to reach the end.<br /><br />See this show.
|
positive
|
Come on? FANTASTIC DRAMA ON SCREEN? Are you joking folks? I wouldn't put horrible Molly Gross to play even in school play! Where did these people learn acting? Borrowing some papers from their neighbors actor? Terrible plot, awful acting. Heh ... why do you take us for an imbeciles? What can I say more. I understand this is an TV production and the acting is not supposed to be the one from Citizen Kane. But nevertheless they should try it harder in order to earn their money. And apart from that what can be said IN 10 LINES for a simple movie like this? U wanna article in the morning paper? To say what? Worse film in the decade? OK, you want it - you got it!
|
negative
|
After seeing this film I feel like I know just a little bit more about the USA. David Lynch is synonymous with shock value and weird for weirdness sake, and indeed these elements are not missing from The Straight Story. However it is in a light that I have not witnessed from Lynch before. We begin with a simple family living a quiet life but end up with an array of absurdly interesting characters with depth in their lives that cannot be apparent from their introduction. Especially moving was the bar scene with two WWII veterans discussing the events of fifty years ago and how it still affected their current lives and emotions. If you are looking for Wild at Heart or Dune, don't look here. But if you are looking for real people with real stories this is the film for you.
|
positive
|
This is one heck of a sleazy film. Like so many "women in chains" films, this one is chock full of lesbianism. However, unlike most prior films, which strongly implied this, BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA shows an awful lot of skin as a horny female prison guard leers at the women as they shower as well as has sex with one of the inmates. For the early 1970s, this is definitely a soft-core pornographic film--sort of like GIRLS GONE WILD GOES TO PRISON! It's also a bad rip-off of THE DEFIANT ONES, though in this case it's two hot females who hate each other who are chained together when they escape. Whereas the original film is considered a classic, this one can only be considered a classic example of bad taste. That's because there is no subtlety and the movie is just cheap--cheap thrills, cheap writing and very cheap acting.<br /><br />Pam Grier is the "black inmate with an attitude"--a lady who was set up and sent to prison on this hellish island. Margaret Markov is a revolutionary. When they escape, they both can't stand each other and have opposite goals. However, since it is cliché-driven, there's really no surprise in how the film ends--with their both becoming (gag me) friends.
|
negative
|
This movie appears to have been made by someone with some good ideas but who also never had made a movie before nor had they considered that a script should be edited or even funny. When I saw this film, I saw it for John Candy and assumed, incorrectly, that it would be hilarious. Instead, there was a stupid plot about mind control and so many flat, unfunny moments. And, to top it off, Candy delivered some of the crudest lines I had ever heard up to that time. So, despite a potentially funny cast and story idea, we are left with an amateurish and crude movie that will probably be too stupid for the average adult, though teens will probably find a few laughs. It's really a shame--it could have been so much better. I mean, with Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty and John Candy it SHOULD have been wonderful.
|
negative
|
This was Hitchcock's third Hollywood feature, and it appears he was yet to settle into a pattern of consistency, turning from faithful adaptation of classic novel in Rebecca, to espionage thriller in Foreign Correspondent, and now this romantic comedy in the mould of the "screwball" pictures of the 1930s.<br /><br />Hitchcock's formal method, on the other hand, had by now settled into something consistent, so much so that he was unable (or at least unwilling) to deviate from it. It was unwise then for him to step outside his usual genre, and a romantic comedy was particularly inappropriate. In Rebecca it was actually great to see Hitchcock constrained by his producer and the source text, forced to turn his technique to heavy Gothic drama, but for Mr and Mrs Smith there is a huge mismatch between form and content. In other words, Hitchcock was no Ernst Lubitsch.<br /><br />First, let's look at the romantic angle. The best love scenes in Hitchcock films were wild, passionate and slightly dangerous the "ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have?" situation, and he was great at depicting that. This is something that makes a much earlier film, Rich and Strange, one of the few Hitchcock non-thrillers that really works. Hitch is not so good however when it comes to a more gentle and familiar love story. A light, tender touch is required and Hitch doesn't have it.<br /><br />Secondly, take the comedy. Of course, Hitchcock films could be funny The Lady Vanishes is probably the best example but only when the jokes were sprinkled throughout the story. The master of suspense simply isn't enough of a comedy director to create a film that has funny bones. He cuts up scenes as he would in a thriller snappy opposing angles of people talking, inserted close-ups of hands and feet, point-of-view shots but doesn't allow for comic timing or focus on gags. For example, the business with Carole Lombard's dress bursting at the seems is shown to us with a couple of close-ups, but these are timed more as if he were revealing some crucial plot point, and have no comedic impact. Occasionally Hitchcock's style does roughly coincide with the comedy for example the arrangement of characters in the scene at the club, where Robert Montgomery tries to make it look as if he is with the attractive, sophisticated woman at the next table but such moments are few and far between.<br /><br />Even the cast of Mr and Mrs Smith are not up to standard. I'm not sure this was Robert Montgomery's strength lay, and he is boring here. This was of course exactly where "Queen of Screwball" Carole Lombard's strength lay, and yet while she is clearly acting well the scenes are simply not geared to capturing comedy performances. Even Jack Carson, who could be hilarious when he was really allowed to let go before the camera, fails to perk things up at all. Of course, neither of these fine comedy actors is helped by the screenplay, which isn't exactly bursting with laughs in the first place, even if the basic story is a fairly good premise.<br /><br />The only full-on comedy Hitchcock made after this was the Trouble with Harry, and that sort of worked because it played upon his familiar suspensefulness. However it was only when the story could exist independently of the humour, when the basic framework was suspense as it is in The Lady Vanishes or Family Plot that Hitchcock was capable of doing comedy well.
|
negative
|
My wife and I really had high hopes for this film, but it was a major disappointment. It was a Native American version of Mr. Magoo. A pathetic father who fails at everything he tries e.g. fishing, hunting, in an obvious way he subjects his family to his wild fantasies. His "visions" are not only ridiculous but in the process he lies to his son numerous times about various obvious things. Words cannot express how bad this film is. The children and wife are very real which makes the film even sadder. I don't get the humor... unless you like laughing at other people making a fool of themselves. I don't get how this could have come up for awards. Save your bucks, it's not worth the rental.
|
negative
|
what ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!<br /><br />Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.<br /><br />Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD.
|
negative
|
While others may contend that by viewing other works by Bilal, one will better appreciate this movie, it does fail in one major way. It does not stand on its own. The plot is a mishmash that is confuses symbolism with substance. Here's an idea start with a definite story. Then craft symbolism around it. We start with two different narratives, this female that is somehow turning human, a "god" that is for some reason being judged, but getting one last fling on Earth, and this mysterious John character who seems to be developing some sort of "resort" just beyond the bounds of the city. Why? None of these questions are answered. But do we care, no. There is no development to want us to empathize with any character in the story, the closest we get Jill and even then the development is spotty at best. Unfortunately the movie gets caught up in the the whole visually impressive (which it is,) but at the expense of motivic development. I would love to see this rewritten by someone who could distance themselves from the material a bit and not have to feel that every image has to be in the picture.
|
negative
|
Firstly, I would like to point out that people who have criticised this film have made some glaring errors. Anything that has a rating below 6/10 is clearly utter nonsense.<br /><br />Creep is an absolutely fantastic film with amazing film effects. The actors are highly believable, the narrative thought provoking and the horror and graphical content extremely disturbing. <br /><br />There is much mystique in this film. Many questions arise as the audience are revealed to the strange and freakish creature that makes habitat in the dark rat ridden tunnels. How was 'Craig' created and what happened to him?<br /><br />A fantastic film with a large chill factor. A film with so many unanswered questions and a film that needs to be appreciated along with others like 28 Days Later, The Bunker, Dog Soldiers and Deathwatch.<br /><br />Look forward to more of these fantastic films!!
|
positive
|
The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.<br /><br />No you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This "psycho 1998" is a giant spoiler.<br /><br />They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!
|
negative
|
After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same level of quality is there.<br /><br />The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest misstep.<br /><br />The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a big swipe at the vampire clichés.<br /><br />The directing is spot on with tons of pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen. It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see.<br /><br />This is just a great film.
|
positive
|
Like the first film in this series (SLAUGHTER, 1972), I think it would be a mistake to just label this a "blaxsploitation film". Sure, Slaughter is a tough, gun-toting, Black man but it's more of an action picture regardless of the color of the leading man or the bad guys--and a very good action picture at that.<br /><br />For the second and final time, Jim Brown plays the title character. The film begins with one of the goofiest scenes I can remember in a film. As Slaughter and his friends are enjoying an outdoor party, along comes a biplane and begins spraying the group with machine gun fire! No, Slaughter isn't so tough that he then shoots down the plane with his .357! But Slaughter is ticked and no one is sure why this hit was happened--however, Slaughter is going to get to the bottom of it! Well, it turns out that the hit was attempted in retribution for the last movie. In it, Slaughter takes on the Mafia and kicks lots of butt down in Mexico. Now, in a horribly bungled and clumsy attempt, the guys in the plane kill and injure quite a few people but miss Slaughter. And, because the job was bungled so badly, the mob boss (Ed MacMahon!!) orders the pilot and gunman killed by his brutal assassin (Don Stroud--in a very typical sort of role for him). Stroud is great--scary and nasty to the core, but Ed MacMahon as the boss?! Wow, that's an interesting twist! <br /><br />Slaughter is now stumped. He figured out who the two guys were in the plane but by the time he got to them, they were dead. So, to help him along in his own private vendetta, Brock Peters (who plays a cop) tells him who the mobsters are who ordered the hit and got Slaughter to agree to help by doing some illegal undercover work. So, Slaughter and his pimp friend break into the mobster's mansion and steal a list of payoffs to key government and police officials. And, naturally, there is a lot of shooting and bloodshed in the process.<br /><br />Stroud isn't about to let Slaughter get away with this and kidnaps Slaughter's girlfriend. Now it's a standoff--Slaughter has the list but if he doesn't give it back, the lady is dead. Being a tough but gallant man, you might just be able to guess much of what happens next.<br /><br />The action is very good in the film and Jim Brown is menacing and tough. The only negative I noticed was that while having MacMahon play this nasty boss, at the end, he simply folded--and way too quickly. When Slaughter catches up to him, MacMahon becomes a wimp and all the previous nastiness disappears--and this is too much of a cliché and inconsistent. Still, despite this minor quibble, it's an engaging film that is NOT for the kids due to all the violence and boobs.
|
positive
|
The most disturbing thing about this film is not that it's a load of hogwash (the CPUSA was never really as much an espionage threat as the movie makes out). The troubling aspect is the way that it whitewashes the wholly unsavory tactics of the FBI and the UnAmerican Activities Committee. Secret informants, gossip turned into accusations, warrantless searches - these are the kind of things secret police thugs like the KGB did, and presumably, what the good patriotic Americans were fighting. Yet the FBI did them and didn't bat an eye. That's the only realistic part of this movie, and they present it with no sense of shame at all. Add to this undermining the Constitution itself by having only Communists invoke the Bill of Rights. The film also makes thinly veiled accusations that the black civil rights movement was communist-inspired, another pack of lies. It's extremely difficult in this day to excuse such outrageous propaganda, even understanding the paranoia of the times, when one realizes how damaging it was to real people then.
|
negative
|
i saw this movie when i was 13 and i really liked dana plato who later starred in different strokes as kimberly drummond . i don't think it's garbage .it was not meant to be a sequel to the documentary either . its just a cute kids movie about 3 children who go after men trying to find the boggy creek monster . the men get hurt and the kids rescue them with the help of the creature .haunting shots of the arkansas swamp and scenery were neat . this is a good movie for kids ,no real violence a few mild scares but good fun for the young kids.
|
positive
|
I rented this movie last week. I saw Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman were on it, so it seemed promising. And it was, until Justin Timberlake came on scene. He is a really bad actor and shouldn't be allowed to make a movie ever again. I mean, he is one of the most boring, uninspired actors I've ever seen. He puts absolutely no emotion to any of his lines whatsoever. Why the hell was he cast for the role of Josh Pollack? I think Matt Damon would have been a better choice.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey was another big disappointment. His character is so dull, it seems like a bad mix of his character in American Beauty and John Doe in Se7en. It might sound cool, but believe me, it's not.<br /><br />Now, Dylan McDermott's acting is very good. It's about one of the very few good things about this movie. He is just inspired.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman is good but nothing special. He has some really cool lines though.<br /><br />About the story, although it was a bit obvious and exaggerated at times it was good. I was expecting a big twist when Lazerov (Dylan McDermott) was killed, but nothing really happened.
|
negative
|
I am a big fan of the 1995 version, which I have seen many times and consider a subtle, excellent film. This 1971 version I bought yesterday, a bit hesitantly, but now that I have seen it I am glad I did, because it is truer to the book and to Austen's insights. The 1995 version has more dramatic power largely because it sharpens many of the characters -- in the 1995 version Lady Russell is snobbier, more manipulative, less truly looking out for Anne; Sir Walter is even more vain and vapid; Elizabeth is nastier; Mary is more insufferable; Mr. Elliot is more smarmy; Lady Dalrymple is much more stupid -- but I think the characterizations in this 1971 version are closer to the book, to Austen's vision, and to the real people of the time. The 1971 version also includes more of the key lines and scenes from the book, including especially the key scene in the field where Anne overhears Wentworth talking to Louisa (or is it Henrietta?) about the importance of strength of character. I found the acting more subtle and evocative than do many of the critics here, but the acting in the 1995 version is more powerful. I agree with the critics here that the actress who plays Anne is too old for the part; I looked up her entry on IMDb and she was 38 at the time of the filming, when her character is supposed to be 28. I thought her acting was subtle and effective, however. Wentworth is of the correct age and I found him very convincing. In particular, this 1971 version of Wentworth has much more of his sense of humor and teasing; the 1995 one, much more of the sense of power a sea captain would have, and more passion. The admiral in the 1971 version lacks the gruff presence and human warmth of the one in the 1995 version and lacks any feeling of the power an admiral certainly would convey; I found him the one truly weak element in the production. I agree with others that the staging of the "falling" scene was too wooden, and it seemed unconvincing that she would have been so injured by such a little fall. However, it could be that she banged the back of her head on the edge of the stone step, which if so, really would produce a very dangerous injury, and would make the scene more convincing than the scene in the 1995 version, where she falls farther but is clear of any sharp edge that could plausibly cause a major head injury. As to the costuming that some have criticized, I am no expert and can't respond, but I will note that none of the Navy characters (Wentworth, admiral Croft, Benwick, Harville) in the 1971 version wear their uniforms, while in the 1995 version all of them consistently wear their fancy uniforms. I suspect that the 1971 version is the accurate one, and it always bothered me a bit in the 1995 version, the officers being always in uniform when clearly the nation is at peace and the officers are detached from active duty. My father and grandfather were career US navy captains who commanded aircraft carriers and submarines, and they did not spend every day while on leave or at leisure in their dress blues. I doubt it was any different 180 years ago. The uniforms give the 1995 version a lot of zing, and I prefer it, but I doubt it is accurate historically that these officers wore their uniforms so frequently. Lastly, it is true, the production values of the 1971 version are a lot less than the 1995 version, but given the year (1971), the TV format, and the budget, we can't blame the artists for it. Contemporary viewers who can make a mental allowance for the lower production values can find this version well worth their time.
|
positive
|
when I first heard about this movie, I noticed it was one of the most controversial films of the 1970s. I noticed the music was by Elton John, so I figured I had nothing to loose, so I got it. What a Surprise!!! The movie was awesome. It was true love is all about. The characters (Paul and Michelle) had no luxuries, no money, and sometimes no food, yet they were still happy. I recommended this film to all my friends, but they all critized my tastes, and even called me names, becuase the movie featured two minors naked. I think that only made the movie more realistic. The cinematography was great and it only come to show the great abilities of director Lewis Gilbert
|
positive
|
the first Child's Play was an original and effective little horror movie. as expected though, the 2 horrible sequels seemed to spell the end for this franchise.<br /><br />well, when i heard they were making a 4th one called "bride of chucky" i just rolled my eyes and muttered a "...when will they ever learn."<br /><br />but when i heard that they had gotten a great director, Ronny Yu and a solid cast including the awe inspiring Jennifer Tilly my interest in it perked up.<br /><br />this film is extremely well done. it has a great sense of humor, highly stylized graphic violence, great cinematography and the stunningly sexy Jennifer Tilly strutting her most impressive stuff during the first half. (i should add that she is also a fantastic actress as well.)<br /><br />it keeps it's tongue firmly in cheek without veering into campy territory. the doll effects are great and the verbal interplay between them is priceless. it's more of a horror/comedy than straight horror but the humor is welcome and well integrated. <br /><br />i've already heard that they're planning a Son of Chucky. if they can match the quality of this film, than maybe this franchise will have made a legitimate comeback.<br /><br />rating:8.5
|
positive
|
Shlock-merchant Leo Fulci takes a change of pace by making a trashy, barely coherent sword and sorcery fantasy movie instead of his usual trashy, barely coherent horror. <br /><br />A wimpy Orlando Bloom type called Ilias, from some society vaguely resembling Ancient Greece travels across the ocean to caveman territory on some vaguely defined quest to battle evil, where he joins up with a animal loving hunter to battle the wolf-man and mutant minions of a vampiric topless evil sorceress. Wackiness ensues. The sorceress, is oppressing the local cavemen and wants the magic bow for herself. She sends various minions, each weirder than the last, after our heroes who win through in the end, striking a blow for oppressed cavemen everywhere. This movie contains a steady stream of WTF? elements and moments.<br /><br />For some reason the entire movie is shot in soft focus and the picture is further blurred by the constant presence of mist on screen. This may have been an attempt to create atmosphere or to hide how fake everything looks. Either way, it failed. There is no atmosphere, unless it is one of scuzziness and mild bewilderment and there is no hiding how lame everything looks. The wolf-man minions look like a poor man's wookie. For some reason the director fell in love with shots of them leaping through the air in slow motion, Six Million Dollar Man style, toward our heroes when they attack. There are probably about a dozen of these shots throughout the movie and it gets goofier every time. The other minions of the topless sorceress, other than the generic leather clad humans, are some lumpy white mutants who appear to be covered in cobwebs. Needless to say they are slow and unthreatening and when they speak sound like gay Hispanic, lisping Daleks. The fights are stilted and unconvincing and the special effects are woeful. Oh yeah, the music is cheap synthesiser stuff that the makers of Doctor Who would have been embarrassed to have used.<br /><br />Ilias, our nominal hero is bland and forgettable. He also looks a complete wuss, especially with his midriff revealing leather outfit and big hair, and is clearly a moron. Sure, he's a dynamite shot with his magical bow but he only takes about three or four arrows with him in his mission to battle this entire continent of evil. Needless to say he runs out of arrows within a few minutes and has to be saved by more traditional sword and sorcery hero, Mace. When he meets Ilias he establishes himself as the taciturn loner type, claiming he has no friends but no sooner can you say latent homoerotic subtext they are bosom buddies, traipsing the misty hills together. Mace promises to take Ilias with him in return for bow related favours. Ilias asks where he is going. "Wherever my legs take me," is his reply. Good enough for Ilias. Mace is also animal lover and outrageous hypocrite. He proclaims his great love of and affinity toward animals, citing the usual stuff about how he prefers them to humans because humans can be soooo mean. He says he would never hunt and kill an animal to feed himself but he will steal meat off other people who have hunted down animals. He is also not above randomly killing innocent passers by for no good reason. Not long after they meet, he is testing out Ilias' bow and the movie cuts to some random caveman, minding his own business, walking along and Mace shoots him dead. There is no indication this poor soul did anything to deserve this and even Ilias, who supposedly hails from a more moral and civilised society doesn't even raise an eyebrow. <br /><br />The films villainess is quite unusual. For the entire movie she is completely naked except from a g-string and a golden mask that encompasses her entire head. It's like Fulci included her to make the movies obligatory T&A quotient but decided she was bit too much of a butterface at the last minute. She spends a lot of time seemingly being pleasured by her pet snakes and dreaming about being shot by a faceless bow wielding man who is dressed like Ilias. Wow, such symbolism! Later on in the movie she wimps out when she can't beat Ilias and Mace and promises to make herself the sex-slave of some ancient warrior dude if he kills them for her. Hardly the world's most scary villain and not really a step forward for women's rights. I think he sic's the cobweb creatures on our heroes and impersonates Mace in a situation where there is no no-one else around but Mace to fool. Was he really worthy trading your self respect for, Ocron? <br /><br />There are quite a few other WTF? moments. Most of them come toward the end of the movie. Ilias wusses out, I forget why, possibly his permed hairdo got mussed, but realizes the error of his ways and returns to aid Mace in fighting the forces of evil. All of a sudden, for no reason, his bow can suddenly fire out multiple target seeking bolts of energy. The bolts can also shoot through solid rock when necessary. Needless to say his makes short work of the hordes of bad guys who have captured Mace.<br /><br />The climax is also rather nonsensical. Mace decimates Ocron's remaining forces using the bows targeted laser attack capability. He then is able to shoot Ocron from a kilometre away using its shoot through rock capacity. She starts dying. Her mask is ripped of revealing a hideous Muppet head. She staggers around screaming and turns into a dog and wanders off with another dog. Mace smiles. Roll credits.<br /><br />Strangely enough as far as these dodgy low budget sword and sorcery movies this one is reasonably lucid and focused. Any one who has seen Wizards of the Lost Kingdom can tell you how nonsensical and meandering these movies can truly be.
|
negative
|
Let me begin with a personal note as a film and television buff, more on the enjoyment side of life: I love what James Woods can do and has done, and I always love Melanie Griffith, and Natasha Wagner was very good in this awful, miserable, stinking "true crime" essay.<br /><br />Whoever really wrote this film apparently never spent any time talking to real criminals with real criminal talents: yes, some thieves are junkies but they have very short careers as thieves. Truly successful thieves are seldom caught because they don't do "junk" or any drugs before going on a score ( job ).<br /><br />The James Woods character was true to this paradigm in the beginning of this film, and then the script fell apart completely. He turns into a raging, alcoholic lunatic .... nice work for a high-strung guy like Woods, maybe, but not in the least bit believable.<br /><br />Most criminals are lazy. If they wanted to work they would work.<br /><br />These people in this film are beautiful, self-indulgent, drug-addled narcissistic losers. They couldn't pull off a real score in the real world, the real world where a big and beefy security guard who beats the living hell out of a skinny kid ( as happens in the early scenes of this "DOG" ), keeps him beat down and doesn't let him up. Ever.<br /><br />How many ways did I find to hate this film ? Many. Even totally vulgar people -- like most sneak thieves and junkies -- have a larger vocabulary than these cretins. And the 'rip-off' scenes with the neo-Nazi bikers ? Puhlease. All rednecks ain't neo-Nazis and those who are neo-Nazi speed dealers just ain't that dumb !!<br /><br />This film earned a two because Natasha Wagner was extremely good in her role as Rose and because Melanie Griffith still has 'that something special,' or at least she had it for this brutal and offensively stupid film. I'm not one to sing praises of real criminals for any reason, but the reality of these criminal types in this horrible film is that they'd all be dead or in jail by Act 2, Scene 1. Watching a lousy Zombie movie would be time better spent than this .... thing ... and I hate zombies.
|
negative
|
The easiest way to describe this movie is as a satire. The target of the satire is quite vast, from the US Government to corporate America. It is also not a stinging satire, but rather a silly one.<br /><br />Think of this movie as a mix between the Kentucky Fried movie, Airplane and Police Squad series, done with a much smaller budget and not as funny. I can see how this movie is a satire of many sci-fi disaster movies from the 50's and 60's. I see this movie as a big influence on Tim Burton's Mars Attacks.<br /><br />The plot is simple enough. Genetically engineered giant tomatoes go "crazy" and start attacking people and cities. At first there is a cover up and then it blows over into full blown war.<br /><br />The movie runs the gamut of characters and characterizations : Lois "Fairchild" (a Lois Lane clone), a very ambitious Presidential Press Secretary, Clark Kent, Mason Dixon (FIA agent who hasn't worked since the Bay of Pigs), a useless President (who only seems to be able to sign his name and attack New York), an even inept Congress, a sleazy marketing CEO, and Mason's team consisting of an obese East German "female" swimmer, a scuba diver, a crazed WWII paratrooper and an African-American disguise expert (disguised as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler and finally as a tomato). Did I also forget to mention, lots and lots of tomatoes? There are all kinds of tomatoes from small tomatoes, to giant plastic tomatoes, to smashed tomatoes, to tomato juice and finally to people dressed up as tomatoes.<br /><br />On top of all this, you have a couple of musical numbers as well. They aren't that good and seem to be dubbed. The best tune is by far the theme of the movie ("Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"). It is way too catchy and you might end up humming or singing it in public. Be warned.<br /><br />Most of the movie is quite amusing and shows the absurdity of various real life situations as well as various entertainment genres. I don't believe I was induced to laughter, but mostly smiled and scratched my head. I definitely recommend this movie for fans of B and C grade movies, but only as a rental.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab
|
negative
|
I felt last night's episode was slow and kinda of boring at times. I honestly don't think it has to do anything with the writing. Because I know the story was well staged and tried to keep things in place. I thought it wasn't that bad but overall, I didn't enjoy it. The most blame has to do with the director of that episode- Stephen Williams. I always hated Stephen Williams's directing. If Jack Bender continues with this episode from the season premiere, he would have kept it in a good pace and keep things float to keep things interesting. I'm glad Jack Bender is directing next week's episode and it'll be much better and I'm glad he got first Syaid episode to direct and I'm curious what he will pull off this time since Stephen Williams had directed too many Syaid episodes before.<br /><br />I always keep thinking that Stephen Williams needs to be thrown off from the show. He doesn't even do anything interesting with the show.<br /><br />Why does the opening have to be done with a target thing while being in the helicopter? IT was so BORING! Bad perspective of camera work too!
|
negative
|
I seemed to find the trailers better than the movie. They did their job and made me interested in watching UNKNOWN. The interest waned early. A simple premise laking in scenery. Five men wake up in a chemical warehouse not knowing why they are there; let alone know how in the hell they got there. Confusion and paranoia brings with it fear and distrust. The men learn that a kidnapper is on his way with plans to kill his hostages. Now the men size each other up trying to distinguish if all are victims and who may actually be one of the kidnappers. The cast includes: Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Bridget Moynahan, Barry Peppper, David Selby and Adam Rodriguez.
|
negative
|
I know what most of people will think about this movie without even seen it... 'The typical movie from a famous singer... It will be a pink movie,a teenage film,it will be stupid...' and stuff like that... And yes, it is...I mean, it's a pink movie... But, you know what?...I LOVED IT. Seriously...It's a very romantic film... I think that every girl in this world has dreamed with something like the plot of 'Popstar'... Met his favorite singer, know him as a person...and even have a romance with him...right? ^^ I really enjoyed watching that... In addition, it's really funny... <br /><br />I think the actors did a great job... There's a lot of loving characters...And, Aaron Carter (JD) is not the exception... To be honest, in the first five minutes of see him act, i thought 'this will be awful'...But then , he surprised me really pleasingly...<br /><br />Also, I gotta say that the music performances on the film are GREAT! I specially loved the part when JD ( Aaron) sings without music , (only with a guitar) a very beautiful song...This guy is really talented... Time will tell...<br /><br />My advice to you?...Watch it! Don't make a prejudice ;-)
|
positive
|
I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before or since. Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is quite bad, even for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having extremely choppy editing.<br /><br />The characters are pretty typical for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is about what's you'd expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.<br /><br />If you wan't to see a college flick, stay clear from this one. It's so bad, it's not even funny.
|
negative
|
This was a great book and the possibilities for a truly great film were definitely there. But the casting decisions completely wrecked the movie. Hanks is a great actor to be sure, but lacks the smarmy, morally ambivalent characteristics needed for the lead role. Jeff Daniels would have been my choice.<br /><br />Putting Melanie Griffiths in, for eye candy reasons, is understandable, but again, she did not portray the depth or ambivalence, so need to pull this off.<br /><br />This movie is a great example of how every decision, even those early on in the movie production can make or break a file.
|
negative
|
Wow! My mom bought me this movie because it was on sale really cheap in some store in my town, and she knows I love scary movies. First I looked at the cover and sighed, thinking that it was some ordinary B-movie trying to be scary. I was so wrong! I made the great big mistake watching it alone, my parents and my brother was asleep and it was really late. After I seen the movie I was so scared I was shaking... I didn't even dare to go up and take the videotape out of the VCR! I slept with the lights on...<br /><br />This movies main story is about some teenagers who drives off the road and have to spend the night in the woods, telling scary stories... The first story is really scary, and it makes you hug a pillow really hard if you watch it alone.. The second story is scary too, but not in the same way as the first one. The third story (my favorite) is really, really creepy. It scared me most of all stories. It is about a guy who is driving around the country on a motorcycle. One night when there's a storm outside, he goes to the closest house and knocks on the door.. A girl opens, and she is mute.. Don't wanna tell you more, but you will get chills when you watch it (I might add that my heartbeats were really abnormal when I watched it). "Campfire Tales"' main story has a really interesting and surprising ending. I know some guys said it sucked, but me, my boyfriend and my friends loved it, and it was a long time since we got that scared.. rating: 10/10, oh by the way, it is NOT like Urban Legend at all, it is so much scarier.
|
positive
|
Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra HATED each other while doing this film and in the years following it.Brando asked Sinatra for some singing lessons,but Sinatra (who was already upset over the fact that he was cast as Nathan Detroit,when he wanted the part of Skye Masterson)wanted to be the star singer in the production and didn't want any one to be better than he was.He told Brando to get lost,so to get back at him Marlon kept screwing up the scene in the diner where Sinatra was eating cheesecake so that he would have to keep eating,eating and eating.In the later years,Sinatra gave Brando the nickname "Mumbles" or "Mr.Mumbles" because of the way he talks.
|
positive
|
In the 50's, a gay photographer called Bob Mizer (Daniel MacIvor) founded an agency of male models, releasing a muscle magazine called "Physique Pictorial" and movie of men, and many of the models became prostitutes. "Beefcake" shows the rise and fall of this pervert.<br /><br />Alternating footages from the 50's, testimony of many models and Bob Mizer himself in the present days, the director Thom Fitzgerald used this subterfuge to show naked men and lots of penis along 93 minutes running time, in a complete bad taste and very silly crap. I have never heard anything about this morally corrupt Bob Mizer and I do not know what AMG is. In my opinion, only gay and very specific audiences might like the theme of this boring and pretentious movie. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Carne Fresca" ("Fresh Meat")
|
negative
|
Relentlessly stupid, no-budget "war picture" made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable "script", performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept "action" scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much it.
|
negative
|
I was unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit "Malibu Express." With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In "Fit to Kill" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work.
|
negative
|
I just saw this film last night, and I have to say that I loved every minute. If taken in the spirit of a parody of Bond-esquire films, it's truly superior. The true comedy of the film is in its blatant disregard for political correctness. The misogyny, cultural insensitivity, and almost laughable macho-ism of the films of this genre are used for major comic effect. It also calls the illogic and formulaic elements to task, with Agent OSS 117 constantly learning difficult things insanely quick (such as Arabic and how to play a traditional instrument) while missing some pathetically obvious clues. Some of the lines from the film left me laughing for hours after the movie was finished...and I have to say I have learned some...interesting...French vocabulary that would probably have my Professors quite exasperated with me were I to use. All in all, I thought this film excellent. Intensely funny and the first film I've ever seen that truly parodies all aspects of the spy film.
|
positive
|
A few days ago, I watched a documentary called THE FIFTY WORST MOVIES OF ALL TIME and this is where I first heard of THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. Being a lover of schlocky films, I am making it a point to try to find some of the films from the documentary--not just including THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. In fact, MELTING MAN is the first "bad film" I have seen since then and I must say I am rather disappointed. While it truly is a bad film, it comes nowhere near close enough to make inclusion on this list.<br /><br />Now before seeing the documentary, I have enjoyed "bad films" ever since I read the book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time" by Harry Medved. Despite the same title, the book came out long, long before the documentary and the makers of the documentary never credited Medved with the concept. From the Medved book, I have seen about 35 of the 50 films but have come to an impasse--the rest of the films just aren't available on VHS or DVD. So, I thought I'd try the film by the same name.<br /><br />The reason I was most disappointed with THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN was that there were a few good elements to the film. First, the melting guy special effects were generally really cool and disgusting. It's obvious that a professional (the famous Rich Baker) was involved in making this look realistic. However, I should also point out that there were also more than a few cheap and cheesy effects as well--such as the floating plastic head and the way the monster ran around after his left arm was cut off--you could see it "cleverly hidden" under his clothes! As for the story, it's just stupid. A group of astronauts miraculously penetrate the rings of Saturn without being crushed. Then, they comment about how beautiful the sun is--as we see closeups of it. This is odd since Saturn is so far from it--it should NOT look this way--it should be a large speck. Regardless, immediately the scene changes and we're told that one of the surviving astronauts is in a hospital. What happened between the last scene and this one? Yep, it's anyone's guess. Well, soon after, the survivor escapes and engages in a murderous rampage as his entire body melts.<br /><br />Now considering they have a psycho running about who looks like a melting popsicle, you'd think the government would pull out all stops to find and stop him, right?! Wrong. A general engages one lone doctor to find him!! No army, no police--just some dopey doctor. Even after bodies begin stacking up, at no point do the doctor or general do anything to organize a meaningful search or get backup.<br /><br />Now, given the stupidity of the film, you also wouldn't be surprised to find the following: <br /><br />When the melting dude is running around near the doctor's house, the doctor gives his wife a powerful sedative and leaves her in the house.<br /><br />When a cute old couple is driving late at night, they naturally stop in an orchard to pick fruit and are killed.<br /><br />When a lady sees melting dude, she barricades the door to protect herself. This would be smart IF she didn't have the back door of the house next to her! Instead of just leaving the house and escaping, she just waits! <br /><br />When a photographer and his model are taking snapshots, the guy grabs his assistant and yanks off her top. Why? Well to give the audience a cheap thrill and make it a rated R flick.<br /><br />When the melting dude is finally located and the sheriff has a clear shot at him, the doctor stops him--even though by now the monster had killed about a half dozen people.<br /><br />So, as you can see the film abounds with stupid plot elements. It is a very bad film. But, given the occasionally good special effects, it just wasn't a horrible film like I'd hoped. Sure, it's good for a laugh, but no where near PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE in badness and never should have been included on anyone's worst film list.
|
negative
|
I was really beginning to enjoy this show. It just started out slow and it wasn't given the chance it deserved. It is summertime so many people are not at home watching television. I know there are a few talent and singing competitions but I enjoy them as do many other. believe it or not when American idol is done for the year I miss it. Even though this was not American idol I thought it had potential. I feel bad for the singers on the show who wee really starting to grow on me. I wish they would reconsider and put the show back on. I think it was a hasty move to cancel. My only complaint about the show is I did not care to much for the judges.
|
positive
|
A great movie, rather challenging than really entertaining. Sadly, no memorable quotes here, but this one's my favorite: Alexandre: If you're leaving someone that you have loved, you have to say what I'm telling you now: "Farewell, I'm going." But to disappear, to hide like a criminal, is ignoble. (didn't watch it with English subtitles)<br /><br />In my opinion, this expresses it all. There is so much tactics involved in the relationships between Alexandre and the others, and yet everyone longs for a little bit more truth. However, knowing the truth can hurt even more, as Alexandre experiences. Common interpretation is that the movie criticises the mere possibility of "liberated love" by depicting the unwanted implications on the people involved. It does, indeed, show this in a convincing manner, but I would appreciate it if the reasons had been treated a bit more in depth: it's not that liberated love is in itself doomed to failure, but people (especially men, I think) should work on themselves and try to overcome the ruling morals before and not through practicing liberated love.<br /><br />That said, the movie's realistic though and really worthwhile watching.
|
positive
|
Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of "Booty Call", "Pumpkinhead", "Swarm", and "The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question "who was so stupid to finance such a whale?" But then, had good judgment prevailed and "Final Justice" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"!
|
negative
|
Featuring some amazing and wonderful characters, a new mythology, superbly designed and executed sets, Nightbreed is a great film.<br /><br />Sadly the lack of a well known lead actor lead to the film finding obscurity.<br /><br />Perhaps also the homosexuality of the director lead to the film being unwittingly censored by the white audience the film decries.<br /><br />None the less the film is a treasure of the monster movie/superhero genre.<br /><br />A sequel featuring Highlander style flashbacks to different epochs in history would be interesting. <br /><br />Another idea would be the foundation of the new Midian. Perhaps in Texas somewhere or the swamps of Lousiana with crocodile men and a traveling freak circus.
|
positive
|
This is one of those films the British Lottery Fund wastes its money on. The main problem is a rambling script which gets nowhere. The characters are not interesting, the story is conventional and insipid, the only thing of interest is the location: the city of Genoa (Genova in Italian). Having only a superficial acquaintance with Genoa, I had no idea of the intricate alleyways of its Old Town, and that the city was so interesting. I had thought Genoa was dull. I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. So from the travelogue point of view, this film has interest. The film contains one splendid performance, by a little girl named Perla Haney-Jardine. She has already made seven films despite being only 12, so she seems determined upon a career as an actress, and judging by her performance in this film, she should go far, as she is a natural and has a great deal of talent. Colin Firth, a reliable and professional actor, was on hand for the filming and when asked to be earnest, he was earnest, and when asked to be anguished, he was anguished. But somebody forgot to give him any worthwhile dialogue. The script is a total shambles. Catherine Keener does exceptionally well in a supporting role, and showing sympathy comes naturally to her, so that everybody would like to have her around (I would like to tell her every time I feel a cold coming on, as I know she would get me a soothing hot drink). So there we have it: Genoa's fascinating narrow alleys, an interesting little girl, and a sympathetic woman. Forget the rest. The older sister played by Willa Holland is such a disgusting character that the fact that the young actress does a good job of being repellent is not exactly the kind of acting tribute she would like to hear, I suspect. The notion that this family go off to Genoa to forget the unfortunate death of the mother is so trite that if we have another film like that, all dead mothers have a right to complain at being exploited. If Michael Winterbottom wanted to make a film about how interesting the old portion of Genoa is, why didn't he just go to the BBC and say he wanted to make a travel film with some mindless celebrity presenter? Why waste money on a feature film which is nothing but a vanity project of idle and meandering vacuity?
|
negative
|
Gosh, I am learning pretty fast that sometimes when you see a film as a youngster and then again 20 years later you gain a different view -- primarily because in 20 years you learn more. For example, I had no idea who George Cukor was - how great of a director he was and how much of that made this film fly. All I can say is..I really liked this film for it touched on an area that paralleled my life: lifelong friendship between two women. Can that EVER exist? Well, in certain doses, yes...and this film let out in a bit on ... "how".<br /><br />Being a youngster with not a lot of life experience at the first time I saw this so I focused more on the "rich" and "famous" part between the two. At the time, I had no idea there was a difference and what would happen to two women who discovered there was...and how that would effect their friendship. Through their men, their career, the decades that defined them. And coming to realize one thing remained stronger than anything else...their friendship and knowing each other more than anyone else could have.<br /><br />Then I got older, studied film a bit... and watched this film again with my best friend from High School. We do understand the 'rich' and 'famous' angle ... and we are still the best of friends...but this film is not a cinematic masterpiece...it can be seen as a bit campy at times...a little over the top at points (kinda on a 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' level to me..) and honestly I can identify with the "teddy bear" scene for we do share a bear that means a lot more than a stuffed fun toy through our trials and tribulations with men/careers, et al..so its not as over the top as it seems....! As many already said, seeing Meg Ryan and Matt Latanzzi and Dack Rambo and David Selby are great in this 1981 piece. this is a nice "chick" flick!
|
positive
|
But even caricatures need a plausible plot line. I suppose in 1934 some part of that audience long ago would enjoy this tepid farce. It doesn't age well. It does give Nat Pendelton and Zasu Pitts experienced and expert support players a shot at leading roles. Pendelton, who is featured prominently in the Thin Man series tries his best but is over matched by witless plot. With the backdrop being a stage play with gangsters its not exactly original material. Movie's saving grace is the always excellent Edward Everett Horton in a wasted performance. But don't waste your time watching Everett in this film. I would encourage anyone to watch him in his effort in Holiday, with Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Same era 1936, but much better script and storyline. Better gags and needless to say star power as well.
|
negative
|
Once upon a time there was a science fiction author named H. Beam Piper who wrote a classic book named "Little Fuzzy" which was about a man discovering a race of adorable little fuzzy humanoids on another planet. Mr. Piper died in 1964, but Hollywood and many of today's authors starting looting his grave before his cadaver got cold. This is the book where they got the idea for Ewoks from.<br /><br />Skullduggery is such a blatant ripoff of "Little Fuzzy" I can wonder why I'm the only who's ever noticed?<br /><br />But don't take my word for it. Here's a link to Project Guntenberg where you can download a copy of "Little Fuzzy" for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137
|
negative
|
This excellent movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery is long overdue for release in DVD form. The same can be said for her earlier, also excellent movie, A Case of Rape. I can only hope that my comments spur some enterprising soul into placing BOTH Elizabeth Montgomery movies on one DVD to be made available to her many fans. I for one believe this excellent actress's role was unfortunately stereotyped by her role on Bewitched and, as a result, more serious acting roles were not made available to her. I am confident that if these two movies, perhaps even a trilogy with The Legend of Lizzie Borden, were released in DVD form, her fans would set the record straight on how highly they regard her serious acting abilities.
|
positive
|
1st watched 5/26/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Weird story about a druid witch who tries to capture eternity by inheriting her granddaughter's body. At least I think that was the relationship. A kind of eerie quality is held throughout this film not unlike Stephen King's The Shining. The difference is that there was campiness in Nicholson's performance that isn't at all in this film. This is all taken very seriously until near the end when some lame one-liners and attempts at litening up the mood don't work at all. The performances are not the problem here, but the story is. Everything doesn't seem to come together very smoothly and the viewer is left with a lot of pieces of information and no real understanding of what happened in the film. There is a very small throwaway performance by Christopher Walken as the uncle of the granddaughter which, of course, gives him top-billing in an attempt to sell the film. Don't buy into this gimmick and avoid this film.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
The plot of 'House of Games' is the strongest thing about it: a successful author and psychologist is conned by a gang of grifters, but in discovering the wicked part of herself that enjoys the thrill of what they do, she finally gets her revenge. That's about the pitch: but someone has to take responsibility for it coming across as being acted by puppets. It has to be the director Mamet: Lindsay Crouse has had a varied and pretty steady TV and film career, so she can't perform this badly all the time. She's supposed to go from uptight, cool, controlled professional to calculating, wicked fast lady having fun, as shown by the change from beige trouser suit (which she seems to wear for three days straight, including underwear) to floppy floral sundress. But everyone seems to be speaking their lines the same clipped, precise way; I imagine Mamet wanting to make sure not a syllable of his scintillating script got missed. The effect is unsettling and spoils the atmosphere of mystery and suspense he is presumably trying to create. At times 'House of Games' loses any connection to how human beings actually behave or talk, and becomes just a mechanism to spin out the plot. The clunky vibes'n'oboe faux-jazz soundtrack doesn't help either. The ultimate result is that the only entertainment to be had is in guessing the outcome, and the sooner you do that the sooner you will get bored with the robotic, two-dimensional performances. And they smoke too much!!!
|
negative
|
The best British Comedy Film ever! For years English comedy television programs have turned into films and have flopped, 'Are You Being Served?' 'Dads Army', the list goes on. However the popular dark humoured BBC television show; 'The League of Gentlemen' has managed to not only create a film which has managed to not be a flop but has also managed to be the best British Comedy Film ever! With its dark and horrific twists and turns The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse is British Talent at its best! Its intriguing demonic storyline written by the League of Gentlemen (Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, Reece Shearsmith and Jeremy Dyson) matches with the Gents (and guest cameos) superb acting! This I hope is not the end of Royston Vasey, not after this great success anyway! Don't think that if you have not seen The League of Gentlemen on the telly that you will not understand whats going on. Its all well explained and by the end of the film you will be happy with the result but you are still left hungry for more... Mmmm, Special Stuff.
|
positive
|
I have never seen this in the theater, my second viewing was tonight on big screen DVD as opposed to old VHS tape from rental store.<br /><br />Saucey for it's time and I'm sure the Hayes code was pushed to it's limits.<br /><br />Hitch's pallet here is the "game play" between two combatants. And yes if Guy calls the cops on Bruno right away the movie is 63 min shorter, HELLO people do you always make the best or most logical choice. How many times have you been in either person's shoes and made the right choice? For the love of God it's called poetic license..However as Guy sees the situation he has found himself in he takes it upon himself to rectify it. He does not solicit help nor does he lie to his would be new wife. Her defense of him sets off the final show down with Bruno feeling he has one more card to play.<br /><br />For the cop shot-ting an innocent person in pre-cam corder days and before rules of engagement this type of thing did happen. In the post Rodney King world a presidential candidate backed the police in sending 43 bullets at an unarmed man. If you haven't seen or witnessed outrageous police behavior your blind or have an application pending for the academeny.<br /><br />Back to the movie...<br /><br />Go watch it with. Try and wear a post WWII filter and pretend your seeing a great suspense movie like many did for the first time back then, and sure it's been copied since but your looking at one of the source of inspiration for many that followed.
|
positive
|
I watched this movie only because I was under the impression that I was going to be treated to a cheesy horror flick. I mean, look at the tag line: "They're men turned inside out! And worse... they're still alive!" Does that not scream cheesy horror movie to you? And the then there's the title itself-- "Screamers." What a perfectly apt title for a horror movie, I thought! Unfortunately, I wasn't aware that the real title was, properly translated, "The Island of the Fishmen."<br /><br />So, about an hour into watching this I realized that this was not a cheesy horror movie at all-- it was a cheesy "adventure" story about slimy fish-men from Atlantis. "Men turned inside out"? No. There was nothing of the sort. I was grossly disappointed.<br /><br />Damn you, misleading taglines! I want those 81 minutes of my life back!
|
negative
|
This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!
|
negative
|
I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???
|
negative
|
This totally UNfunny movie is so over the top and pathetic and unrealistic that throughout the whole 90 minutes of utter torture I probably looked at my watch about 70000 times! Lucy Bell is so much higher than this crap and for her to sink this low is quite depressing. I have to admit that the whole audience I was in was laughing hysterically but the majority were Greek or Italian so I guess that this humour will probably make them laugh but not me. All this movie does is make you sick watching all these slackers make excuses for their stupid actions for 90 minutes. God, and I can never get that 90 minutes back!
|
negative
|
Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?<br /><br />They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.<br /><br />Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.
|
negative
|
This is without doubt Rajnikanth's worst movies ever. The first part is held in place with solid comedy from Goundamani but it progressively gets worse and worse and completely illogical. Our hero also takes a dig at Saints with the same name (Baba) through a corny and utterly lame one-liner. The first half has Rajni uttering his usual array of oneliners and style and in the second half, becomes a quasi saint after a beggar takes him through a interdimensional portal to the Himalayas where Babaji (not the famous Saints he took a dig at earlier) gives him special powers for no apparent reason (other than karma). This is really starting to get interesting now isn't it? <br /><br />The rest of the movie is about him wasting his magic boons and powers and fighting off politicians and related black magic. The usual predictable crap with hilarious implementation. Oh and the black magic never worked on our hero because he just happened to have a Param Vir...er....Shakti Chakra with him. The bad guys and the usual politician villains are clichéd, overworked and in the end, completely insignificant to the plot which itself doesn't go anywhere.<br /><br />But despite all the flaws, it was fun to kill time with and yell Baba related one-liners during public events. Its also fun to watch others curse about this movie. AR Rehman is said to have composed the tracks for his movie through the cell phone. Thats how important he considered it.<br /><br />Rajni is very popular in Japan and he has included two characters (one of them is called Keiko...why not Samsung?) of Japanese origin in this movie just for the sake of it. But the way they are portrayed, dressed and treated is absolutely pathetic. The Japanese may stop watching Rajni movies after seeing that. This movie was probably promotional material for Rajni entering politics but the results of the movie itself would have killed off any of his political dreams.<br /><br />Fun if you turn your brain off though.
|
negative
|
Watching Showtime I got the impression that the producers got the idea to put Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy just for the sake of having a film that co-starred the two of them. Other than that I can't think of a reason to justify the film's existence. Not that it isn't amusing in spots, it certainly is, but the concept is so completely ludicrous that the laughs are somewhat muted.<br /><br />The thing that really got me was Eddie Murphy's character. I can't seem to wrap my mind around the concept of someone being a police officer as strictly a day job. When I was working person at New York State Crime Victims Board I had to deal with all kinds of cops and they ran the gamut between the really dedicated and some real slugs, but I can't think of one who thought that this was just something I do until I get my career going in an area far afield. I mean, can you really see Eddie Murphy or anyone else going through the rigors of the real Police Academy, not the screen version, just to get a day job?<br /><br />Anyway DeNiro is your basic hard working detective who's on the trail of a major gun dealer. He's undercover and Murphy is part of his backup. So what does the showboating Murphy do, he calls a reality based TV series like COPS to film the action. <br /><br />So DeNiro's bust gets blown sky high, but the producer of the show gets some good footage of Murphy and DeNiro and decides on a new reality based television series. So these unwilling partners get joined and try to continue working DeNiro's case with all the TV cameras around.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy's a funny guy, I loved him in Beverly Hills Cop and in the Doctor Doolittle movies, but he's done better things than Showtime and Robert DeNiro certainly has. <br /><br />I guess Murphy wanted a chance to work with DeNiro and DeNiro must have gotten one hefty paycheck to do this film.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.