review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This was a really nice surprise. I was up late last night and couldn't fall asleep. Not really thinking twice, I turned on my TV and HBO was on, and this film was just beginning. Luckily I saw the whole thing, and I am very happy I did. Because this film was very good. The actors were well-cast, and they did a surprisingly good job. Kris Kristofferson delivered a solid performance, there was a lot of substance behind his lines. This film made me realize he's a good actor. Brian Keith was great as his father, as was Trey Wilson playing the Colonel (this was Trey Wilson's final role before his untimely death. Too bad, he was a quality actor and seemed like a nice guy). Jobeth Williams also did a nice job as Kristofferson's American wife. As far as the direction, I had no idea Franklin J. Schaffner was the director until I read the review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide(this was the last film he ever made). Now I understand why this movie was so good. Schaffner also directed Patton, a truly great movie(I haven't seen his other great film, Papillon). While I was watching "Welcome Home", I said to myself, "this director really knows what he's doing," not knowing that Schaffner had directed it. There's one really beautiful scene in a Thai orphan refuge, enough to bring tears to my eyes. Not only was this sensitively directed, but it was also directed in a very economical and taut way. There is nothing wasted in Schaffner's effort. The script was one reason this film is so good. The writer doesn't weigh the actors down with too many lines. It was written very simply but very effectively. It just shows you that a lot can be said with few words. This film also made me proud to be an American, at the same time that it showed you how beautiful ALL people are.
|
positive
|
I felt that this movie had a lot of heart and must have been a labor of love for Eleanor Bergstein. The primary actors (Campbell Scott, Jennifer Beals, Yancy Butler, James Goodwin III, Patrick Stewart, and Leslie Caron) were very well selected and played their parts with excellence. It was a very uplifting movie that I wish was available on tape or DVD. A rare gem.
|
positive
|
One of the things about the film that warmed my heart strings was that dry fly fishing was a major part of the scene. I have occasionally carried out my times of dry fly fishing, having tied my own flies, and being accompanied by my brother and my father we spend a day on one river or another seeking to tempt the ever elusive Brown Trout to rise and take the fly that has been offered to them.<br /><br />When we had occasions like this any differences between us disappeared and any of the pressures of the world melted away to be replaced by the glory of being absorbed in the activity and the surroundings of the place we were in.<br /><br />This was one of the amazing things that was portrayed to me in the film as the minister and his two sons, Norman and Pauly carried out the ritual. For there is something ritualistic about fly fishing as there is something ritualistic about so many pastimes. You can't just start casting your fishing line and hope for the best. You have to attune yourself to the place you are in, you have to scan the surface of the water considering how it is flowing and where the best point might be to place your fly and, depending on your skill level, you might even get your fly to land there long enough for a fish to take note of it and strike. The 'Art of Fly-fishing' was directed and represented so well that they themselves can be classified as artists.<br /><br />The title for the film could not be more aptly chosen, for the river did in fact run through the life of father and two sons. This film however spreads itself broader than the family and community in Montana, by the the Blackfoot river, where the film is played out. It has the capacity to draw you in, to enthrall you, to capture you, as the history of the family, community and period is unfolded. The Story told is not just a family history, but a history of Life. What may be classified as a 'River of Life'
|
positive
|
This is one of the oddest films of the Zatôichi series due to its very unusual pacing and the role that Ichi plays in the film. Interestingly enough, this was the first Zatôichi film made by Shintaro Katsu's new production company. Now, instead of just playing the blind swordsman, Katsu is in charge of making the films. This could easily explain why this film seems so different in style to the previous 15 films. As far as Ichi's role, the film is very different because he isn't in the film as much as usual. He's also easy to fool and actually, for a while, does a lot to harm people instead of helping! <br /><br />"Zatôichi Rôyaburi" begins with Ichi talking with an old lady who tries to take advantage of his blindness. Oddly, in this scene, Ichi says that he's been blind since a toddler, though in an earlier film he says his blindness set in when he was 8. This is a minor mistake, and only a crazed fan like myself would have noticed.<br /><br />This film takes place over a period of at least six months and is more likely to have taken a year--so you can see what I said about odd pacing. Most films in the series take place over a few days or weeks. Ichi comes to a town where there is a boss (Asagoro) who tries very hard to be nice to Ichi because he knows of the blind man's reputation. The boss is quite charming and surprisingly Ichi is totally taken in by the evil man. At the same time, he meets another boss (Shushui)--a sort of guru to the poor. Shushui admonishes the people to forsake all violence and even Ichi falls under his teaching--giving up his blade for many months. Shushui's teachings are very similar to Daoist teachings from China--non-violence and acceptance of life as it is (for good or for bad). <br /><br />Months after leaving this town and thinking all was well, Ichi learns that as soon as he left, Asagoro showed his true colors--enslaving women, oppressing the poor and being an all-around jerk. In a way, Ichi is responsible for this, as he helped Asagoro and counted him as a friend. Now, Asagoro has captured Shushui and several innocent people have killed themselves due to the evil boss' actions.<br /><br />When Ichi returns, he doesn't accept automatically that Asagoro is good or evil but tests him cleverly. This bit with a scarecrow is inspired and leads to a finale where, what else, Ichi kills the baddies and frees Shushui. This finale was very good and occurred in the rain. Then final scene with Asagoro and the rocks is great, though the beheading is a tad cheesy by today's special effects standards.<br /><br />Pluses for the film are that although poorly paced, it is different and cannot be mistaken for the previous 15 (which often seem very similar). Additionally, it does end very well. Minuses (aside from pacing) are that some might dislike seeing Ichi so fallible and the scenes with Ichi and the other blind men that are included for comic relief fall flat...very, very, very flat. They are tacky and unfunny...that's the sort of flat that it is.
|
positive
|
Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.<br /><br />A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).<br /><br />But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.<br /><br />To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.<br /><br />In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.<br /><br />This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?<br /><br />Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
This show probably won't appeal to everyone. Sarah does what she wants; she doesn't ask for permission and she doesn't apologize. This is a sitcom with zombies, robot dinosaurs, flying cars, and a team of wallet-stealing male cheerleaders. The star of the show is not a hero, she is a spoiled, bigoted pervert. If you can't appreciate the offbeat humor it offers, the show probably isn't for you. Everyone should at least give this show a chance. It brings together the comedic styling of Sarah Silverman, Brian Posehn (The Comedians of Comedy), Jay Johnston (Mr. Show), Steve Agee (Bobcat Goldthwait's 'Stay') and the creative energies of Rob Schrab and Dan Harmon (Heat Vision & Jack, Monster House). It also showcases the best talents of the burgeoning online community, channel101.com. (If you're into this show, keep an eye out for "The Department of Acceptable Media" on vh1 this March, it'll be drawing from the same talent pool.)<br /><br />Watch Sarah Silverman's show. This kind of stuff is the future of entertainment.
|
positive
|
Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.<br /><br />Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.<br /><br />What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.<br /><br />The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.
|
negative
|
Ben Thomas (Smith) plays an IRS Agent who practically gives the store away to everyone's surprise. What kind of IRS Agent is this?<br /><br />Most of us have all heard the line by an IRS Agent, "Hello, I'm from the IRS. I'm here to help." Our smile then spreads into a chuckle that says, "Yeah, right."<br /><br />As you get further and further into this story, you cannot figure this guy out. He goes easy on those who are being audited. What is his motive? Is he from another planet, an angel, a rich guy who wants to do good? He helps so much we want him to be our auditor should we get audited, of course. Hey, IRS, are you listening? (kidding, just kidding)<br /><br />The pace of the movie is perfect and so much so that clues were ignored that would have told me what was really going on. Intense, repeat intense, focus was on Ben and stays there. The whole movie only works because of Ben as we try to figure him out and I didn't see any clues (what clues you talking about, Willis?). Not reading the box before watching the DVD movie was the better way to go here. By the end of the movie I finally put it all together. Well, it was obvious by then. And, yes, it's over the top, but still a great story, mostly because of Will Smith. <br /><br />Will Smith should have been nominated for a Best Actor Award. The rest of the cast were very good as well. <br /><br />Yes, it's over the top and despite the great acting and when you finally get all the answers you must realize that the message of the movie is all wrong. What's the message? Believe me, you will won't need too many clues to figure it out. I didn't. <br /><br />Violence: No. Sex: Yes, but nothing to get excited about. Bland. Nudity: No. Language: No.
|
positive
|
This film has not exactly remained fresh in the minds of film buffs, and it's a crying shame. Its witty screenplay adaptation should have netted Oscar nominations for the great screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond's adaptation, and Ingrid Bergman's flawless performance. It must have been an honor for Goldie Hawn at such a young age to work with Bergman, looking more than a decade younger than her 54 years--fifty four! When she's on the screen, it positively twinkles.<br /><br />This is a film which may appear dated at first, but it actually made me wish I was around during the swingin' 'sixties. Hawn's fashions are as tacky as Bergman's are chic. (That's one minor flaw--isn't her character a little too soignée for a gal who still lives with her sister? But then again, would we have Ingrid any other way?) And who wouldn't want to hang out at a nightclub called The Slipped Disc?<br /><br />The best compliments I can pay to this film is that it somehow made me nostalgic for a decade that I never saw, and that it left me wanting more. Speaking of wanting more, I wonder what ever became of sexy supporting actor Rick Lenz? (He resembles Griffin Dunne in this film.) This was his film debut, and I don't see any other major roles in his filmography. As for Goldie Hawn, she's done so much since then it's easy to not be impressed, but I can't imagine any other actor in the role, either.<br /><br />Since the movie is based on a play, the line delivery may seem a bit stage-y, but it did not inhibit my enjoyment at all. In fact, I am amazed at how funny it still is after over thirty-five years. Because this film represents a bygone era, it has unjustly slipped from the consciousness of film buffs. It is more linked to the era films that came before it than the ones that followed. But don't let that stop you from savoring the delights it has to offer. Grade: A
|
positive
|
Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.<br /><br />It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credential<br /><br />Do yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.<br /><br />The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.
|
negative
|
I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.<br /><br />Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.<br /><br />The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.<br /><br />Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.
|
negative
|
This 3 hour epic (seems much shorter) explores the will to power and conquest and the conflicting motives that underlie that quest by tracking two parallel lives: the emperor Q'in, whose desire to unify the Chinese feudal states has its basis in noble aims but devolves into violent oppression,isolation, and ultimate powerlessness; and the assassin Jing ke, a mercenary killer who comes to recognize the unintended consequences of murder and finds a form of salvation. As with all great art, this can be understood on many levels. The movie evoked for me images and ideas from Homer, Euripides, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, and Freud.<br /><br />The story itself is true (I checked it out at britannica.com!), so this film will appeal to history buffs. It's ironic that Q'in spent much of his last years in a futile quest for immortality (not shown on the screen, but consistent with the plot).<br /><br />The movie can also be viewed as an allegory of Maoism and the Cultural Revolution. Through the movie, one can understand that the last 50 years of Chinese history have had their precedent in the last 3000.<br /><br />Fortunately for the audience, these complex ideas are developed in a film that is rich in imagery, action, and pagent. The battle scenes alone are worth the price of admission.
|
positive
|
I was very concerned about this film, it was scheduled to play at a Jewish Film Festival, and was reported to be very hostile to Israel, while using clever humor and irony.<br /><br />I was relieved that the film was not a diatribe, however as a work of film it was deeply disappointing. The film was full of random events, some of which eventually connected, most of which did not. Some of the events were very clever and funny, but some were merely random and pointless.<br /><br />There are repeated scenes between two lovers where they sit in a car, wordlessly, and play some handholding game. Perhaps in some cultures this is erotic, but it's like watching thumb-wrestling. After the third time, it really became tiresome.<br /><br />I have always found David Lynch to be gratuitously bizarre, using strange stories and images to cause audiences to think that he is SO sophisticated that they don't grasp his work; in fact, there is nothing to grasp. The same is true here, the stories do not add up to anything, and there is not much of a political point being made (in one scene a boisterous Israeli soldier humiliates Palestinian drivers at a checkpoint. That's news?)<br /><br />I don't understand why this film has garnered controversy, nor why it has garnered attention. It is an inferior work and seeing it was a waste of time.
|
negative
|
I am a fan of the paranormal and I love Ghost Hunters so when this show first came out I decided to give it a try. I could barely sit through one episode. The show is so obviously staged. I mean come on, every single episode involves someone being possessed or involves a demonic force trying to kill the family. Another huge flaw is that these guys never debunk anything. When I watch Ghost Hunters they find evidence and try to disprove it and if they can't then it is evidence. On this show they find a voice or a piece of video evidence and they are very quick to call it a ghost. This completely ruins their credibility unlike TAPS and Ghost Hunters who actually know what they're doing. Honestly if you're interested in the paranormal and want to watch a show about it watch Ghost Hunters.
|
negative
|
I remember when they made a big deal about this when it was coming out. They showed clips every week on WWF TV and everyone was excited. It debuted opening weekend at number two behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then it did a nosedive. Critics HATED this film. I don't remember seeing one good review. Everyone agreed it was bad and sometimes grotesque. I didn't know they meant back then but now I do since the movie makes references to gay bars, women getting slapped hard and nearly raped and a disgusting looking bar restroom with overflowing urinals lol. When I was younger, I didnt care for that. It was Hulkamania, brother!!!<br /><br />Now I find this pretty bad, but still fun to watch once in a while when its paired with Bodyslam (which has a better storyline). First off, Hulk Hogan's acting skills just aren't great. he is one dimensional like the character he plays in the wrestling ring. And actually, Rip and Hulk are not to far off from each other. Kurt Fuller is a good actor, but he is not good at playing the bad guy. He is better at comedy and nervous drama characters. He is just not believable as Brell. There isn't much character development in this film and the ones that suffer are the characters of Randy, Rip's brother and Charlie the trainer (In wrestling its unheard of a trainer escourting a wrestler to the ring lol). Tiny Lister plays Zeus the way its supposed to be played, so there isnt any problem there. Joan Severence is passable and for all you softcore hounds, she does have a lingerie scene lol. By the end, you figure, what's the point?<br /><br />For this one (as with other wrestling films or films that feature wrestlers as the main star), turn your brain off. You'll enjoy it more if you do.
|
negative
|
David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing clichés about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.<br /><br />Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).<br /><br />I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.<br /><br />Worth seeing by Lynch fans.
|
negative
|
This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.<br /><br />These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.<br /><br />Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.<br /><br />Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)<br /><br />Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'
|
negative
|
It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me it really doesn't matter anyway.<br /><br />Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.<br /><br />I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
|
negative
|
I am a huge John Denver fan. I have a large collection of his music on vinyl. I saw this Christmas special when it was originally on TV and loved it. I have the original vinyl album and CD. I have the original CD and later release. The later release is missing several songs though. I see that it has been released this year with all original songs. To my surprise I found the original CD for sale at $75.00. WOW - to think that a Christmas Cd would be worth that much. To me no amount is worth selling this treasure. It is my favorite Christmas CD. I have never been able to find it on VHS or DVD. I would love to have either version. If anyone has one available please let me know. Thanks
|
positive
|
I first saw this movie when I was very little. I was born in 1985, so it was around the age when 80s cartoons were big. My mother taped it one day thinking I might like it. I had never even heard of the Rainbow Bright TV show before I was introduced to the movie. When I saw it (on one of those old BETA tapes...) I loved it. I became addicted to it. There are people who say it's badly written and all that, but it's a kid's movie, and things like that don't matter much to children. I loved the story, and especially liked the songs and all the female characters. Of course I pretended to be them, and in the scene where Rainbow first met Krys and they were repulsed they had to work with the opposite sex, I could totally relate. The story was the basic good vs. evil that children enjoy, and there were enough happy moments to balance out the scary ones. The world is a fantastic place that would stimulate the imagination of any young child. I am very glad I had an opportunity to see this movie when I was little. It made a big impact, and watching it now brings back happy memories of childhood. I would recommend to any parent with young children to rent this movie. It will trigger their imagination and provide plenty of entertainment. You're only a child once, so don't let them miss out on this one!
|
positive
|
A slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie "She is destined to become a legend" i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it!
|
negative
|
Divorced single mom in picturesque seaside town finds an anonymous love letter and allows it to spur into action her dormant love life. Pet project for actress/co-producer Kate Capshaw, who gives a warm, nicely-modulated lead performance, yet this story is so slim and the direction and editing so erratic that a faint dissatisfaction creeps in. Initially, Capshaw's Helen envisions several of her friends reading the love letter to her (an interesting visual joke) but the first person they do this ploy with is Ellen DeGeneres, who doesn't play a lesbian but who comes off as one because of this gimmick. Different ideas are flayed about in the hopes that one would stick, and the continuity is extremely choppy. Supporting cast (including Tom Selleck and Tom Everett Scott, who mostly acts with his shirt off) is very good, but they can't save the final act, which is disappointing. Low-keyed, in a quirky, pleasant way, but it is blandly good-natured, nothing more. **1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
Reanhauer (Bill Roy) is the leader of a desert-dwelling cult who tries to resurrect one of his people, only to have a heart attack himself! He ends up dying on an operating table, and for the sake of revenge, his spirit takes over the body of the title character (Jill Jacobson), who then proceeds to go about hacking and slashing until her fellow nurses learn what needs to be done to exorcise the demon.<br /><br />While I know enough about the directors' filmography to know that it primarily consists of outright schlock, "Nurse Sherri" is really not all that bad. Sure, it's clear that this was very low-budget stuff, yet all that I found egregiously cheesy about it were the visual effects. The acting is not as bad as one might expect, either.<br /><br />There are two different versions available of this on DVD. A much more sex-oriented version featuring bountiful amounts of T & A is the original cut, with such hilariously silly vignettes as the victim and and her love interest sharing their "strangest sex" moments, including one involving fellatio during a college lecture!<br /><br />The movie would then be re-cut for theatrical version with the horror elements emphasized more strongly. Some scenes are dropped with new ones added (with Stevens, the role played by J.C. Wells, expanded). The movies' most memorable sequence in this cut is a scene in a foundry, and it works quite well. This cut of the movie is more interesting overall; I would recommend that a viewer see them both and compare them.<br /><br />Both versions hit their stride in the final third, and benefit from a marvelously scene-stealing performance from Bill Roy as the crazed Reanhauer, and a moody climax set in a graveyard (although actually filmed in Adamsons' backyard!). Marilyn Joi is also worth mentioning as the cute nurse who is attracted to football player turned patient Marcus Washington (Prentiss Moulden), who's lost his eyes in a car accident, and who incidentally is key to resolving the story with his knowledge of voodoo rituals. The movie also makes amusing use of music from composer Harry Lubins' personal collection, including compositions for such TV series as 'One Step Beyond' and 'The Outer Limits'.<br /><br />"Nurse Sherri" (known by more alternate titles (including "Beyond the Living" and "Hospital of Terror") than any other Adamson movie) is actually fairly entertaining low-budget fare. I ended up having a good time watching it.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
Okay. This has been a favourite since I was 14. Granted, I don't watch it multiple times a year anymore, but... This is not a movie for an older generation who want a deeper meaning or some brilliant message. This movie is FUN. It's pretty dated, almost passe, but Parker Posey is so brilliant that it's unbelievable. If you want to be charmed by a 90's Breakfast at Tiffany's, attended 90's raves, or love Parker, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother.
|
positive
|
Well, if you are open-minded enough to have liked Barber Shop, then you will like this Canadian film.<br /><br />If your mind is as closed-minded as Fort Knox, then you will give it the current score that it has : 2.5.<br /><br />This is a film for anybody prepared to watch films from outside of their own racial grounds. It is engaging, it is true to life, on two or three occasions you lose the connections between the scenes, but many times, especially towards the end, you find yourself having a tear or two in your eyes and this simply because it so often mirrors what life can be like.<br /><br />I like it and recommend it to anyone open minded beyond the traditional American film.
|
positive
|
Despite its interesting premise, 'Sniper' is quite tedious. With a tighter script and sharper directing it could have been electrifying; instead it plods along with little tension.
|
negative
|
Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.<br /><br />But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.<br /><br />Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.<br /><br />Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la "The Sting". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.<br /><br />The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the "Kill Bill" volumes.
|
positive
|
Oh dear! What can I say about Half Past Dead? I was really disappointed in it. I was thinking....A Steven Seagal movie! Cool! We'll get to see him kick people and flip people and break bones. We might even get to see him have a stick fight with somebody! Excellent!<br /><br />However, I was in for a rude awakening. This film can be summed up as follows:<br /><br />Take an episode of the A-Team, remove the lovable and roguish characters such as Murdoch, Hannibal, Mr T and Face. Then get a writer/director to pen a plot even Ed Wood would be ashamed of and who's too big a fan of The Matrix and John Woo movies for his own good. Throw in a bunch of people with really bad acting ability and who don't have real names. Finally, add in a main star who's getting saggy around the midriff and doesn't appear to be able to do his own stunts anymore. <br /><br />The result? Half Past Dead. An action movie so ridiculous that it at least made me smile right the way through. The plot holes are stupendously, glaringly large - for example, prisoners who, when the jail is invaded, fight the invaders rather than attempting to escape. Or how about the prison itself, which has an armoury that contains heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers? You also have a helicopter (bearing a striking resemblance to a Huey) with some kind of video game machinegun mounted in the nose.<br /><br />Then there's Seagal himself. I like the guy. He CAN fight. He's even witty in a way that Jean-Claude Van Damme will never be. But all through the movie I kept hoping for that one great, defining fight scene. Never happened. Instead we got people firing guns a lot and not hitting a whole Hell of a lot. I mean, when someone runs down a narrow corridor and you fire a sub-machinegun at them, there isn't a whole lot of places the bullets can go other than down the corridor and into the target. Yet somehow they miss? Even the A-Team would cringe at this foolishness. And then when it gets to any kind of one-on-one physical stuff, we get treated to a shabby Matrix rip-off, without the benefit of bullet-time. People getting kicked twenty feet through the air and sundry other ludicrous acrobatic nonsense.<br /><br />C'mon Steven, you're better than this. Your career can't be over. Say it ain't so!<br /><br />This is instantly forgettable (except I'm forcing myself to remember for the purposes of this review) and if you watch it, try to find it amusing in an A-Team kind of way. But I doubt it'll be high on anyone's "re-watchable" list. Out for Justice this ain't. More like Out to Lunch.
|
negative
|
If there is such a thing as beautiful horror, this film is one of the best in this genre. It is a horror movie, which despite not being void of gore scenes relies more on psychology and masterful building of the tension in order to create thrills. And it is one of those movies so beautifully filmed, where each scene is a full world of symbols and details, all serving the scope and genre that it can be called but beautiful.<br /><br />It is not an easy story, with two sisters returning to their father and step-mother mansion after having spent some time in a psychiatric institution. They cope hardly with the death of their mother and they try to protect a world of theirs, defending them against the adult world. So the film seems to be at its most external layer. Actually the film slowly evolves to something very different, at slow pace, but no frame is lost to convey the sense of thrilling beauty, so I will not say much more. Watch it, it is one of the best in the genre of Far East horror films that conquered recently the world cinema and it really shows that they succeeded to do it for good reasons.
|
positive
|
why oh why did i ever waste my time watching this film? it was given to me on video by a friend and i thought i'll watch it, it can't be that bad surely. firstly the acting is simply appalling and we're supposed to believe this is real? secondly this film is blatantly trying to copy the Blair witch project (yawn) and does so very poorly. so if you want the fright of your life i would suggest that a Simpson's Halloween special would be far scarier. but, if you just wanted to a laugh then maybe the general crapness of this film would suffice. but overall i would avoid this film at all costs or drink a large amount of alcohol before viewing. the best bit? its only about an hour and a half, thank god.
|
negative
|
What an entertaining movie. Astaire and Randolph Scott are in the Navy. Astaire has to woo back Ginger in San Francisco, while Scott must be persuaded that Harriet Hilliard is worthy of being his wife. Everything works out fine.<br /><br />It's sometimes argued, and I can see why, that Scott's romance with Hilliard is unnecessary and slows the plot down. Especially painful are Hilliard's singing of sappy love songs. I could have done without her singing, right enough, but I found the romance rather touching. Hilliard enters the movie as a music teacher, wearing a pair of spectacles, no makeup, and the ugliest clothes known to man or beast. No wonder Scott avoids her until she grooms herself sexily under the tutelage of her sister Ginger and a slinky Lucille Ball. The problem is that AFTER her makeover she looks like the same irretrievably plain woman as before, only with a glossier outfit. It's tough enough for a homely guy. But at least a man can become wealthy and powerful and popular, then he can collect women anyway, even if he looks like JoJo the Dog-Faced Boy. But what does a plain-looking woman do? The same avenues to romance aren't open to her. Henry Kissinger had groupies. Did Margaret Thatcher? It must be terrible to be an ordinary woman in a culture as cruel as ours. As a kind of a footnote, I must mention that Randolph Scott was rumored to be bisexual by Hollywood gossips who needed some nonsense to chew on, and it's kind of amusing that he has the following line in this film when he's putting homely Hilliard off -- "Women don't interest me, sister." The movie probably gives more quality time to Ginger Rogers than any of her other films with Astaire. And she's marvelous. She's beautiful, sexy, a talented actress and dancer, and the script gives her good comic lines too. "Let's kiss and make up," suggests Astaire. "Let's just make up," she says, "that will give you something to work on." It's also the only film she made with Astaire that gives her a solo number during an audition. (Choreographed by Hermes Pan.) Her performance is accidentally sabotaged by Astaire who slips some Alka Seltzer or something into her water, and she hiccups through her number, burping being too indelicate for the time.<br /><br />As a dancer, I'd make a terrific circus elephant so my opinion must be taken as that of an amateur, but I think their dances together are the equal of any they put on film. Their first, during a dancing contest, "Let Yourself Go," is the most wildly exuberant of any I can remember. And the only dramatic duet, "Let's Face the Music and Dance," must be among their finest. The last step as they exit is startling.<br /><br />I like the film for reasons with personal resonance. I remember seeing it for the first time in a theater in downtown San Diego, next to a shop called "The Seven Seas" that catered to sailors. I was in uniform at the time and was impressed with the treatment of the naval careers of Astaire and Scott. What I mean is, here we have this frothy musical comedy which owed absolutely nothing to historical reality, and yet, unlike most of their other teamings, pays its dues anyway. Jumping ship, Astaire calls out for a "water taxi." I had just taken a water taxi ashore myself. The uniforms are correct to the period (unlike, say, those in "On the Town"). And they're worn properly, hats down to two finger-widths above the eyebrow and not cocked back. And there are two incidents in which Astaire runs into a problem with naval authorities and they're both handled with perfect seriousness and are thoroughly believable. An officer stops Astaire from leading a jazz band during inspection and reports to the captain, "They were playing when the call was sounded, sir. I'm certain no breach of discipline was intended." It's what an officer -- a good officer -- would say, and nobody laughs.<br /><br />The series was getting a little repetitious by the time "Follow the Fleet" was made so instead of putting Fred into high society and a tuxedo, they turned him into a gum-chewing swabbie instead. It was a good idea. And the dance numbers are up to the concept.
|
positive
|
And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie. <br /><br />All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.<br /><br />While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer. <br /><br />It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go.
|
positive
|
Scary Movie 3 is such a stinkfest its hard to put it in words. It makes movies like Malibu's Most Wanted look like Oscar material, lets just say that.<br /><br />The original Scary Movie was great fun, one of the better 90s spoof movies, coming from a great team who previously rocked our world with Dont Be A Menace to South Central Whilst Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. But what the hell happened?! After the tragedy that was Scary Movie 2, i thought the cast and crew change would help matters, but its even worse.<br /><br />Within 20mins i'd smiled twice. Not one laugh, the jokes were recycled and originality was obviously no factor. The fact that at this point in writing, the majority of people on this site have voted it 10/10 has made me feel physically ill. When there's great flicks like School of Rock out, which actually have jokes that are *gasp* funny, anyone wasting their money on tripe like this needs their head examined.<br /><br />no stars/****
|
negative
|
Here's a decidedly average Italian post apocalyptic take on the hunting/killing humans for sport theme ala The Most Dangerous Game, Turkey Shoot, Gymkata and The Running Man.<br /><br />Certainly the film reviewed here is nowhere near as much fun as the other listed entries and is furthermore dragged down by poor voice over work, generally bland action sequences, a number of entirely tasteless scenes such as a prolonged rape sequence and some truly stupid and illogical points throughout.<br /><br />Take for example towards the end of the film, when our hero manages to infiltrate the compound of the villains. He initially kills a sentry and leaves him in his jeep. Upon discovery of the said corpse, the villains response? (bearing in mind that our hero has come to brutally murder them all) They resolve to wait until the next morning to look for the culprit (!!!!!!!!!!)<br /><br />However, I suppose to be fair the film remains nonetheless about watchable if you can suspend your disbelief during such stupid scenes and does benefit immensely by the presence of the always excellent Woody Strode (even if his screen time is very limited)<br /><br />Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination but still just about worthy of a watch for Italian B-Movie enthusiasts.
|
negative
|
As a lesbian, I am sick and tired of being portrayed in movies and on TV as a sad person, forever vacillating between suicide and homicide, but never destined to find happiness? <br /><br />If, like me, you are fed up with Hollywood's anti-lesbian propaganda, you'll breathe a sigh of relief at this delightful offering from the BBC. Nan Astley is the daughter of an Oyster-house restaurateur who "wonders why she can't feel the way she should about Freddy" (one of the local lads who has his eye set on her). She falls and falls hard for Kitty Butler, a male impersonator with a visiting theatre troupe. Nan accompanies Kitty to London as her dresser
<br /><br />Not everything that happens to Nan is pleasant in this story, and some of the things she does are not squeaky-clean either - but she will win your heart, and her story of love triumphant will leave you with a beautiful lump in your throat at the end.<br /><br />If you are a lesbo-hating macho man or a homophobic housewife, or some brand of religious fundamentalist who believes that homosexuals should die and go to hell, this series is not for you. But if you have a heart, and you believe in love, you will cry at the end as much as I did!
|
positive
|
Dragon Ma (Jackie Chan)is back, having rid the seas of the dreaded Pirate Lo. Back on land, he is assigned to the police force, where he is to clean up corruption and crime in a local suburb. Along the way, he is caught up in the fate of several Chinese patriots attempting to secure sympathy and support for their revolutionary cause. The Chinese Manchu government is after these revolutionaries, and anyone that stands in their way is in trouble, even if they are in the police force. I had big expectations for this movie after i saw Project A. But sadly I was a little disappointed. There is just too little action compared to the first film. There is just one good fight scene until the big ending. That fight scene is in the "gangsters place" and its good, a lot of people flying all over the place and hard kicks and punches are throw. Jackie Chan and his stunt team don't disappoint here at all. The ending is very entertaining, Jackie Chan shows us why HE is the best stuntman in the world. Really exciting stuff! The only bad thing with the ending, is that the fights are too short and forgettable. Conclusion: Many funny moments, good acting and crazy stunts. But not enough fighting for a top rating.
|
positive
|
Dark Harvest 3: Scarecrow: 1 out of 10: In Einstein's theory of relativity time is of the perspective of the one that views time. (Or so I've heard) In other words this movie feels a lot longer that an hour and change. Even on fast-forward (And you will be reaching for that fast forward button) it clocks in somewhere around eternity.<br /><br />If you are familiar with Lionsgate's own version of Project Greenlight (This is where they buy a home movie but a fancy cover on it and sneak it into the horror section of your local Wal-Mart) you will not be surprised by the complete and utter lack of entertainment value contained within.<br /><br />The line reading (I refuse to call it acting) is uniformly awful. This is a collection of deadbeat dads and strippers pretending to be in a movie between cans of Schlitz. The camera work is drunken father shooting vacation film quality and while the special effects are okay the scariest effect is the breast augmentation scars in the nude scene.<br /><br />The story is awful, the sets are from a haunted Halloween put on by ADHD middle school students and once again the line reading (remember this is not acting anymore than sinking to the bottom of a pool is swimming) is distracting beyond mere words. Avoid.
|
negative
|
It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.
|
negative
|
Although "They Died with their Boots On" is not entirely historically accurate it is a very entertaining western. Not only is Flynn the perfect Custer, the character actors are superb. Besides the action portion of the movie Flynn and DeHavilland's love scenes are very touching and believable.(Flynn and DeHavilland were very fond of each other in real life). Flynn was always so tormented for being not taken seriously if only he knew that there were very few actors who could play the characters he played and play them well!
|
positive
|
The story-line of "The Thief of Bagdad" is complex, owing to its being told in flashbacks and having three separate and equally important strands woven together. The screenplay by Lajo Biros and the dialogue by Miles Malleson keep the story moving skillfully at all points.The young King Ahmad of Bagdad is angry at his vizier Jaffar for executing a man for having different ideas. He discovers while in disguise that people blame him for Jaffar's deeds and hate him. He is imprisoned by Jaffar, where he meets Abu the young thief. The two escape and take a boat to the city of Basra. There the companions spy when men clear the way so none will see the Princess of the city passing by. Ahmad falls in love with her and visits her in her garden. He tells her he has come to her from beyond time and wins a kiss. Then he is captured. When Jaffar comes to win the Princess of Basra for himself, Ahmad attacks the evil vizier who blinds him and turns Abu into a dog. Jaffar then asks for the Princess's hand, and he gives the gift of a mechanical flying horse to the Sultan of Basra. The blind Ahmad then tells his tale in the marketplace, accompanied by Abu as his dog. The Prince has fallen into a sleep and nothing can wake her. So Jaffar sends his servant Halima for Ahmad and the dog, in hopes the prince can rouse her. He does awaken her. She boards a ship to find a doctor to cure Ahmad, but she is captured by Jaffar who then throws the dog overboard. She then allows Jaffar to take her in his arms, on his promise to restore Ahmad's sight and turn Abu back into a thief. The princess sees a vision of Ahmad; he is in a boat; Jaffar sends a storm to beset him and Abu is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Abu finds a genie or djinn who wants to kill him now that he is free after many centuries spent imprisoned in a bottle. Abu tricks him into proving he really came from so small a vessel, then corks him in again. For freeing him, he gets three wishes. His first is for sausages. In the meanwhile, the Princess pleads with her father to refuse Jaffar; but Jaffar shows the Sultan a new mechanical toy, one of whose six arms stabs him to death. Abu makes a second wish, to find Ahmad. The cunning genie flies him to the goddess of the All-Seeing eye. Abu has to climb a great web to get to the gem that is the eye, battling a giant spider, then scaling the goddess's statue. Abu gazes into the 'eye' and sees Ahmad in a canyon. He has the genie take him to Ahmad. Ahmad uses the eye to see the princess. She smells a flower and forgets everything at once. Abu wishes they were in Bagdad, but the genie laughs and leaves; Jaffar tells the Princess that she is in love with him, omitting mention of Ahmad. Ahmad tries to fight his way to the Princess, but Jaffar smashes the 'eye'. Abu finds himself in the "Land of Legend", where the old men who rule want to make him their king. He steals a bow and a magic carpet and escapes instead, to hurry to save Ahmad and the princess. The thief arrives in time to save the young king from the executioner, using his bow from the flying carpet, to the wonder of the throng who had come to watch the execution. Jaffar tries to flee on the mechanical flying horse, but another shot from the bow finishes him. Ahmad is ruler again and plans to wed his Princess; but when he tries to make Abu his vizier, the young thief refuses, saying that what he wants is adventure, not hard work and confinement in a palace however grand it may be. This fantastic story was given a sumptuous production by producer Alexander Korda. The production was designed by Vincent Korda who was also art director, while Georges Perinal did the colorful cinematography. The directors credited are Ludwig Berger and Michael Powell, with Tim Whelan, Alexander Korda, William Cameron Menzies and Zoltan Korda participating. The extraordinary and numerous costumes designs were the work of John Armstrong, Oliver Messel and Marcel Vertes. The production, apart from its gorgeous and expensive-looking visual splendors, I claim is dominated by two other elements, the choral music of Miklos Rozsa and the performance by Conrad Veidt as the evil Jaffar. Rex Ingram plays the genie with a curious accent, plus his usual intelligence and power. June Duprez is lovely and effective as the Princess Mary Morris is a sad and beautiful Halima, and Miles Malleson a properly bumbling and avaricious Sultan. As Ahmad, John Justin appears to do most of what can be done with the part of a young prince in love and then some; he is memorably good in his winning role. This film has a spaciousness about it that is found, I assert, in other Korda works also. Its imaginative content stands in contrast to very-strong realistic sets, costumes and set-design elements. This is one of the most memorable idea-level fantasies of all time, worthy to be enjoyed over and over.
|
positive
|
I remember seeing this film when i was about 10, one of my friends had it. At the time it was just a film as i was about 10ish and just thought of it as another action film.<br /><br />When i look back now as a complete film buff this is quite a shockingly bad film. Whoever produced this film i am sure had a short Hollywood career. Although the lead actor seems to have done a few films according to IMDb, albeit i haven't seen any and don't really remember him too much.<br /><br />Anyway, just to say that this film is really bad, in all ways it could be. I would love to see it again though :oD
|
negative
|
I just saw this movie the other day when I rented it, and I thought this was going to be just another movie with a girl trying to prove a point, but Diane joined boxing because she wanted to. I thought this movie was good. I gave it a 8/10. That's how good it is. Plus a movie with Michelle Rodriguez is always good. Even is she's been in only six.
|
positive
|
Set in and near a poor working class town in the mountains of rural Italy, it's a story of madness. The landscape may be quite picturesque, but there's madness herein, concealed behind the mask of a person who seems outwardly normal. This person kills little children.<br /><br />In style and tone this film resembles Dario Argento's famous Italian giallos, those fascinating whodunit horror films, except that Argento's films are much better looking. Still, the visuals in Fulci's "Don't Torture A Duckling" are competent, with some interesting compositions and lighting. Lightning and thunder on a rainy night enhances suspense in one sequence wherein one of the "ducklings" is vulnerably alone.<br /><br />In one sequence the gore is a bit overdone. But this is no slasher film. A legitimate theme undergirds the story. And that theme is that madness can take many unexpected forms, not just the obvious delusions of people who practice voodoo or black magic.<br /><br />Plenty of red herrings render the puzzle solution difficult if the viewer doesn't assume an agenda on the part of the director. Don't dismiss someone who might not seem to be a suspect. The twist near the end provides good misdirection. However, in one scene midway through, a line of dialogue could have been added to clarify the relationship between two characters, one of whom is the murderer. The film's finale takes place on a beautiful mountaintop with the wind whistling in the background. We see flashbacks to clues and get insights into the killer's mindset.<br /><br />I don't care for the film's widescreen projection. But background music is effective, and ranges from jarringly creepy at the beginning to low-key jazz, to indigenous Italian songs. Acting is generally average, though in a couple of cases, it's a bit overdone.<br /><br />Though not as visually brilliant as Argento's giallos, "Don't Torture A Duckling" nevertheless is a fine film, one that contains a thematic storyline and enough of a whodunit puzzle to interest most viewers who like thrillers and murder mysteries.
|
positive
|
I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again..
|
negative
|
After all these years, I am puzzled as to why Julie Brown (West Coast) isn't a household name or a hugely famous comedic star. She is one of the funniest females on the planet. In this spoof, she takes on Madonna who is one of her favorite targets. She is Medusa, a hugely successful singer, like Madonna who also happened to have documentary "Truth or Dare." Julie Brown spoofs Madonna as Medusa who came from Wisconsin, the land of dairy and beer. I remember the segment where she went to Wisconsin to visit her family and a grave. I don't remember if it was a parent or her pet. I remember somebody saying that Medusa did nothing original. She was just copying others. I have to say that I hope this spoof documentary is available on DVD somewhere. Julie Brown was at her best mocking and spoofing others.
|
positive
|
Dear Movie Director:<br /><br />In the future, when trying to create a sense of urgency, it might be best to have your hero *run* instead of jog/shuffle. Especially if you're trying to reinforce a time line. For example, if you're trying to convince the audience that the bad guy really will kill the hostage if the hero doesn't find her, it's probably a good idea to convey the feeling that your hero believes it may actually happen... Let's face it though. Making a *good* movie obviously wasn't your goal. Your goal was to pump out some garbage that will make more money than it cost. Otherwise you might have hired some actors.<br /><br />Sincerely, Bored Viewer.<br /><br />This is the worst movie I've seen in a long time. I can't say that it's the worst ever, because I was able to finish it. It was bad, bad, bad though. Dude, where's my refund?
|
negative
|
"A young man, recently engaged to be married, is the victim of a traffic accident and dies as a result of his injuries. His father, desperate to revive his son, agrees to let a scientist friend try his experimental soul transmigration process to save him. After the young man returns to life, the father and fiancée notice a dark and violent change in the young man's behavior, leading them to believe something went horribly wrong in the revival process," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />At one point, Edward Norris (as Philip Bennett) is asked, "What do you think this is, Boys Town?" Mr. Norris should know, since he was in "Boys Town". "The Man with Two Lives " is more like "Black Friday" minus Karloff and Lugosi. You do the math. This film might have been a contender, with a re-worked script; it does feature an intriguing final act. After a tepid "shoot out", hang in for the drama to pick up with a well-played scene between star Norris and pursuing detective Addison Richards (as George Bradley).<br /><br />**** The Man with Two Lives (1942) Phil Rosen ~ Edward Norris, Eleanor Lawson, Addison Richards
|
negative
|
I saw this mini-movie when it first aired, and loved it!It kinda funny to see how far people will go for money.It's also funny to see how much a boyfriend can be "Whipped". "Whipped" enough to kill. I think the cast was great, especially the character Kristin.Without Her smooth talking,and deceptive looks the movie would have not been the same.<br /><br />I never use to watch USA but now it is one of my stations.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
A doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. His final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend's head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle.<br /><br />I was looking for cheese and with this premise I believed I found it. It has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for - chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs, unique camera angles (I always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars), cheesy clarinet stripper music, and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. But unfortunately these so-bad-they-are-good moments can't overcome the too-bad-they-stink stretches.<br /><br />Jan in the Pan annoyed me, with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper, the somewhat less than evil laughter, and the fact she was kept alive with some Columbian home brew coffee and 2 DD batteries.<br /><br />I couldn't even entertain myself with Dr Bill's horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. Usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion, in this case I was bored with it.<br /><br />The best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960's version of "body shopping" and I even found myself nodding off during that.<br /><br />Don't spend money on this one - there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor.
|
negative
|
Wow I loved this movie! It is about normal life in a small village. About hypocrisy and honesty, love and surrender. Great! It is about things everybody encounters in life. You have to do things with passion. But some people will not appreciate your passion and will try to stop you. There are people who find the opinion of others and 'what will the neighbors think' more important than to follow their heart. Don't let anybody's opinion stop you from fulfilling your dreams and passion. I loved the fact that the actors were all really normal people, it could have been my family. No big beauties, but all people you fall in love with during the movie.
|
positive
|
LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI is really a disappointing movie . I have seen the first part of MUNNABHAI and it was really good but this one really make u bore n disappoint u.......................................<br /><br />This movie really waste yours time and money . I went with my friend to this movie on the first day of its release and v both get bore in cinema-hall......................................................<br /><br />Role of CIRCUIT was very small n useless n this movie . I think SANJAY-DUTT cut down the role of ARSHAD VARSHI........................<br /><br />Character of the movie is also not well define like the previous one .this movie show u the result of OVER-CONFIDENCE .........<br /><br />The ideas of MAHATMA is also not define and confusing..................<br /><br />A REALLY VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT
|
negative
|
Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it "entertainment". Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film.
|
negative
|
I've always enjoyed Kenneth Branagh's versions of the Shakespeare classics, as he always does a very good job, but in this movie, the one who lifts the whole movie, is none other than "the-always-great-actor" Laurence Fishburne. Surely he has made some poor choices in films, even though he's a wonderful actor, but in this one we're truly given the real Othello: the passion, the intensity of jealousy as it grows stronger alongside with Fishburne's well portrayed paranoia and, furthermore, we're finally given a black Othello!<br /><br />I don't think they could have chosen a better Othello. Who else could have given him that blend of sympathy/antipathy, love/hatred and, not to forget, those fiery eyes...? Branagh is good as always, but not at his peak, Iréne Jacob's Desdemona is fairly good but a bit bleak, whilst Laurence Fishburne truly lifts it and makes it a very interesting and enjoyable movie. Do watch it.
|
positive
|
This is one of those movies I watched, and wondered, why did I watch it? What did I find so interesting about it? Being a truck driver myself, I didn't find it very realistic. No, I've never used a 'lot lizard', nor have I ever seen, nor heard about one traveling around the country in a brand new seventy thousand dollar RV, either.<br /><br />Same thing about a pimp whom has never sampled the lady in question (until the end of the movie, and well, he still really didn't...), and only getting 50 bucks 'a cut', when the prostitute gets $200.00 (well, $150.00 after his cut, yeah...).<br /><br />I still laugh at the lot lizard comment Ivey made (them's Lot Lizards, they'll screw anything with 20 bucks, and some are men dressed as woman... or something equally as weird), meaning, we're better then them, as we may still be prostitutes, but we get paid BETTER.<br /><br />Other then that, it's just a story of a young woman whom wanted something more from life then a dead end job while living at home (she's 18, remember?) and embarrassed by her mother basically doing the same thing (dead end job). At least she had a roof over her head and a job. She turned FIVE tricks on the road... I wonder if the $750.00 she made was worth it? I'd guess not.
|
negative
|
This is one of the most irritating, nonsensical movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Every time it started to look like it might be getting good, out come more sepia tone flashbacks, followed by paranoid idiocy masquerading as social commentary. The main character, Maddox, is a manipulative, would-be rebel who lives in a mansion seemingly without any parents or responsibility. The supporting cast are all far more likeable and interesting, but are unfortunately never developed. Nor do we ever really understand the John Stanton character supposedly influencing Maddox to commit the acts of rebellion. At one point, I thought "Aha! Maddox is just nuts and is secretly making up all those communications from escaped mental patient Stanton! Now we're getting somewhere!" but of course, that ends up to not be the case and the whole movie turns out to be pointless, both from Maddox's perspective and the viewer's. Where's Ferris Bueller when we need him?
|
negative
|
I happened to see this movie twice or more and found it well made! WWII had freshly ended and the so-called "Cold War" was about to begin. This movie could, therefore, be defined as one of the best "propaganda", patriotic movies preparing Americans and, secondly, people from the still to be formed "Western NATO block" of countries to face the next coming menace. The movie celebrates the might of the US, through the centuries, while projecting itself onwards to the then present war, which had just ended. Nice and funny is the way of describing the discovering of the American Continent by Columbus and pretty the "espisode" of New Amsterdam and the purchasing of Manhattan from a drunk local Indian .. Must see it (at least once, for curiosity of fashion of propaganda through time)! :)
|
positive
|
Originally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.<br /><br />The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard "uses" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.
|
negative
|
K-PAX is exactly what a heart warming film should be. The story is about a mysterious mental patient Prot, played by Kevin Spacey, and his unbelieving psychiatrist Dr. Powel, played by Jeff Bridges. The two have a very friendly bond, and as their relationship grows Dr. Powel can't help but wonder whether or not there is more to his mysterious patient, who insists he is from another planet called K-PAX. This film is very funny, and Kevin Spacey pulls of well placed one liners as if it was his second nature. K-PAX is a smart film, and I wasn't expecting it to go where it did. In the end, I found myself thinking about the small things in life, and the wonder and magic of the every day life we so often take for granted. I left the theater with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, and for families and couples on a date, K-PAX is a splendid film, that will not disappoint. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in something more than the monotonous releases of glossy, action packed, gore fests.
|
positive
|
Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.<br /><br />This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.<br /><br />Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.
|
negative
|
First of all, I just wanna say that I'm a very big Naruto fan. I love the Anime and the Manga stories. Also, the first movie just confirmed that Naruto is all about great fun, great action, great story, ... But then came the 2nd movie. I was very hyped because the first movie turned out great. But it didn't satisfy me one bit... The story was lame, action wasn't all that great... especially compared to the Anime series... same goes for the quality of animation. I found it very poorly... Could the story get any lamer... ANY ??? Where's the kyuubi of Naruto ?? Not once does he turn demon... I mean ... COME ON !!! My advice is... see the series ( until episode 140 , then it's just fillers ) and then read the Manga because that's still great. Ignore this movie and hope for something better in the future...<br /><br />All and all I gave it a 4, just because it's Naruto...
|
negative
|
In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski: <br /><br />"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children." <br /><br />As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.<br /><br />Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.<br /><br />Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.
|
negative
|
I'm relieved the later reviews have turned sour - reading all the positive feedback, I was starting to worry that my understanding of movies (and life) was completely different than everyone else's in the world. Everything in this movie rang false to me...the characters, the dialogue, the manipulative soundtrack, the corny narration, all of it. As each scene unfolded I kept thinking, "People don't act like this." It's relentlessly heavy-handed and maudlin. In a way I think the movie bullies you into liking it, or pretending to like it, because it's Serious and about Real People and confronts Issues. But man, it really did not work for me.
|
negative
|
A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.<br /><br />""DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**<br /><br />Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. <br /><br />This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.<br /><br />When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! ("I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery"). Truly beyond belief.
|
negative
|
Blonde and Blonder has Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards in almost every scene and if you want more from a movie you're being utterly unreasonable. It feels like a late era Carry On, when the series was no longer blazing trails, but was still more funny than not, think Behind or England and you won't be too far off the mark. Pamela and Denise are bubbly, charming and clearly aware this isn't a masterpiece they're making, although you can give me it over lots of things I'm told to like. The supporting cast are energetic, even if some of them aren't particularly good; I can't see a couple of duff turns in a movie that's already practically forgotten making much difference to anything, so just smile. I really do think Blonde and Blonder is ace and I hope you hate me for it.
|
positive
|
Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film. Ricci is my favorite actress: She is so gifted, so natural, her reactions are perfect and so is the energy she constantly radiates, which gives credence to the often misapplied term "star." <br /><br />The film misses its mark for lots of various reasons, but perhaps most notably for the story's seeming unadaptability to the screen in making it a compelling narrative...more on that later. The cast at first glance is excellent, but come to think of it, Jessica Lang as the Jewish mother is too Protestant and not exactly right, Ann Hetch doesn't come close to showing the compassion and dedication of the psychiatrist from the book, and when your making a movie, how can you justify saying no to Anne Heche and Jessica Lange? But the real problems are in the film's construction: first in the failure to elicit any kind of lasting sympathy for the Elizabeth Wurtzle character, and second to say anything meaningful regarding the all too common and horrible situation that this poor girl finds herself in. <br /><br />Unfortunately do to the flashback construction, Lizzy merely comes off as certainly more affected teenager than most, but not nearly as devastatingly ill as she comes off in the book. This is a major problem. This story had to be told from beginning to end and from the therapist's couch. She is only eight or nine when her depression starts due to devastating social factors, both society and the home, and this is a crucial point in not only eliciting the proper sympathy for her but also of the gravitas of her case. She is so talented, and such a vulnerable and disaffected spirit so early on, that one's heart can't help but reach out to her due to her victimization. This is missed on the film.<br /><br />Ultimately one has to come to terms with what the film is trying to say: it is a biopic of one severely affected girl, but also it is a film about a nation who can't get its act together; that is very clear in the book but interestingly not in the film where the chosen at Harvard are even more messed up than the average college enrollee. The film finally isn't able to get either of these messages across compellingly, and that's too bad. Is Prozac a good thing or is it a bad thing, or a mixed blessing or a seeming necessity in a country in which so many people can't function without a chemical crutch? These are tough and challenging concepts to work with and the writing does not really attempt to address any of them in a more or less engaging way. The Challenger disaster is an interesting image to symbolize a dysfunctional America, but that doesn't have the effect it's suppose to have due to the crosscutting and insufficient earlier development of controlling themes.<br /><br />Ricci's performance is tight and heartfelt, and one of the best of her acting career.<br /><br />Michele Williams is also superb in her role.
|
negative
|
This is probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are "B" films - but are there "H" films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan.
|
negative
|
I'm surprised that the comparison hasn't been made yet between Mind of Mencia and the television program The Awful Truth, which ran a few years ago. Helmed by controversial director Michael Moore, the show would begin, in the exact same manor as this show, with Moore interacting with the audience, and introducing segments, namely short documentaries and skits, which had been put together in an attempt to provoke thoughts about current issues. The difference? Mencia rarely delves past the superficial and the reactionary. What he says and does is often pandering and rude, and insults the ability of his audience to make decisions for themselves. There's a difference between being "edgy", which I have no problem with, but Mencia tries too hard to accomplish this, and ends up coming off as arrogant, and with little backing. He does however, make points occasionally, but often in order to get to them, one has to sit through some pretty mind numbing attempted shock humor.
|
negative
|
This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.
|
negative
|
A fine performance by Vittorio Mezzogiorno and a masterful one by Jean-Hugues Anglade adorn this stange tale of lust, desire and alienation in France. The work of the two lead performers is striking--subtle, intense and passionate. Alas, the script is deliberately turgid and sordid, and the overall effect leaves one with a downcast spirit. Still, those who can appreciate fine quality acting will be able to savor the courageous work of the leads in this often difficult film journey of Gallic low life.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.<br /><br />THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
positive
|
It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Hervé Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very "décalé" style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom.
|
negative
|
Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under "Films that should never have been made." This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back.
|
negative
|
...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's "Deathstalker" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.<br /><br />- SPOILERS AHEAD -<br /><br />Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...<br /><br />The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include: <br /><br />- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.<br /><br />- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.<br /><br />- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.<br /><br />- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.<br /><br />... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!
|
negative
|
Well, it is standard Hollywood schmaltz that you can see coming a mile off. It's enjoyable in parts but just oh so predictable. I must confess I did not really enjoy it, but I am pretty tough to please and a lot of my friends loved it.<br /><br />It is quite sweet, and the actors give good performances. It's a nice backdrop and the eye candy is pretty good. But the irritatingly predictable, unoriginal and really quite dull storyline holds the film back. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend a couple of hours of my life.<br /><br />The chick flick genre gets some bad press but there are some genuinely good chick flicks out there; this isn't one of them.
|
negative
|
First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.<br /><br />This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.<br /><br />If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.<br /><br />Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.
|
negative
|
This will be best known for the Ferrari that was crashed when Eddie Griffin was doing promotion.<br /><br />Tale of racing and betting is a poorly made by the numbers that appears to have a director who couldn't see the numbers. Largely a point and shoot affair with a group of actors in it for a paycheck. This is not a good movie, but its not bad enough to be watchable and end up as a some what nothing film isn't worth bothering with no matter how you look at it.<br /><br />Misogynistic, despite the fact one of the leads is a woman, this is a film that was clearly made just to get the producer and director close to pretty girls. Want evidence? There are long lingering shots of women in next to nothing that serve no purpose other than perhaps to get a rise out of people too afraid to rent a porno or the Sports illustrated swimsuit DVD.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs
|
negative
|
Unfortunately for Sarah Silverman this show doesn't compliment her at all.The character isn't even remotely likable and it's not a situation where you think "oh she's such i b*tch i love her" just "she's such a b*tch".This character is just a plain old self righteous, mean, b*tch.Sarah seems to struggle to have to carry this show because she's the only semi funny one in it.The mood, the dialogue it's all so damn boring and dry it's like listening to your grandpa go on and on about the marbles he collected as a kid.<br /><br />The Sarah Silverman Program is so unbelievably boring that i was thinking of changing the channel to watch old repeats of Married With children something that is funny because the characters are so "immoral" and "rude".I'm sorry but i don't find a show packed with dry humour and corny off the wall story lines about some angry, bitter, loser's angry, bitter life with her annoying as hell sister and gay friends who sound like Keanu Reeves with a cold anywhere close to funny.I can't stand this show even though generally i find Sarah Silverman to be that "I love her cause she's such a b*tch character" like in School Of Rock, and most of her stand up.I think this show is boring with characters who think being mean and saying and doing things for shock value eg. the constant pube, diarrhea and $hit in general for laughs.The Sarah Silverman program attempts to be funny and fails it either needs a laugh track or better writers.Someone compared it to South Park but it's not even close.I've expressed my opinions on The Sarah Silverman Program and won't become an annoying troll meaning you won't see me being a b*tch and constantly posting stuff like "This show sucks" and "Why isn't this cancelled yet".I don't like The Sarah Silverman Program if you do enjoy.
|
negative
|
This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.<br /><br />DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.<br /><br />Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.<br /><br />Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as "Weeds". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.<br /><br />Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.<br /><br />The worst? The "Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The "He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.<br /><br />I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it.
|
negative
|
Anyone who's watched a few Lifetime Movie Network movies knows that plot credibility is the first thing that gets brushed off the planning table. So, when crazed Lara moves into Patti's home and methodically begins to drive her landlady bonkers, I didn't even blink. When Lara eventually ramps up her activities to threatening poor Patti, and dares her to do anything about it, I just nodded. You see, on Planet LMN, people don't behave the way they do for any particular reason, they just do it to keep the action going. Only on Planet LMN could someone almost have the owner of a home thrown out of their own house by means of their seductive powers!! Poor Patti - she just trusted too much, and Lara went off her medicine, and then there was this big fight at the top of the stairs involving a syringe full of deadly stuff that ends up injected into someone's tummy, and a body bag going out the front door. The horror!<br /><br />But take it from me, this Planet LMN product is a classic. You need to watch it once, just for the great laughs you'll have. On the Improbability Scale, I give this film a 95/100. Make a big batch of popcorn and get some apple slices, too. You'll understand later.
|
negative
|
I was suckered in by the big names. Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, Burt Reynolds, and the fact that it was an independent film. Unbelievably slow beginning: 35 minutes, two dreary songs and a botched rip off. I didn't care about the characters, and the plot never tempted me to even pretend it could be realistic. I can't believe this is what makes it to the screen. I loved watching this film because it felt so good when it was over.
|
negative
|
Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.<br /><br />This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it. <br /><br />Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.<br /><br />Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.<br /><br />Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children.
|
negative
|
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
|
negative
|
Enterprise, the latest high budget spin-off to the most successful franchise in film and or television history opens to the tune of a 90-minute episode called 'Broken Bow'. First we are swept into a massive action sequence with a Klingon being chased by some Suliban (who are the main enemy in the first season of the show). From there the televised movie takes us on a journey that seldom gets as good as it is, with some of the best character development, story and action/visual effects ever seen in such a short amount of time.<br /><br />The opening-credits is a debatable subject among the minority of Enterprise fans, whom some believe that the song is out of place. What they fail to realise is the lyrics themselves. If one listens to the actual song, instead of the theme, then they will begin to piece the parts of the puzzle together. And eventually as the series progresses further and further, and we learn more about our valiant captain and his crew, will the song actually become meaningful. Overall Diane Warren's theme is beautifully orchestrated and is sung just as well by opera singer Russell Watson.<br /><br />What makes any television show watchable and worth watching time and time again is its characters and the way they become structured and layered. Enterprise is (in my opinion) one of the most well cast shows since The Next Generation. Choosing Scott Bakula, as Captain Jonathan Archer was the best decision since Gene himself cast Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. As the captain always leads the show, Bakula adds a subtlety to his role and brings a huge smile to the faces of anyone with blood pumping in their veins. He simply is (both actor wise and character wise) a superb human being and his charm, wit, and compassion are overwhelming to watch. As for the other cast members, a favourite of mine is John Billingsley who plays Dr. Phlox. It's also nice to see a non-human playing a role, and the decision to give the captain a dog, named 'Porthos' was a well-received idea. Throughout the show character development was brilliant, it was fast, well timed and almost perfect. I say almost because sadly Travis Mayweather's character played by the Briton Anthony Montgomery is a little weak at the end of the first season. He does have some things to say here and there, but remains in the hands of the producers to make him more important. Jolene Blalock is wonderful as the sometimes harsh but equally loveable Subcommander T'Pol. Dominic Keating as Lieutenant Malcolm Reed plays a strong role and is convincing as the armoury officer. Connor Trinneer plays Commander Charles "Trip" Tucker who always adds charm and comedic style to his character and finally Linda Park as Ensign Hoshi Sato, who often plays a weaker character but thankfully quickly becomes interesting. All of these characters make up Enterprise, and all bring a quality that Star Trek hasn't seen in a long time. Each person makes this show worth watching. Smiles and feel-good senses are guaranteed right from the first time we see them all together on the bridge of the starship Enterprise NX-01.<br /><br />The ship itself, the NX-01 is somewhat questionable in design. The series is set 150 years from now and 100 years before Captain Kirk. So why then does the ship appear to be similar in design to mid 24th century ships, namely the Akira class starship? Continuity has been an issue in Enterprise, but thankfully Rick [Berman] and Brannon [Braga] offer suitable explanations for each and everyone of them. Continuity is only a problem if you are forever scrutinising shows and are obsessed with the tiniest of details. If you see the show with and open mind, then you'll have no problems, but there is an urge to know 'why' all the time. So what did Berman and Braga offer to the Star Trek fan-base with the issue of the deign of the ship itself? According to them the NX-01 is how it is because of the incident in First Contact. When Zefram Cochrane saw the Enterprise-E through his telescope and from speaking with the away team lead by Commander Riker, it changed the ideas in his head. That's a good enough explanation for me.lets move on. Of course its not as easy for some fans to accept that sort of answer, some go as far as to refuse to see the show until they get a reasonable answer. Come on guys grow up.When George Lucas destroyed the Star Wars saga with the launch of his profit making new trilogy, fans couldn't do anything, only watch and sap it all up anyway. And then they learned that, well maybe its not that bad after all. If you can't accept a quality show for what it is, not what it should be in your mind, then go elsewhere. Or try becoming a producer on the show and then see what you can do.<br /><br />The sets on Enterprise remind me very much of the Defiant from Deep Space Nine. They often appear cold and have an eerie look of modern structure to them and they cry out that they belong to the military. Perhaps that why the crew of the USS Enterprise (aka flagship of the American fleet) like it so much. They are striking sets, and represent the show perfectly.<br /><br />Rick Berman 'the overlord of the empire' as John Logan so accurately put it and his counterpart Brannon Braga has hit the nail on the head exactly where they should have, and in all the right places. Whether that be technicalities, visuals, sound, editing or score. Enterprise is a fine demonstration to just how good televised science fiction can ultimately be, when in the hands of geniuses. The late Gene Roddenberry would be proud of this series and as a Star Trek fan, so should you.
|
positive
|
This is an entertaining surreal road movie. It was written by Joseph Minion, who also wrote After Hours, Martin Scorsese's excellent surreal film. The film follows the adventures of a ten-year-old kid named Gus, who drives a red Ford Mustang across some fictional states with names like Tristana (A tribute to Luis Buñuel's film, perhaps?), Essex & South Lyndon, in search of eight elusive Motorama game cards from various Chimera Company gas stations. The film has a surreal feel to it because a lot of the things are unusual, like the money for instance, which is like blank paper with numbers on.<br /><br />Most of the characters are nasty to Gus on his trip. They tattoo him, punch him, but this doesn't stop the kid on his relentless quest. Some oddball actors like David Lynch incumbent Jack Nance, Meat Loaf & Flea also make appearances. Jack Nance plays a motel owner, who when he first meets Gus tells him, "If you see any squirrels, give them to me". This is a movie where a man and his wife abandon their young children because the man owes Gus $100; and a mother encourages her son to raise his voice louder while speaking rudely. If you're a fan of Twin Peaks and surreal movies, you'll like this. An odd little gem of a movie.
|
positive
|
This is a neat little crime drama which packs a lot into its 65 minute running time. It has all the right ingredients - a mystery corpse, a weary middle-aged cop Corrigan (Walter Kinsella) and his rookie sidekick Tobin (John Miles), a shadowy killer on the loose and even love interest for the Tobin in the shape of a female botanist Mary (Patricia Wright) who helps solve the crime. There's also a terrific shoot-out finale which takes place in a stone cutters yard.<br /><br />Watch out for a terrific goof near the start of this movie where Lt. Corrigan refers to the dead woman as 'Tatooed Tilly' BEFORE the coroner reveals that she had a tattoo (confusing huh?). Also later when Tobin is chasing the killer across the back yards he is suddenly shown going in the wrong direction at one point - no wonder he didn't catch him!
|
positive
|
With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking
|
positive
|
This movie fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.<br /><br />Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.<br /><br />The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.<br /><br />All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for me!
|
negative
|
This movie has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me.
|
negative
|
A year after the release of the average "House of Frankenstein", Universal released another Monster Mash where all their famous character would collide once again. "House of Dracula" would reunite Dracula, the Frankenstein's creature and the Wolf Man for what would be their final battle and will finally close an era for the studio. Directed once again by Erle C. Kenton, "House of Dracula" presents a slight but noticeable improvement over the previous film and delivers a better constructed (although still flawed) story that while far from perfect, is a more appropriate closure than the previous film.<br /><br />The story ignores most of the events of the previous entry, "House of Frankenstein", and introduces a new angle to the story. Count Dracula (John Carradine), tired of having to hide during sunlight, asks help to the brilliant scientist, Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens), a physician famous for his research in biology. Edelman becomes fascinated by Dracula, and soon begins an experimental treatment, in the mean time, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), the Wolf Man, visits Edelman with the purpose of get rid of his curse. Soon Edelman realizes that Dracula is a monster that must be destroyed, but his own exposure to Dracula's blood is also developing a disease in him. The discovery of the Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) in a nearby catacombs will bring more turmoil to the mind of the brilliant scientist.<br /><br />After the previous clash of monsters, it is good to see the series going back to the roots and delivering an almost straight-forward Gothic horror returning to the dark pessimistic nature of this kind of films and moving away from the comic relief of the previous entries. The story (by Edward T. Lowe Jr.), has many interesting themes, as the contrast between Dracula and Talbot (both looking for a cure, but with different purposes) and Edelman's increasing madness. Probably among the most interesting themes is the inclusion of the character of Nina, a gorgeous but deformed woman who aids Dr. Edelman hoping to be cured of her condition.<br /><br />Director Erle C. Kenton is back again and this time he finally captures the dark nature of these three characters, a nature that was apparently lost in the previous film. Despite the low-budget, Kenton crafts a Gothic horror that while simple, is quite effective, and even manages to present old partners such a these characters in a fresh way. While it's never on the level of the originals, "House of Dracula" recovers that charm that Universal Studios horror films used to have, and Kenton makes sure that at least for a last time the monsters receive a chance to shine.<br /><br />The cast is very good this time, with Carradine, Chaney and Strange reprising their roles (although Strange's role is considerably smaller) with more enthusiasm than in the previous film. The addition of Onslow Stevens, Jane Adams and Martha O'Driscoll to the cast bring back the tragedy and the drama to the series, with Stevens giving a terrific performance as Dr. Edelman. A small cameo by Lionel Atwill and the presence of Skelton Knaggs as the creepy Steinmuhl complete one of the better cast Universal horror films has had in years.<br /><br />"House of Dracula" is a nice addition to the series, specially after the mediocre "House of Frankenstein". It's nice to see Kenton back in form in a somewhat serious horror film, however, and while the plot is quite original, it suffers not only because of the budget, but because the film attempts to do a lot in a very short runtime with bad results. It's true that the characters have all very inventive story lines, but the film dedicates very few time for each of them to develop, and the film seems very rushed and disjointed.<br /><br />While far from perfect, it's also far from being the worst of the series. "House of Dracula" is a nice closure to one of the best times for the horror genre, a time when ghosts and ghouls roamed the foggy nights, and mad scientists gave life to hideous monsters. Later the monsters would be back in "Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), but that would be a whole different context. after the disappointing previous entries, it's easy to dismiss "House of Dracula", but give it a chance, and let the monster roam for a last time. 7/10
|
positive
|
I thought this movie was horrible. I was bored and had to use all the self control I have to not scream at the screen. Mod Squad was beyond cheesy, beyond cliche, and utterly predictable.
|
negative
|
I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.<br /><br />I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.<br /><br />All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.<br /><br />Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.<br /><br />As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.<br /><br />It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.<br /><br />She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.<br /><br />She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.<br /><br />Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie.
|
positive
|
Bad Movie! Bad! Go stand in a discount bin. Carrot Top should really stick to low lit comedy clubs. It's movies like this that make old Jerry Lewis films look like Shakespeare and John Agar like John Barrymore. Coutney Thorne-Smith (a fine talent)is absolutely wasted. Her purpose seems mainly to look pretty and oblivious. <br /><br />The only enjoyable things about the movie is seeing Raquel Welch doing an Alexis Carrington type role, and Estelle Harris as a harridan of a landlady. The only way I can imagine someone thinking it would be a good idea to make this (beyond sophomoric) film, is if the producers' fourth grade child was allowed to pick the script. Well, maybe his third grader. What this film really needs is to be rubbed in the noses of its creators.
|
negative
|
I think my summary sums it up. I found it inane and stupid. I also saw the ending a mile a way. Everyone is copying that ending anymore when doing a TV/Theater crossover anymore. Sometimes, it's better to let the movie stand alone.<br /><br />Others, its better to forget the movie altogether. This is one of the others....
|
negative
|
Broken Silence or "Race Against Fear"1998): Starring Ariana Richards, William Bumiller, Susan Blakely, Tracy Ellis Ross, Teryl Rothery, Scott Vickaryous, Marissa Rudiak, Ken Camroux, David Neale, Bruce Dawson...Director Joseph Scanlan, Screenplay Sara Charmo, Jean Gennis, Phyllis Murphy.<br /><br />This is another Lifetime channel film, made exclusively for television, released in 1998, directed by long-time TV series director Joseph L. Scanlan. Inspired by true events, it's a lot like the majority of Lifetime movies, a cautionary tale for women, raising awareness of the predator lurking within the family (a mother, father, wife, husband) and mentor (teacher, in this case track coach). The young and little known actress Ariana Richards (she played the small girl in Jurassic Park)delivers a highly convincing performance as high school track athlete Mickey Carlyle, who is raped by her coach, Kurt Ansom (William Bumiller) and must suffer in silence as no one believes her story, except for, of course, her own mother (Susan Blakely). Together, mother and daughter fight to put Kurt Ansom behind bars. The film drags on quite a bit, is ultimately predictable, at times far too melodramatic for the sake of drama itself, but is genuinely powerful in the end. Ariana Richards' performance is of the daytime soap kind, but she is the strongest in the entire cast. Her facial expressions, body language and overall acting is realistic in terms of how she, as an aspiring athlete, idolizes her coach, is in turn violated by him and must now live with the shame, trauma and further, fight him in court. William Bumiller plays the part with a nasty sort of duplicity, though he is far from subtle. He has abused other star athletes before, who have remained silent and made it to the top, and appears outwardly innocent. William Bumiller, a lesser-known actors like the others, has has never done a role like this but but he does a believable and strong performance overall. It's especially disturbing to see him in this role because he is a sexy lead actor in everything else he does including some lesser known films and on the soap opera "Guiding Light". The only real problem I had with this film is the manner in which the film is structured. As the film opens, we watch Coach Ansom about to rape Mickey, letting us know right away that this guy is no good. But this makes for weak character development and story. If the first scene had instead been the sequence with the opening credits in which we see Mickey running/jogging in the city across a lake, we would have better character development because we don't know that Coach Ansom, while seemingly interested in the success of his star athlete, is really a nasty piece of work and we would have seen Mickey idolizing a person whom she thought she knew and then received a rude awakening when she realizes she was wrong about him. Director Joseph Scanlan is no stranger to drama for TV (Knott's Landing, Star Trek, Quantum Leap, The Outer Limits, Lois And Clark, Earth Final Conflict and movies like La Femme Nikitta. In 1996, Scanlan had directed another Lifetime movie, similar to this, "Stand Against Fear" (1996). He manages to convey the gravity of the event. We are genuinely disturbed by the coach lurking around the showers where he rapes his own student. These scenes are graphic and ought to be viewed by mature audiences, but its message is clear: sexual predators and rapists are not always a stranger and can assume different forms, and their preying grounds can even include a high school. This film supports the cause of fighting to prevent violence against women and urges women who have been silent victims to testify and fight so that rapists will cause no further harm to others. Despite other negative reviews, this film does a great job in expressing its message and ought to be given to mothers, daughters, high school students (including both male and female). As bad as rape is, staying silent when it happens is even worse.
|
positive
|
I believe it has been over 40 years since I saw this series, yet memory of it hasn't faded a bit. This would be a natural for DVD re-issue, it seems to me. Many of the performers have gone on to greater fame (Robert Hardy, Sean Connery, to name a couple); though it was a smallish role, I still remember Judy Dench, then in her 20's, as Katherine of France (Henry V). She was very lovely then as now.<br /><br />There is a hint on this site that the series was filmed in color - is this so? Who of us would know - virtually no color TV in those days. Mores the pity, no VCR's; if so, some might have recorded it. As a way of teaching English history, this series made it come alive in ways few class room teachers can manage.<br /><br />What a fine re-issue this would be!
|
positive
|
(My Synopsis) Rae (Christina Ricci) was a high school slut and nymphomaniac who connects with Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) to fulfill her needs. Ronnie must report to his National Guard unit and leaves Rae all alone. Rae is not alone for long, because she is the town tramp with a powerful need to hook-up with a man. After a party, Rae is taken home by a friend who ends up beating her half to death and throws her on the side of the road. The next day, Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) finds Rae and carries her home. Lazarus gives medical care to Rae, and believes that he can also save her from herself. Rae is like a dog in heat so Lazarus puts a 40 pound chain around her and his radiator to keep her from going out looking for men. Lazarus has problems of his own, because his wife has just left him for another man. Lazarus turns to his blues music to relieve his pain.<br /><br />(My Comment) The movie has a deep meaning to it once you get past the sex and violence. The film has a different feel to it. The story is raw and almost puts you in the movie as if you were there. The 40 pound chain is a good metaphor, and symbolic of a chastity belt. You don't give love away to anyone, but you keep it for your true love. The chain could also be a parallel to a wife who is chained to the kitchen, yet Rae didn't cook. Rae only wanted to have sex all the time whereas a wife may not. I think Craig Brewer (writer & director) has made an extraordinary movie, and Samuel L. Jackson sings a mean blues song. The story is emotionally charged, tackling the subjects of race, religion, music, and sex all into one. (Paramount Classics, Run time 1:56, Rated R)(8/10)
|
positive
|
I never thought I see a movie worse than "Lisa Picard Is Famous", but this came pretty close. As repeated often throughout the comments, it was predictable; five minutes into the movie you know it will be a stranded at the alter outcome. This movie painfully references/rips off everything from "Something about Mary" to "Revenge of the Pink Panther". Writer Greg Glienna (Meet the Parents) needs some new material.<br /><br />The only twist is the deranged boyfriend/police officer pursued by internal affairs, but even that opportunity is wasted. Lots of setting shots of the Seattle Space Needle necessary to disguise the obvious Canadian shooting locale. Some of the worst driving in the car scenes with almost no effort to disguise the fact that the car is being pulled through town on a trailer. Geez, at least turn the wheel or put the brakes on once in a while. Selma Blair is inert and the short haircut a crime. $3M to Jason Lee, for what? Guess it beats skateboarding!<br /><br />So here's who should see this movie: Bee Gees fans who want to hear two actors sing 'Islands in the Stream' badly; People who can't get enough of Julia Stiles. 1/10
|
negative
|
Man, this is a hard DVD to come by. I could only find it on Region 2, a Spanish import, and it was expensive.<br /><br />Was it worth it? Well, yes. Not so much because it's a masterpiece of film making, though directed by Curt Siodmak (the credits on IMDb.com read "Robert" but the DVD credits list Curt), or because it has a couple of familiar figures from other murder mysteries -- Elisha Cook, Jr., and Thomas Gomez -- but because my decade-long curiosity about the movie has finally been satisfied.<br /><br />Essentially, a respected but self-contained engineer (Alan Curtis) has been stood up by his estranged wife and finds himself in a New York bar with two show tickets in his pocket. A woman with a strange hat is on the stool next to his and he politely invites her to join him at the musical review. She accepts, a little gloomily. The mopey bartender gives them both the eye as they leave.<br /><br />At the show, the tempestuous star notices that this lady in the audience is wearing the same hat and erupts offstage with anger. The drummer in the band, Cook, leers at the silent lady but gets no response. Curtis takes the woman to her home and asks her name but she won't give it, and she doesn't want to know his. If she'd been a Longfellow devotee she'd have said something about ships that pass in the night.<br /><br />Okay, Curtis goes home to find his wife has been murdered in his absence. The head police officer, Gomez, turns him over to the DA. His only alibi is that he was with a phantom lady whom no one else seems to remember -- not the bartender, not the Latina star, not the cab driver ("Al Alp"), not the drummer -- and since the lady herself has disappeared, it's impossible to dig her up.<br /><br />Curtis is convicted and sentenced to die. But Inspector Gomez has thought things over and decided her's probably innocent because nobody with a brain would make up such a stupid story. He joins Curtis's loving secretary, Ella Raines, in re-investigating the case informally.<br /><br />They visit the supposed witnesses again. The ominous bartender is run over by a car, perhaps accidentally, so he's out of the picture. The hot-tempered Latina has left because the show closed and she's uncooperative and ignorant of the source of the hat anyway. Elisha Cook, Jr., is strangled by the real murderer but not before he is featured in a scene in which he pounds the drums in an improvised jazz group. His sweaty face assumes an expression which doesn't suggest intense focus but rather a monstrous, orgasmic insanity. His eyeballs roll to the ceiling, his mouth gapes, his hammering becomes frenzied. I laughed out loud.<br /><br />Nobody's performance is otherwise outstanding, but all are professional enough. Thomas Gomez is always reliable. Best performance, though, is probably by Franchot Tone. He's the real murderer and he fakes his alibi. He's reserved and artistic. Even when he faints he's decorous. I don't know how to put this precisely but Tone seems to be thinking as well as simply acting his part. Alan Curtis as the innocent engineer is near zero on the Kelvin scale and belongs in a B picture. <br /><br />I don't know why it's considered as classic. It's really your basic murder mystery by Cornell Woolrich, not as good as some of his others. But Siodmak's direction is sensitive. A man gets run over and his hat winds up in a gutter with water running around it. His use of shadows is quietly effective.<br /><br />Glad I got it.
|
positive
|
Scarier than any horror movie ever made because you're in controlled of this blood fest which make it more scarier than watching other people doing it on the big screen or on your television screen. This game got two CDs which make the game much more entertaining.<br /><br />Each cd contains a different character with a complete different story line which make the game much more fun. I recommend you to buy this game and the first game too (isn't as good as this game, still fun though)<br /><br />****<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Yet another insult and slap in the face to gay men everywhere. This lame attempt at a comedy has nothing to recommend it. Once again we have an attractive 'straight' hero who supposedly can't get any woman to be interested in him. Yeah, right! And we're also presented with the 'sympathetic, attractive' gay friend who is actually a fat, balding, ugly old man whom the lead is supposed to find attractive. Even I didn't find him appealing and I'm a fat, ugly old gay man (but thankfully not balding)! Whatever acting talent there may be here has been thrown away on a bad script, and truly awful direction. Mr. Sneedeker should be banned from filmdom, but then he's no different than the countless other hacks working in Hollyweed.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.