review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The costumes are outrageous and the Australian outback scenery is fun to view, but there is an edge to this story - a mean edge - about drag queens. I particularly noticed that in Terrence Stamp's character, "Ralph Bernadette Bassenger." Perhaps that was appropriate since there is nothing "good-guy- like" about Ralph-Bernadette and his group of "queens." <br /><br />Once again, we get the strong Liberal slant which says anything goes and if you're not "with it" - or in this case, pro-homosexual, then you are a homophobe. (Gasp!)<br /><br />What's really disturbing is the ending when a young boy goes off with his "alternative-lifestyle" father and embraces his gay lifestyle, not because it fit the story but because it fit the agenda of the people who wrote the script. Pitiful.
|
negative
|
If you have not heard of this film, it follows two Sudanese refugees from a refugee camp in Africa to America, where they convince themselves they will find success and riches. Life is harder than expected in the states, and this film beautifully captures the frustration felt when things are not going right. The lives are captured so well many moments seem scripted because they're so perfect. Whether it be on the job, at school, or the time in between, the two boys, Peter and Santino, are very honest with the filmmakers, and make some very thought-provoking comments about life in the states. It's one of the only documentaries I can recall that, when it ended, I wanted it to go on for another two hours. It might be difficult to find this movie cause it didn't get great distribution, but check your local "art house" or independent theater and give this one a go (side note, if you're reading this when it's already on video then definitely it's worth a rent). Rating: 28/40
|
positive
|
I have heard that Novo was compared to Memento for the simple fact they both rely on main characters suffering from short-term memory loss. Well, that's like comparing The Silence of the Lambs and Friday the 13th as both involved a character that killed multiple people. They couldn't be further apart in ideas.<br /><br />Novo deals with a copier man at a company who does have short term memory loss. He is consistently followed by another gentleman and his boss likes to have sex with him in the office. In comes a temp who also gets involved with him and may/may not use him for sex. Needless to say, he has a lot of on-screen sex.<br /><br />Wait, there's more. There's a boy who runs into the troubled amnesia male and it's obvious there's more to this boy just bumping into him. And there's a notebook the man keeps to try and remember important clues.<br /><br />I admit I am not one for foreign-made films. I don't mind reading the subtitles, but I do mind that sometimes that takes away from one of my favorite aspects of a film: great dialogue. Since they have to translate, or I wouldn't be able to understand for the most part, I truly believe they simplify what the characters have to say. This movie was no exception; the dialogue was just, well, blah.<br /><br />As for the story, it was interesting enough to keep me around for 98 minutes. Weird, yes, but then again I don't live in France, so I am not as familiar with their likes/dislike or lifestyles. (Such as, I guess it's acceptable for a father to lie with and frolic in the buff with his son on the beach that must be a cultural thing.) Thankfully it wasn't two+ hours of time invested in watching this man regain his past and progressively move forward to his cure. For, when the "secret" is learned, I was like, really? Well, okay then.<br /><br />I can only recommend for somewhat decent acting, good looking folks and soft-porn sexual situations (like every 2-4 minutes,) however if you're not into that sort of scene, I would wholeheartedly skip this slow moving and memory-regaining film.
|
negative
|
The Fanglys is set in a small Texan town called Layton on the eve of Halloween as the townspeople treat it like the second coming of Christ or something, I mean Halloween isn't that important is it? Anyway, Sheriff Pete (Burton Gilliam) has been called out to yet another murder as local boy Ned (co-associate producer John William Galt) has discovered a body in the local woods. Could it be the Fang Lady (Justin Hamilton)? The central character involved in a local legend about a witch who kills teenagers, who knows? Being the fun sort of guy he is Mark (asisstant director & producer Robert Harvey) convinces his missus Kelly (Laurie Reeves) to ride out to a cemetery that his mate Steven (Josh Gobin) found the night before for a Halloween party. The idea of spending the night in a cemetery in the middle of the woods obviously appeals to Kelly & she agrees, along with Steven & a girl he picked up named Camille (Natalie Woods) & their nerdy friend Jerry (Tim Boswell) they all set out for a night of fun, well as much fun as you can expect to have in an isolated cemetery. However they soon discover that the legend of the Fang Lady is far from the bedtime story many make out...<br /><br />Edited, executive produced, written & directed by Christopher Abram The Fanglys is a pretty rubbish attempt at a horror film. The script is very predictable, dull & doesn't deliver any sort of entertainment value whatsoever, in the right hands & with a decent budget The Fanglys could have been an effective horror film but as it is it isn't. It moves along at a fair pace but the on-screen 'action' is so poor that it doesn't matter, I don't quite know what else to say other than The Fanglys is a really bad film & I can't see anyone getting any sort of enjoyment out of it. The dialogue is basic, the character's are clichéd & lifeless while as a whole the film seems a lot longer than the 90 minutes running time. There are a few lame attempts at humour which don't sit that well along side the horror elements & what was that retard keeping in that cage? I'd imagine the budget didn't allow the filmmakers to show it. Oh, if you want to know what happens to Jerry at the end then you'll have too keep watching past the end credits as the lame truth is revealed, assuming you can actually make it that far of course (believe me it takes some doing).<br /><br />Director Abram doesn't do anything special. Abram thinks bathing scenes in neon light is stylish, I can tell him that it isn't when your film is supposed to be set in the woods. There's no atmosphere, scares, tension, excitement or any of the elements that makes a good horror film good. Forget about decent gore, there's a bit when someone eats some skin off an arm & a pitchfork stuck through someones throat.<br /><br />Apparently The Fanglys had a filming budget of $2,837 which makes it one of the lowest budget films ever to have a commercial release, & to be brutally honest it shows. What about the retarded guy & his false joke shop teeth that look ridiculous? The terrible special effects, the camcorder cinematography & the terrible acting from everyone involved that makes it even more of a pain to sit through.<br /><br />The Fanglys is straight-to-video crap, it has no redeeming features whatsoever & it's low IMDb user rating score is fully justified, it's one of those films that within half an hour I was looking at the clock & wishing the thing would just finish.
|
negative
|
This film fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, "how much longer?" The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.<br /><br />Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.<br /><br />The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)<br /><br />There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.<br /><br />Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back.
|
negative
|
Where do I start. Do I say how great the cinematography is. Do I praise certain scenes which show the directors creativity. Do I tell how realistic the scenes on Ellis Island are. Should I mention that for a change we do not have the cliché scene of viewing Statue Of Liberty. (By now immigrants viewing the statue from the ships railing is a cliché)<br /><br />Now whats not likable, two major things, one being a modern song score & not even a good one to boot.<br /><br />Second & nearly deadly the film is boring it moves so slow, that watching paint dry would be an improvement.<br /><br />The 118 minute running time is to long & yet the film seems unfinished. We see no scenes of this family in the US. Our hero mentions he wants to find his twin brother, I would have enjoyed scenes of his futile of maybe lucky search, instead of other drawn out scenes.<br /><br />The film is a near miss.<br /><br />Ratings *** (out of 4) 81 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)
|
positive
|
Tim Krabbe is the praised author of 'Het Gouden Ei', a novel that was put on the screen twice ('Spoorloos' and 'The Vanishing'). One of the Dutch writer's more recent works is 'De Grot', a psychological thriller about two totally different men, Egon and Axel, who meet at a youth camp and, surprising enough, become friends for dear life. Egon is a quiet, somewhat dull person, who spends his time studying and writing geography books. Axel, on the other hand, is a charismatic 'party-animal', a heavy drinking criminal whose everyday's concern is to get a woman into his bedroom. From the moment they meet, Axel has a strong influence on Egon, while the latter envies him because he has a good life without really doing anything (such as reading thick books like Egon); ultimately, Egon is even dragged by Egon into illegal practices himself, which leads to a fatal drug transport in a distant Asian country.<br /><br />After having read the book last year, I was surprised the critics were quite positive about it. In my opinion, the book suffers especially from the complex structure. While Krabbe presents the story as an absorbing portrait of an uncommon relationship between two people, the plot becomes more of a puzzle: the many episodes are not presented chronologically, so that two successive scenes are seldom in the same episode. Because of this, the story feels surprisingly remote: you often need to know a character's background to really care for him or her. Another complaint was the fact that the main characters, Egon and Axel, are a little stereotypical. Egon IS 'the' dull intellectual, while Axel IS his exact opposite. In real life, such one-dimensional people rarely exist; in books and films, they always seem to be there, taking away a lot of credibility.<br /><br />Despite all this, the film was a pleasant surprise, being much better than the book. The adaptation excels in its beautiful cinematography, humour and acting: Fedja van Huet (Egon) is one of the few Dutch actors who can make you forget he IS acting (which is, in my opinion, the highest an actor can achieve). The drawbacks of the film, however, are the same as the book's: mainly because the characters are one-dimensional, they are so predictable that it becomes annoying. Guess who wrote the script? Indeed, Krabbe himself. It is obvious that this talented director (that's what the movie makes clear anyway) is hampered by a deficient screenplay. Perhaps Koolhoven should just have chosen a better book.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
Watch out! This is not a gross out comedy like American Pie or you know the comedies of the new millenium. This is a sweet satire of dog shows focused on a bunch of completely different characters. Oh and the commentator is hilarious!<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
I hope, from his seat on Heaven's comedic throne, Spike Milligan can see and can enjoy this film, as Terence Ryan and Ken Tuohy have taken a book that the author himself said writing it "nearly turned me mad" into a joy to watch.<br /><br />The film tells the story of the Irish town of Puckoon and the problems befallen upon it when the partition between Northern Ireland and the Republic is drawn up, cutting its way through the centre of the village and, more worringly, through the middle of the churchyard. This causes some deceased, buried in the Catholic churchyard, to now be in the Protestant north - and so the local priest, assisted by a wide variety of eccentric locals, aims to move the bodies back undercover of darkness, and so avoiding the bureaucratic British border guards.<br /><br />It was inspired work to cast the Irish comedian and poet Sean Hughes to play the part of Madigan. He brings an innocence to the part, especially in his to-camera pieces (which is normally where he interacts with the voiceover of Richard Attenborough, playing supposedly the writer/director of the film). Daragh O'Malley playing Father Rudden is also worthy of considerable praise; and the rest of the cast, from the household names like Elliott Gould and Griff Rhys Jones to people with what would normally be called 'bit parts' - such as Spike's daughter Jane who plays Madigan's wife give 100% The credit for this goes, in no small part, to the wonderful characterisations given by Spike in the original book.<br /><br />I could argue that the film is slightly too long, or that Elliott Gould's Irish accent left a little to be desired, but those would be only minor points and take nothing away from the excellence of this film.
|
positive
|
This movie has got to go down in the history of bad movies as the worst one I've ever seen. It wasn't even a bad b movie...I would have rated it at as a z. The special effects were ridiculous...err if you could even call them special effects. I think the reviewer before hit the nail on the head...it was the box that sold the movie, while the cover art was great and the synopsis intriguing (which both is why I rented it) it was a waste of not only time but money as well. I didn't last long. I took it back to the store and switched it out for another movie I believe my local video store took it off the shelf because they had SOOOO many complaints about this horrible movie. My 6 year old could have done a better job filming it/writing the script!
|
negative
|
You may say to yourself, "Don Johnson as Elvis? Can that work? Is it possible? Seems like an terrible choice to me, but perhaps I should have an open mind. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe he can pull it off."<br /><br />NOT!<br /><br />Don Johnson is not a bad actor. But he is an awful Elvis. He's too short, too weak-voiced, too sharply featured ... well you've already imagined how bad he would be. Add to that a hokey black wig and heavy-handed eye-liner and mascara and it's a big fat embarrassing mess.<br /><br />The best I can say is that since Johnson's acting is decent and since his impersonation is so far off, after a while you don't even think of him as Elvis anymore. You see him as some other crazed pop star instead. Then, on that level, the movie becomes watchable.<br /><br />Stephanie Zimbalist is also not ideally cast as the tall, beauty queen, Linda Thompson. But she is attractive in her own right and plays the part with the honesty, elegance and intelligence we've come to expect from all her roles. There may be too much intelligence in her performance. You have to be kind of a dope to stick with a dope abusing dope.<br /><br />There's nothing new to this story; we've heard it many times before. If you've looking for new info or insight, you won't find it. It's told as a love story - an unrequited one: Linda for Elvis and Elvis for drugs.
|
negative
|
This film was so bad it became enjoyable. If you want to see a soap opera cast decide to do an action film, this is for you! Overacting, irrelevant incidents, implausible dialogue - it has it all. The main character has a split personality and can not make up his mind whether he is thief, a loving father or a hero who will risk his life for others. He is plausible in none of these roles. This sets the standard for many of the other characters. The boss of the company whose building is set ablaze displays the same unpredictability, and so does his wife. And the punch line - who has taken the "chip" - beggars belief. I found myself laughing heartily and for that reason, I recommend you watch it.
|
negative
|
I am always impressed when a director (and this case director/screenwriter) takes a piece of classical text - and makes it come alive. Sure, Shakespeare's text can give you goosebumps even when hammered out with self-importance, but to see a production where true inventiveness makes wonderful words even more so - by the provision of context or nuance not found in the stage directions is simply awe-inspiring. There are many troubling things about the play. It is a racist play about racism - and that still sticks. I have never accepted Jessica's desertion of her father without any acceptable reason. I have never accepted the Christians' position of sanctimonious self-righteousness. But, brilliantly, there is a text prologue which helps us understand the times and politics in which the story is set, and mercifully, much of Jessica's part is cut.<br /><br />The text is quite stripped down with many passages cut. But, I only noticed one line which was cut at the moment when I expected to hear it - and it was replaced by a look that said it all. This economy and judicious editing has given us a gripping movie - not just a film of the play.<br /><br />And at last, there is a rationale as to why Antonio is so loyal and generous to the undeserving/unrelated Bassanio - you can almost feel Antonio's pulse start to race when he catches glimpse of Bassanio passing by in a gondola, or arriving for a visit. But it is as subtle as that - no more. I was spellbound.<br /><br />There were many other highlights. I felt the arguments during the trial to be heartbreaking. And, the suitors' trials are hilarious.<br /><br />Add all that to glorious cinematography and costumes that resonated with the times, and you'll understand why I can't wait to see it again. And again.
|
positive
|
This movie probably had some potential for something; my bewilderment is how these utterly prosaic unfunny themes keep making it to theaters, it's as if ideas are being recycled just because generations are. Truly the decerebrate oafs behind most films are like dogs, they return to ingest their own vomit. Well, they're 19 bucks richer now because of me. This was not at all imaginative, there was no redeeming moment, anything remotely funny was shown in the trailer (and nothing amusing was in the trailer), performances were strained (especially Molly's, totally unconvincing). What was theoretically supposed to be some comic relief was the homoerotic friend with a penchant for Disney films; none of his analogies hit home, his little moral speeches were flat, I was literally waiting for them to go on to say something meaningful, only to find out he was done. The so-called "hard 10" is the most insipid plastic creature there is (apart from having a horse-like face with a weird smile); I honestly found her friend Patty (referred to as the Hamburglar) to be much better looking than her. But then again, gentlemen prefer brunettes ;) Well, anyway, the whole premise is that society is superficial and if love is true it transcends all social facades; the way they showed this, with a dude shaving another's scrotum and the million-times-mutilated-and-beaten-to-death-horse premature ejaculation routine (with obvious allusions to American Pie and Happiness - the latter in the disgusting scene denouement involving the family dog). I feel as if the movie was like adjoining ridiculous jokes into an unformed wretched ball of raw sewage. Goes to show marketing can push anything out there, shine whatever fetid mass and call it gold, people will come (worked for me). Done with tirade.
|
negative
|
This movie has to be seen for the music, which is actually a wonderful cantata composed by Sergei Prokofiev. Obviously, the original soundtrack is not exactly hi-fi, but there are many excellent versions available in classical music selections. The cantata can be appreciated for itself, but having seen the movie helps.<br /><br />The story itself is fairly standard Soviet wartime anti-German propaganda. An amusing anecdote is that Stalin was later so eager to buy time by appeasing Hitler at the onset of World War II that Eisenstein was seconded to a German movie for a short while, as penance.<br /><br />Prince Alexander Nevsky (revered as a saint by the Russian Orthodox), having earned his nickname by defeating Swedish raiders on the river Neva, musters Russian resistance against an invasion by the Teutonic knights, and concludes his victory with a stern warning to other would-be invaders.<br /><br />An interesting scene: Alexander sees a convoy of Russians being taken as slaves by Mongolian soldiers, and does nothing to stop this, as the Teutonic knights are his priority. The historical Alexander Nevsky paid tribute to the Mongol khans, as his father before him, while working to consolidate his realm's future independence.
|
positive
|
Another great musical from Hollywoods Golden Age! I liked this movies story about a trio of friends who are performers at a small nightclub that is far from Broadway and all its glitter. Although not the big time they are very content with their lives and the small club where they perform. Gene Kelly plays the owner of the small club and is also the boyfriend of one of its dancers, Rita Hayworth who happens to garner some attention when she's given an opportunity to be on a cover of a magazine. Trouble begins for Gene Kelly as his girlfriend is now the talk of the town. Phil Silvers plays one of the three friends and does a good job. Of course there is the music and the dancing. One dance performance by Gene Kelly stands out. He is walking along the street at night alone and he see his reflection in a shop window. His reflection soon starts dancing along with him in the streets, great cinematography. Don't miss this one, great entertainment.
|
positive
|
Wrestlemania 14 is not often looked as one of the great Wrestlemania's but I would personally put it, in my top 5, if not the top 3. It has so many great things, and it truly signified the birth of The Attitude Era, which was WWE's best era, in my opinion. HBK has the heart of a lion, and him putting over Austin like he did, on his way out, was pure class on his part. It has one of the hottest crowds you will ever see, and it has J.R and The King at their announcing best!. <br /><br />Matches.<br /><br />15 team battle royal LOUD pop for L.O.D's return. I'm not a fan of battle royal's, and this is yet another average one. Very predictable, even when you 1st see it, it's obvious L.O.D would win. Looking at Sunny for 8 or so minutes though, definitely helps. <br /><br />2/5<br /><br />WWF Light Heavyweight Championship<br /><br />Taka Michinoku|C| Vs Aguila.<br /><br />Taka gets a surprising pop, with his entrance. Fast, high-flying, and very exciting. If these two had more time, they would have surely tore the roof off, with their stuff. Taka wins with the Michinoku driver.<br /><br />3 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF European Championship.<br /><br />Triple H|C| Vs Owen Hart Stipulation here, is Chyna is handcuffed to Slaughter. Nice pop for Owen, mixed reaction for Trips. A really, really underrated match, that ranks among one of my favorites for Wrestlemania, actually. The two mixed together very well, and Owen can go with anybody. Trips wins, with Chyna interference.<br /><br />4/5<br /><br />Mixed Tag match. Marc Mero&Sable Vs Goldust&Luna. Defining pop for Sable, unheard of that time, for woman. Sable actually looks hot, and the crowd is just eating her up!. Constant Sable chants, and them erupting almost every time she gets in the ring. Not bad for a Mixed tag match, it had entertaining antics, and passed the time well. Sable's team wins, when Sable hits the TKO.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF Intercontinental Championship. Ken Shamrock Vs The Rock|C|. Before I review the match, I'd like to note The Rock showed off his immense potential, with his interview with Jennifer Flowers, before his match. Nice pop for Shamrock, big time heat for The Rock. Too disappointingly short, and I thought the ending was kinda stupid, though Shamrock's snapping antics were awesome to see, and the crowd went nuts for it. Rock keeps the title, when The Ref reverses the decision.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Dumpster match, for The WWF Tag Team Championship<br /><br />Catcus Jack&Terry Funk Vs The New Age Outlaws. The Outlaws are not as over, as they were gonna be at this time. Crowd is actually somewhat dead for this, but I thought it had some great Hardcore bits, with some sick looking bumps. Cactus and Terry win the titles in the end.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />The Undertaker vs Kane. Big time ovation, for The Undertaker. Much better than there outing at Wrestlemania 20, and for a big man vs big man match, this was really good. It was a great all out brawl, with The Undertaker taking a sick looking bump, through the table. WWE was smart, by making Kane looking strong, even through defeat. After 2 tombstone kick out's, Taker finally puts him away, with a 3rd one.<br /><br />3 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF Championship. <br /><br />Special Guest Enforcer "Mike Tyson"<br /><br />HBK|C| Vs Steve Austin. Big heat for Tyson. Crowd goes ape sh*t for Austin, definitely one of the biggest pops I have heard. Mixed reaction, for HBK. This is truly a special match up, one of the greatest wrestlemania main events in history, you can tell when J.R is even out of breath. HBK gives it his all, in what was supposed to be his last match, and Austin has rarely been better. The animosity and electricity from the crowd is amazing, and it's as exciting as it gets. Austin wins with the stunner, with Tyson joining 3:16 by knocking out Michaels. Austin's celebratory victory, is a wonder to behold, with one of the nosiest crowd's you will ever see, King said it right, they were going nuts.<br /><br />5/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Wrestlemania 14 is one of the greatest for real. It has everything you want in a Wrestlemania, and truly kick started the Attitude Era. This is very special to me, because it was the 1st Wrestlemania I ever saw, back in 98. "The Austin Era, has begun!"<br /><br />9 1/2 /10
|
positive
|
It's difficult to decide who or what is the target audience for this film. Jean-Pierre Limousin presumably had the chance to explore the problems of amnesia on a serious level and opted instead to use it as an excuse to make a soft-porn movie. Having seen, loved, admired and respected Se Souvenir des belles choses which explores memory loss - albeit as the result of Alzheimer's - in a profound and heartbreaking way, not least in the luminous performance of Isabelle Carre I find that Novo is an insult to Se Souvenirs. I have no problem with soft porn per se - and even if I had I'd virtually have to give up going to movies so prevalent is it today - but I do have a problem with writers/directors who attempt to respectablise it by cloaking it as here in the guise of medical research. The sad thing is that fine actresses like Julie Gayet - so wonderful in Clara et Moi - and Anna Mouglalis - who seems to have hit into a double play after last week's Le Deluge and now this - are wasting their time on dross like this.
|
negative
|
This film is terribly bad. Kevin Spacey is a really great actor, he shines in LA Confidential, American Beauty, Usual Suspects, 7 etc.. But this is truly rubbish, he came nowhere near a decent Irish accent, maybe he should have practiced it with Kate Hudson while she was doing About Adam. To Irish people this film is laughable and even worse, its quite irritating for several scenes. I think the producers made this film hoping the target audience (non-europe)would had never seen or heard of the 'General' or Martin Cahill and be enthralled in an intriguing and entertaining story. Total crud!!
|
negative
|
Time has not been kind to this film from the transition days of sound from silent. The plot has a gangster falling for a socialite who wants to help the down on his luck violinist she loves. There are of course complications. The problem with the film for me is that it hasn't aged well. Performances are all over the place with some emotional scenes seeming so over the top as to be laughable. One late exchange where Carol Lombard throws someone out of her room had me howling with its sing song delivery. There are other times when the film becomes static, a sign of the limitations of the microphones. Its not a bad film, its just that the technical limitations of the film get in the way of real enjoyment. Normally I'm forgiving, but this time out I just couldn't go with the flow (Then again the copy I saw was absolutely horrible). Worth a shot in a forgiving mood (and to be reminded that Robert Armstrong actually did more than play Carl Denham in King Kong)
|
negative
|
The Best of Times is one of the great sleepers of all time. The setup does not tax your patience, the development is steady, the many intertwined relationships are lovingly established, the gags and bits all work and all are funny. There is lots of sentimentality. Kurt Russell playing Reno Hightower puts in one of his best performances, and Robin Williams playing Jack Dundee is sure-footed as ever. The cast also includes many great supporters. Jack's wife is played by Jack Palance's daughter, who is lovely, as is Reno's wife, who is a great comedian. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this movie, how many times I have enjoyed it and how often I wish that more people could see it.
|
positive
|
This movie was awesome...it made me laugh, it make a bawl, and most of all it has talking animals in it!! this movie should be seen by all kinds of people! it is one of my favorite movies, and i just love it so much that i just had to comment on it!!!it rox! it is so heart felt and a wonderful storyline that makes up a great and heartfelt movie!my favorite character is shadow. this is because i think that he is the most interesting and charming. i used to have a golden retriever just like shadow, i miss him so much!!! he was my best friend and i knew that when he died, he would be in a happier place, but i miss him with all of my heart!! this movie is the best i love it and everyone should! Love your pets no matter what they do, cherish them forever!!!
|
positive
|
The narrative was clear and concise but overall the film never caught my interest- scenes felt flat and uninspired.. Ghengis khan, historically speaking, had a very interesting/epic life but the film failed to capture that- instead focused on small skirmishes as a youth and a love story I think I've seen disguised in a slew of other films. I never felt sympathy nor empathy for the lead- yes he had to overcome slavery but then seemed to have an easy ride to khan- pillaging, killing and double crossing his way to the top. The one redeeming quality was the photography- the landscapes certainly helped the bleak atmosphere of the film, unfortunately combined with the bleakness of the story- I left unmoved, and disappointed..
|
negative
|
Coming at the end of the cycle of the Universal Monsters horror films, and before the Golden Age of sci-fi films, House of Dracula is more science fiction than horror and incorporates some of the more cheesy {read:enjoyable} elements which would come to typify the sci-fi films of the coming era. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man, and John Carradine, Dracula and Glenn Strange, the Frankenstein monster.<br /><br />A mad scientist sets out to "cure" both monsters of their "sicknesses" by means of modern {read:mad} science. When the scientist's beautiful nurse-assistant is revealed to be a hunchback early in the film, the viewer is thereby alerted to the fact this film is not going to be typical Universal fare; this film foreshadows the kind of sleazy exploitation we would come to take for granted in 1950's sci-fi.<br /><br />If you don't mind the slower pacing of the older films and black & white does not throw you off, this film is recommended viewing. Afaik, this one is not currently available on DVD, but AMC airs it occasionally, so keep a lookout, or you could always wishlist it on your TiVo!
|
positive
|
Yesterday, I went to the monthly Antique Flea Market that comes to town. I really have no interest in such things, but I went for the fellowship of friends who do have such an interest. Looking over the hundreds of vendor, passing many of them quickly, I spotted someone selling VHS tapes and DVDs. Most of the films he had on DVD were rather recent; the oldest one I noticed was the 1940 Cary Grant-Irene Dunne co-starrer MY FAVORITE WIFE. But the VHS tapes, by their nature, were mostly older films. I couldn't resist buying SOMETHING since they were being sold at 3 tapes for $10.00. What a bargain, as Eddie Murphy used to say. I came across one film that I had heard about for years but had never seen: John Cassavettes's OPENING NIGHT (1977). Well, I certainly wanted that being a fan of Gena Rowlands, and I had heard that this film contained one of her finest performances. He also had FACES (1968). I had seen this about 20 years ago, a time when I probably had not had enough life experience to appreciate it thoroughly. And I wanted to take advantage of the bargain, so I grabbed that one too. My other choice was CLAIRE'S KNEE (1970). <br /><br />When I got home, I decided to put aside the work I had planned to do so that I could watch OPENING NIGHT. I was totally enthralled by this film. It focuses on Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), a famous actress of stage and screen, who, during out-of-town previews, is having personal and professional problems coming to terms with both her character and the play's theme of facing aging. After one rehearsal, an avid fan and autograph hound accosts her with cries (and tears) of "I love you! I love you!" A few minutes later, this fan is hit by a car and killed. This begins Myrtle's descent into herself where she must face her own fears of aging, the future of her career as a mature actress, and the inadequacies she finds in the play itself (written by a much older female dramatist, played by Joan Blondell). Throughout the film, she sees the dead girl, an obvious symbol of her past; drinks almost constantly; and receives insincere support from her director (Ben Gazzara), the producer (Paul Stewart), her costar (John Cassavettes himself), and the dramatist. Actually, they're more concerned about how her behavior will affect them and their careers: flubbing lines on stage, improvising new lines, generally cracking up on stage, and arriving for the Broadway opening totally drunk. <br /><br />This story functions not only to address the issues of aging but also to promote Cassavettes's displeasure with mainstream movie-making. As I watched the film, I was at times surprised, confused, amused, disparaging, but ultimately involved, entertained, and satisfied. Cassavettes really had a great sense of humor, cared very much that his audience understood what he was implying, and wanted them to be emotionally involved in the story. He makes allusions to ALL ABOUT EVE with the use of the avid theater fan, even dressing the young girl in a slicker and hat similar to the one worn by Anne Baxter at the beginning of that film. This allusion functions most obviously to support his aging theme, the contrast of the older and younger woman. He also obviously uses the contrast as a symbol for Myrtle's confronting her own lost youth. At first, I felt the symbolism was TOO obvious, but then I realized that that was Cassavettes's intention. He doesn't want his audience misunderstanding what he's getting at; if they did, it would interfere with their emotional involvement. This spectre of youth haunts Myrtle, attacks her, and wants to destroy her. Myrtle eventually "kills" her, but before she can really come to terms with herself and the play, she must reach bottom (another figurative death?). So Cassavettes has her get so drunk that she can't walk and must crawl to her dressing room the night the play opens on Broadway. She resurrects herself (helping yourself out of such situations is also important to the film's theme) and makes the play a success by giving a great performance and changing the direction of play for the better by improvising so that it contains some ray of hope for the aging character she's playing. These scenes are funny and interesting. Cassavettes and Rowlands actually did the play in front of live audiences, who did and did not know they were going to be part of a movie. The play they're doing also acts as contrast: it's mainstream and self-serious about the issues it addresses, that is, until Myrtle changes its denouement. In doing so, she also improves the work of her co-stars. The natural evolution of interaction (achieved through improvisation)between and among human beings, subjective realism, and universal truth - these were Cassavettes's concerns in making films. <br /><br />Gena Rowlands is amazing throughout. Of course, she has that great face, and Cassavettes (notoriously in love with her throughout their marriage) treats us to numerous closeups of it so that we too can feel her emotions and that we know what's going on inside of her. She makes you care so much about this character that you want to see her work her way out of this crisis of the soul. And this is what holds your attention for the 2 hours and 30 minutes running time. The film is deliberately paced at times and requires constant attention, but anyone with interest in good film-making and great acting will be rewarded. Someone else said that this is a movie for people who love movies. All others be forewarned. <br /><br />Seek out OPENING NIGHT if you've never seen it. Everyone in it is excellent, and it's one of Cassavettes's best films.
|
positive
|
I thought I might be disappointed viewing this film again after so many years. On the contrary, I was more impressed now than in my callow youth with its honesty and brave humour. In 1969, the transition among African-American groups from a predominant policy of conciliation and integration to one of confrontation and self-determination was still quite new, and more than a little controversial. It took courage and finesse to portray both the Establishment and the Anti-establishment as the caricatures they often closely approximated in real life. Special mention should be made of Arnold Johnson's performance: he successfully avoided having his character lapse into either sociopathy or buffoonery. I'd rather watch this than "To Sir With Love" any old day!
|
positive
|
Dull one-note characters with next to no development, unimpressive performances by people who sound like they're simply reading lines, and ludicrous special effects combine to make this a genuine stinker. The story begins with eminently bland commando Russo and his fellow soldiers attacking an Al-Qaeda training base. The scene tells us that Al-Qaeda has recently come to seek an ultimate weapon, and also serves to illustrate Russo's only character trait, a tendency to eschew teamwork. With the help of a collection of blank slates and walking stereotypes, including a Russian spy, Russo travels to Chechnyan territory to catch a mad scientist working for the terrorists. Along the way, they encounter vast hordes of flesh-eating bats that fly in broad daylight for some reason. From there, the movie becomes nothing more than a dragging morass of ridiculous action, including a scene in which a swarm of bats slices a soldier's arm off!
|
negative
|
I watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie.
|
negative
|
This is one of Cassavetes' best performances. The entire cast is outstanding, as is Martin Ritt's sublimely understated direction. The anger, angst, and desparation of urban labor battles is magnificently told in a fashion that is neither obtrusive nor patronizing. In a way it is dated with its era, but in many ways, it is gloriously timeless.
|
positive
|
I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what
but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.<br /><br />For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.<br /><br />Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.<br /><br />There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
|
negative
|
We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.<br /><br />Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole.
|
negative
|
A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.<br /><br />It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast.
|
negative
|
Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.
|
negative
|
I hand't seen the restored, or any version for that matter, of "Baby Face" with Barbara Stanwyck till I caught it on TCM. What a great movie! In a nutshell Lily lives in a speakeasy, she's been pimped out by her own Father since she was 14! Then his still blows up and he's killed leaving Lily (Stanwyck) alone cept for her black maid Chico, played very nicely by Theresa Harris. Lily leaves for the big city ( New York) deciding to use her sex to get to the top. She does this in great style!<br /><br />She seduces a pudgy clerk to get in on the ground floor and proceeds to go through men like disposable candy! One dumps his fiancée and kills his near father-in-law, also Lily's sugar-daddy, then commits suicide! Lily barely blinks! STanwyck is terrific as a girl who really doesn't know what love is.<br /><br />Then in Paris, she falls for Courtland, played by George Brent, they marry, but when he's in deep financial straights, she bolts. Nearly free with Chico and a half-million, she realizes she loved Court! Lily races to find him, but will she be too late? <br /><br />This is pre-code Hollywood at its best. Stanwyck is tremendous and the look and music in the film are perfect. This reminded me of "Original Sin" with Angelina Jolie, another unfairly ignored flick with an amoral woman, those who disliked that films ultra-romantic leanings, will not like Baby FAce any better, those with belief in sex, love and power, will love it. Highly recommended! See it!
|
positive
|
Meant to be some sort of a social commentary about the way that our lives were spinning out of control in the 1970's, this movie plays more like something Mr. Schlesinger threw together after having a bad day on the freeway. A mish mash of snippets about the nuts encountered along the freeway in Florida, and along the freeway of life, the cast is mostly wasted and probably ended up on the cutting room floor. The problem is that what DIDN'T end up on the cutting room floor probably should have! Now available on DVD, it's kinda fun to see a comedy that would have cost $100 million to produce had it been made in 2004. It rolls along and isn't too difficult to sit through, and, strangely enough, in 2004 we're all still pretty much just<br /><br />hopping in our cars and going faster and faster, heading nowhere.
|
positive
|
I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.<br /><br />The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.<br /><br />The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.<br /><br />The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.<br /><br />In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.<br /><br />It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.
|
negative
|
I've watched a number of Wixel Pixel and Sub Rosa Extreme movies lately, and have found a lot to like about them.<br /><br />This SRE movie seemed a lot more slight than all the others I've seen. Perhaps that's because this is a comedy/horror movie rather than straight horror, and perhaps it's also because the humor didn't register with me very well.<br /><br />It's a little less than seventy minutes long, and the credits begin as the last ten minutes are beginning. There are some outtakes, goofs, and behind the scenes stuff going on while those credits roll.<br /><br />SRE movies do tend to be short, and tend to feel padded out in spite of that. This is no exception, with some scenes that tend to go on too long.<br /><br />The story involves a poor kid in Christmastown, California who'd been picked on by all his classmates. He'd had one shoe stolen, and unable to replace it, he was dubbed "Oneshoe McGroo." Due to an obsession with pirates, his parents gave him an eyepatch for Christmas with a Christmas tree emblazoned on the eyepatch.<br /><br />Many of the classmates are killed, and the few who remain gather together to decide what to do. They're picked off one by one by McGroo, who stalks around to the sound of sleigh bells ringing.<br /><br />The characters are pretty much all broad stereotypes, like the nerd named Dorkus, etc. There's an odd scene in which a kinky couple has sex; the woman is handcuffed and blindfolded, the man wears a large paper watermelon slice over his head. This reminded me of some of the stranger sex scenes from director Rinse Dream.<br /><br />The picture quality is good, and there are a lot of extras. But basically a pretty silly movie.<br /><br />Oh well, I guess you can never have too many Christmas horror movies. Still, there are a lot of other needy holidays.
|
negative
|
I learned a thing: you have to take this film like a funny period comedy, if you don't want to be disappointed. The film's enjoyable because it's a delicious comedy. I think the over-hype damaged it: the too much glorified Monica Bellucci appears in few scenes and isn't so good as they wanted to let you believe. She sounds unnatural, false: the best actress in this film is Sabrina Impacciatore, who speaks with a perfect Tuscan accent and shines together with Massimo Ceccherini. Elio Germano is very, very good: the most promising young Italian actor, according to me. Daniel Auteuil looks like Napoleon, but I preferred other actors. So, the most hyped performances were also the worst.<br /><br />Costumes and production design are okay: sure, American period movies are more accurate about these things because have bigger budgets, but the Italian ability rewards the lack of money. A nice period comedy, in short, with a first-rate casting (except for Bellucci and Auteuil).
|
positive
|
My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.<br /><br />I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper "mask mode".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; "I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in." My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.<br /><br />This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.
|
negative
|
This abomination and the sequel ONE MORE TIME (no thanks) and the hideous Jerry Lewis disasters like Don't RAISE THE BRIDGE LOWER THE WATER (why not just flush instead) drove cinema owners to close their doors rather than be forced to run these films. True: in the 60s block booking of films was still enforced on hapless suburban and country cinemas... this means that in order to get a good film the cinema was forced to run woeful timewasters like these: I remember well in 1974 keen to screen FIDDLER ON THE ROOF or something good like that, I was bailed up in the United Artists booking office by some sozzled salesman who waved a sheet of flops before me and squinted, bellowing: "Now before we get to that one, lemme see ya date these ones first". which basically means: "book these duds and we will give ya a tired hit". This is how and why so many cinemas closed, forced to screen and annoy their waning audiences with these assembly line failures with lame comedians and bored talent. Cinema owners, exhausted with arguing simply closed, sold to a petrol station and saw the cinema demolished. These days the same type of films (eg: I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY) get banished to the 20 seat cinema 99 in a mega google plex instead. Not much has changed. FREDDY GOT FINGERED... anyone?
|
negative
|
What has Ireland ever done to film distributers that they seek to represent the country in such a pejorative way? This movie begins like a primer for film students on Irish cinematic cliches: unctuous priests, spitting before handshakes, town square cattle marts, cycling by country meadows to the backdrop of anodyne folk music. Quickly, however, it becomes apparent that the main theme of the film is the big Daddy-O of Irish Cliches - religous strife. It concerns a protestant woman who wants to decide where her Catholic-fathered child is educated, which would seem like a reasonable enough wish, though not to the '50's County Wexford villagers she has to live with. Rather than send them to a Catholic school, she decides to up and leave for Belfast, then Scotland, where a few more cliches are reguritated. While she's there, her father (who looks eerily like George Lucas) and family back home are subjected to a boycott, which turns very nasty. I'm not going to give away the ending, not because I think people should go see this movie, but because it's not very interesting. One of the problems with the film is the central character: we're supposed to sympathise with her but end up instead urging her to get a life. The villagers are presented as bigots whose prejudices should be stood up to, but traumatising your kids seems an innappropriate way to go about it. In addition, it takes on burdens which it staggers igniminiously under when it tries to draw analogies with the current Northern Ireland peace process: the woman is told by her lawyer that she "must lay down preconditions" for her return. The film is allegedly based on a true story but it's themes have been dealt with much more imaginatively, and with less recourse to hackneyed cliches, in the past.
|
negative
|
This often maligned movie is a must for fans of Blake Edwards, Julie Andrews, Henry Mancini, or Hollywood musicals. Other writers have commented on the shifts in tone, the confusion of plot, etc., but the film has many things to recommend it. The score is one of Henry Mancini's best (and he has written many wonderful ones), several songs are sung to perfection by Andrews, Julie's performance is nuanced and she is decked out in some beautiful clothes, (she is at her absolutely loveliest here), the on-location shots are breath-taking, and there are some funny Inspector Clouseau-type sight gags to boot. Rock Hudson basically phoned in his performance, but he is passably good. A real curiosity item in that it was the last major film Julie did for about 10 years and, in many ways, is a precursor to Victor/Victoria. It is lovely to look at and listen to. When will it be available on DVD??? When it is, I for one would like both versions--the longer and shorter, director's cut. Since it was lampooned in S.O.B., they would make a great two-pack!
|
positive
|
I had to write a review for this movie based on the ones that are saying gory, non stop action, great movie..<br /><br />These people were obviously watching a different movie. Killpoint honestly sucked from the word go!! I kept waiting and waiting for this film to get better and it was to no avail. Some said this movie was brutal and others said gory but I can't find either of those adjectives actually showing up in this, I mean hell there are so many scenes with people getting shot and there being no blood at all it's not even funny!! I guess the best way to sum this up is it probably should've been rated PG by 1984 standards and now in the year 2010 there is no doubt this would be PG!! Bad, BAD not in the fun cheesy "B" variety movie!!
|
negative
|
This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?<br /><br />Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.
|
negative
|
I saw the movie in Izmir as the closing film of Izmir film festival. I didn't know anything about it but right now I'm glad I didn't refuse the chance to see Ding-a-ling-less! It IS one of the funniest movies I've ever watched and believe me I've seen zillions of movies!! (I'm a film critic!) Clever script and dialogs... Smart details... What else can I say? AN indie masterpiece with a totally unique style of humor... One can't stop by wonder what he's capable of right now. Ding-a-ling less was shot five years ago and i'm sure the director Onur Tukel is more mature now. I heard that his next feature will be a political satire and I really can't wait to see that too among with his previous works like "House of Pancakes"...
|
positive
|
As a Scot I find the idea of "Macbeth" shifted in Time and Space to America totally moronic.I am sure this doesn't apply to broadminded IMDb Users,but why are so many Americans unable to relate to ANY film concept that isn't set in their Country ? This attitude does Americans no favours in the Big Wide World out here.<br /><br />It was bad enough that "The Wicker Man" was remade and set in the USA ,totaly stripped of its Cultural context, and with a Polticaly Correct gender change for a leading Character.<br /><br />One wonders what next,Robert The Bruce as a New York cop ?,Mary Queen of Scots as a "Soccer Mom" juggling ,kids ,a career and relationships ?<br /><br />Come on Hollywood, open up to all the other Cultures on the Planet!
|
negative
|
Whoever says pokemon is stupid can die. This movie is superlative. I Even shead a tear when Celebei died. I DON'T CRY Much! This film is a touching animated thriller. <br /><br />In this fourth installment of pokemon, Ash and friends must stop the bad jerk from making Celebei the ultimate evil weapon with his dark ball. In the time, Sam and Celebei travel through time and continuously are hunted by game hunters. I like the part with the double battle and Sam has the apricorn pokeball (if you've played pokemon gold, silver, or crystal, you know what it is.)<br /><br />I also enjoyed having miramax in charge instead of Warner Brothers. Putting the mini movie at the end was a great idea. The pokemon in this movie come to life more than ever.
|
positive
|
Unfortunately producers don't know when to leave well enough alone, or are into recycling to the point that every scrap of trash that Hollywood generates is up for rendering into Alpo. It seems that every sci-fi action adventure flick must endure a sad list of follow-up films, and Robocop is a tragic example. The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into. This film has none of that, aside from maybe telling us that drugs are bad for you and could make you do things you'd regret when sober. Robocop 2 lacks the vision, the profoundly scary vision of what we are becoming, and instead clumsily takes us on a boat ride into how nauseating drug dealers and their victims really are. Social commentary be damned. This one really bit the big one for me. If you don't care for anything but the SFX, go to it, my friend. Otherwise don't waste your time with this yeastless sour cake, and preserve the first film's accurately measured, heavy-weighted pumpernickle hot out of the oven. It's that simple.
|
negative
|
When you are in a gloomy or depressed mood, go watch this film. It shows a lot of beauty and joy in a very simple everyday setting, and it is very encouraging, in particular from a feminist and a humanist perspective.<br /><br />When you know both the Turkish language and either the Danish or the German language, go watch the film in any case. Half of the dialog is Danish in the original, synchronized to German in the translated version, the other half Turkish, subtitled in Danish or German, respectively. When i watched it in Mannheim, Germany, the reaction of the Turkish-speaking audience proved that there must be a lot of humor in the Turkish dialog, which, deplorably, mostly escaped me, being only imperfectly rendered in the subtitles. Still, the film is interesting even if you lack knowledge of the Turkish.<br /><br />Esthetically, the movie is playing a lot on the theme of speed and slowness. On first sight, there is lots of corporeal movement fast as lightning, making it a quick, an agitated film. In particular, even though this is a Kung Fu movie, watch out for the running scenes, beautifully expressing a wealth of emotions. But there are quite a few very slow, emotionally intense scenes, too. And above all, the characters develop at a much slower pace than you would expect in a drama about the coming of age; still, there is some movement in the characters to: Closely watch the villain Omar, whose part and acting i liked very much.<br /><br />The contrast of speed and stillness nicely contributes to the depiction of human rage and dignity - shown at once, in the same characters, at the same time.
|
positive
|
This film was a Mexican made horror film from the late 60s. It's not that good, but really not so bad either. There is plenty of schlock and it is padded pretty heavily with nudity and violence, but it had a plot and at least tried to keep to it (even if the plot was the same damn Frankenstein inspired "don't tamper in God's domain" b-movie fare). There was some padding mixed in with the female wrestling, but it was made in Mexico and wrestling does seem to be popular in Mexico.<br /><br />The plot is that a doctor wants to save his son, who is dying from leukemia. The other doctors have given no hope for the poor guy, but dad has the idea of transplanting a gorilla's heart for his son's to save his life (I don't know, I'm a lawyer not a doctor). The transplant works, but sonny-boy ends up becoming a man-ape who terrorizes nude women and kills anyone who gets in his path. There's also a subplot involving a cop and his girlfriend who is a wrestler (this really didn't add too much, but if they wanted to throw in some masked female wrestlers here's a good reason to do so).<br /><br />The film was kind of cheap, but not too bad for a b-movie of the day. The plot was basically just recycled and there were a few things that weren't tied in that well. However, this film is kind of fun in its own way (I don't know why, maybe because it's a Mexican horror film and sticks out in my normal bad movie diet). I guess it may be because it's a mix and mash of some very weird things.<br /><br />Watch it if you like cheesy foreign films, nudity, and female wrestlers.
|
negative
|
I don't want to bore everyone by reiterating what has already been said, but this is one of the best series ever! It was a great shame when it was canceled, and I hope someone will have the good sense to pick it up and begin the series again. The good news is that it is OUT ON DVD!!!! I rushed down to the store and picked up a copy and am happy to say that it is just as good as I remembered it. Gary Cole is a wonderfully dark and creepy character, and all actors were very good. It is a shame that the network did not continue it. Shaun Cassidy, this is a masterpiece. Anyone who enjoys the genre and who has not seen it, must do so. You will not be disappointed. My daughter who was too young to view it when it was on television (she is 20) is becoming very interested, and will soon be a fan. She finds it "very twisted" and has enjoyed the episodes she has seen. I cannot wait to view the episodes which were not aired.<br /><br />This show rocks!!!!
|
positive
|
This film is absolute gold. If you haven't seen it, do. Mani Ratnam outdoes himself once again. This film introduced me to Nandita Das as well, though everyone shines in this movie. My only regret is I've never found a copy with subtitles to the lyrics of the songs. We are led from the jungle of northern Sri Lanka to the serene beaches of Southern India, as well as from the terror of war to the ultimate conquest by love of the human heart. Beautiful, subtle, witty, with a few hidden surprises waiting for the viewer, this movie stands up to being seen again and again, and the story within the story, The Umbrella, is done so well, as we watch the scene unfold from drawings in a book. Lovely. Watch it.
|
positive
|
I don't know if it's fair for me to review this. I'm not a fan of gratuitous violence. I've never understood the movie industry making heroes out of mob members and cold blooded killers. When The Godfather came out, I thought they had broken the mold, but the decades have produced a series of well-acted mob movies with major stars and directors doing them. This one is obviously low-budget, but it is certainly well done. At some point in all of these I feel like I want to take a shower. If such characters actually exist, it is hard for the soul. I always intellectualize that humankind will rise above this sort of thing. This kind of crud has to be stopped. I hope the people that go to films like this are more voyeuristic and less vicarious. I feel sort of the same way about slasher movies. Why do we have a fascination with death and dismemberment? In fairness, I am judging this on the acting and directing, and for what it is, it seems to work pretty well.
|
positive
|
This is one of those films where it is easy to see how some people wouldn't like it. My wife has never seen it, and when I just rewatched it last night, I waited until after she went to bed. She might have been amused by a couple small snippets, but I know she would have had enough within ten minutes.<br /><br />Head has nothing like a conventional story. The film is firmly mired in the psychedelic era. It could be seen as filmic surrealism in a nutshell, or as something of a postmodern acid trip through film genres. If you're not a big fan of those things--psychedelia, surrealism, postmodernism and the "acid trip aesthetic" (assuming there's a difference between them), you should probably stay away from this film. On the other hand if you are a fan of that stuff, you need to run out and buy Head now if you haven't already.<br /><br />Oddly, the film has never received much respect. That probably has a lot to do with preconceptions. After all, it does star The Monkees--Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork--and The Monkees were a musical group of actors put together by producers Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider to be a kid-friendly, bubble-gummy Beatles for a television series. In their era, they had as much respect as, say, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, The Spice Girls, and so on. As a fellow IMDb reviewer rightly notes--"Perhaps people in 1968, thinking of the Monkees as a silly factory-made pop band rip-off of the Beatles, refused to see (Head)".<br /><br />The Monkees and Head have never been quite able to shed that negative public perception. It's a shame, because there was a lot of talent, both musically and otherwise, in The Monkees. It's probably odder that Rafelson, who directs here and co-produces with Schneider, and Jack Nicholson (yes, _that_ Jack Nicholson), who wrote the script and also co-produces, decided to take The Monkees in this unusual direction. It's as if New Kids on the Block suddenly put out an album equivalent to Pink Floyd's Ummagumma (1969) or Atom Heart Mother (1970). In fact, the songs in Head, written by The Monkees and frequent collaborators such as Carole King and Harry Nilsson, have a Floyd-like quality, somewhere between the Syd Barrett era and the immediate post-Barrett era. This is much more prominent than any Beatles similarity. Some people have complained about the music in the film, but to me, all the songs are gems. For that matter, some people dislike Barrett era (or other) Floyd, which is just as difficult for me to empathize with.<br /><br />But what _is_ Head about? The basic gist is just that The Monkees are taking a trip through various film genres--there are war scenes, adventure scenes, horror scenes, comedy scenes, drama scenes, western scenes, sci-fi scenes, romance scenes, and on and on. Except, in the film's reality, this turns out to be happening primarily (if not exclusively) on a studio lot. At root, we're watching The Monkees shoot a film. Of course all of the scenes in the various genres have something surreal and self-referential about them, and they, and individual shots within a scene, tend to lead to one another using dream logic not dissimilar to the Monty Python television show. As a dream, Head tends to vacillate between a good dream and a nightmare, while often being one that would cause you to laugh in your sleep (something that I frequently do, by the way).<br /><br />Technically, Rafelson uses a wide variety of techniques to realize the above. There are scenes with extensive negative images, there are a lot of very fast cuts (including a great sequence that features Davy Jones and Tony Basil dancing alternately in a white and a black room, wearing a combination of white and black reversed in each, that occasionally toggles back and forth as quickly as two frames at a time), there are a lot of bizarre segues, there is an animated cow mouth, there are odd editing devices, and so on. For my money, I wish this stuff wasn't just a relic of the psychedelic era. This is the kind of artistic approach I relish. It seemed like a good idea back then and I still think it's a good idea. I'd like to see films like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou using (2004) using these types of extended techniques. Now that would make that film surreal.<br /><br />Interpretationally, some folks who aren't so in tune with the acid trip aesthetic have complained that it's basically b.s. to offer meanings for something intended to not have any. I disagree with such a pessimistic/nihilistic view; Head was intended to have a lot of meaning(s), and it's not just films without conventional plots that have multiple interpretations. Nicholson, Rafelson and Schneider have a lot of interesting things to say about The Monkees--the film postmodernistically comments on their manufactured status; pop stardom--way before Pink Floyd, Head conflates pop stardom and violence, from images of war to images of fans cannibalistically dismantling their idols; and naïve U.S.-oriented ideas of international perceptions and respect--well-armed foreigners in a desert surrender to Micky Dolenz just because he's an American, then later they blow up a Coke machine (again in the desert) for him because he's thirsty and can't gain access. The film comments on many other topics--from big Industry to police, surveys, spectatorship (especially in relation to tragedies), and on and on. Head is full of ideas, appropriately enough, with intelligent, multifaceted things to say about them.<br /><br />Head deserves to be considered a classic--it's basically shooting for the same vibe as The Beatles' Yellow Submarine. Both premiered in November of 1968, interestingly enough, and both were intended as something of a summation of the psychedelic aesthetic. Yellow Submarine wasn't quite successful. Head is everything Yellow Submarine should have been.
|
positive
|
A look at three geishas who are way past their prime. Now they look back on their pasts with fondness and bemoan their present. Kin (played by Floating Weeds' Haruko Sugimura) has sworn off men and has made a good living as a moneylender; everyone on the block owes her. The other two, Nobu and Tamae, wish they could land husbands, but are not foolish enough to believe they ever will. Meanwhile, their children - one has a son and one a daughter - are both about to get married (not to each other). Tamae is irked at how much prettier her daughter has become than her, and bitterly tries to convince her not to marry the man. Nobu's concerns about her son are more legitimate in nature, but they are also (understandably) self-serving. After her son leaves, she'll be alone. A bit into the film, two of Kin's former clients come looking for her, one a man so obsessed with her that he tried to get her to commit double suicide with him, the other one of her handsomest clients. Unfortunately, he comes for her money, not her love. The way I've described the film makes it sound unrelentingly depressing, but it's really not. Sad, but not fatally so. It's more bittersweet. Unfortunately, I only marginally liked Late Chrysanthemums. The story seems better when I look back on it, but it is very slow and dull. I actually nodded off twice during the film, and I wasn't at all tired before I started it. This is the kind of film that I can appreciate more than like; it reminds me very much of my reaction to a couple of Ozu's more famous films. 7/10.
|
positive
|
Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark. <br /><br />Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.<br /><br />That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any.
|
negative
|
Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.<br /><br />Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.<br /><br />Incredible.
|
negative
|
how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.<br /><br />rating:0.3
|
negative
|
One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites.
|
positive
|
The same difficulty I have with the musical version of "Les Miserables" applies equally to "Oliver." Instead of the composers' writing in the stylistic period of the play settings, they merely wrote Broadway-type melodies, which were historically unidiomatic and stylistically skewed.<br /><br />Too, the blatant brutality and unsavory activities of the dramaturgy do not mix well with some of the sunny ditties which permeate the score. It's a uncomfortable mixture that leaves a decidedly sour undertaste.<br /><br />The casting of the boy Oliver doesn't help matters: tentative of timbre and vexingly precious, there's something less than solid here. Fagin performs his traditional routine adequately, though the tunes he's obliged to sing have little basis in period manner.<br /><br />"As Long As He Needs Me" is given a strident rendition, throaty and strained. The two big production numbers, "Who Will Buy" and "Consider Yourself" seem over-produced, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. It's one thing to go all out, yet another to cross over the line into excess. <br /><br />The gloom, despair and depravity of much of the novel does not seem to lend itself to such ditties and choreography. While the novel is considered a classic, I must confess I have trouble with Mr. Dickens' consciousness, in that his works tend to emit a negative vibration. This may be due to the extension of his joyless personal life, which was full of disappointment and regret. <br /><br />Not all the combined talent of this production, either on- or behind camera, can overcome the unconstructive nature of the basic material. All this results in an uncomfortably downer experience for me.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Very well done acting and directing. This is a cross between "The Last Don" and " Godfather 2".One large plus for this production is that it is claimed to be a true story of Joseph Bonanno. With a better music score to create mood, it could have been a rival for both Godfather movies.
|
positive
|
The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.
|
positive
|
This movie is an obvious rip-off of Underworld USA starring Cliff Robertson. You owe it to yourself to invest a couple of hours and watch the original. I found this one to be disjointed and hard to follow, with a lot of scenes that didn't make much sense. I'm not opposed to violence in movies but this whole thing seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to blow away one person after another, many of whom were only marginally connected with the storyline. With everyone else getting killed, all through the movie I wondered why Frank didn't just blow Johnny's brains out. He certainly could have and Johnny sure didn't act like someone that could be trusted. Another thing that bothers me is the sex scenes; why do these people have sex with their clothes on? Is that supposed to turn us on? Surely they didn't think they had a shot at a PG rating. Nothing in this movie seemed to play out naturally. as if one were watching people in real life, instead it was done in a heavy-handed and shallow manner.
|
negative
|
In THE FAN Robert De Niro plays Gil Renard . Or is it Travis Bickle ? or Rupert Pupkin ? Or Max Cady ? You see the problem with this type of role is that De Niro has played very very similar characters in TAXI DRIVER , THE KING OF COMEDY and CAPE FEAR and unfortunately the characters were better developed and had better scripts . I found it slightly difficult to believe that Renard would have started out as a frustrated obsessive sports fan into being an out and out psycho<br /><br />The character arc isn't the only problem with this script - It also lacks a character focus ( A problem I had with THE UNTOUCHABLES where De Niro should have been superb but ended up slightly flat ) , for several stretches of the movie I kept thinking that Bobby Rayburn was the main character then the story switches back to Renard . It also seems to have disappointed a lot of sports fans who seem to think this should have concentrated a bit more on baseball . I'm not sure if this was meant to appeal to baseball fans originally but again there are elements which hint it might have if the producers had made up their minds has to who and what the story should focus upon <br /><br />I will admit I was entertained by THE FAN ( Especially by the soundtrack ) but it is a very flawed film and it should be remembered that by the mid 1990s characters being stalked by nutters as in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE , UNLAWFUL ENTRY etc had run out of steam a long time ago
|
negative
|
This is an interesting left turn for Reel 13 Indies. TWO HARBORS is a B&W 75 minute film from Minnesota that features non-actors and is about two people finding a connection through a search for alien life. I applaud the boldness of the Reel 13 programmers of thinking out-of-the-box when selecting this film. I just wish they had picked a stronger film to be bold with. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the choice had more to do with the uniqueness of the film than with the actual quality of the film itself (Not that TWO HARBORS is completely without merit, but I'll get to that a little later). <br /><br />As is common with independent films, TWO HARBORS is limited in terms of location. There are only two real locations a large junk dealership market and a very teeny trailer, which is the home of the middle-aged main character, Vic, played by Alex Cole. Writer/director James Vculek uses the market setting to provide exposition about Vic, who is one of the dealers there. He has various people walk up to Vic and start very long conversations that provides us with just two pieces of information Vic sells space toys (he prefers to call them "outer space action figures") and he is a caustic asshole. This is emblematic of one of the two key problems with TWO HARBORS - all the chatting. I've said it before and I'll say it again we are dealing with a visual medium and filmmakers need to work harder to tell their stories visually. There are exceptions, of course, but generally, endless patter is not so engaging on film particularly if the dialogue is being used as exposition. Pretty much all the conversations in the film are long and unnecessarily verbose. A notable example would be a few scenes which feature Vic trying to play himself off as a Boy Scout leader in order to get a discount at a store. He argues with the clerk back and forth and these scenes don't even advance the plot one iota. This is the kind of thing that makes even a 75 minute film feel long.<br /><br />The other problem with TWO HARBORS is the acting. I may be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to performance in film, but I really don't feel like there's a good excuse for not having good actors in your films. There are plenty of good actors out there, many of which willing to work on low-budget projects even in Minnesota. Many filmmakers eschew the importance of acting ability as being secondary to their visuals, but that is naïve. In narrative film-making, next to the story, nothing is more important than the acting/performances. If you don't believe the people enacting your story, your audience is lost.<br /><br />Originally, I thought Vculek was using non-actors, but as the film went on, I decided that they were probably community theater-type actors. It wasn't that they were uncomfortable on camera. It's that they were overly theatrical (i.e. big). Granted, the best of the actors were the two leads Cole and Catherine E. Johnson as Cassie, a lonely young girl that gets caught up in Vic's extra-terrestrial hunt. They seemed to have the most training, but they were still a little rough around the edges. The eccentricities they displayed seemed to be surface only - not coming from a real, organic place within. Ms. Johnson, in particular, is an interesting case. She definitely has a presence a Midwestern charm about her, but that charisma belies the multitude of issues her character is supposed to have. She struggles to portray the idiosyncrasies that stem from a supposed life of solitude and (slave?) labor, relying on stock gestures like eye rolls, lip biting and stammering to suggest her discomfort with the outside world.<br /><br />I mentioned in the first paragraph that TWO HARBORS is not completely without merit and here's what I mean. Without giving too much away, there is a fade to white an hour into the film. After that, the story takes a stunning turn, which allows the last fifteen minutes to be evocative and downright powerful it's like a sucker punch to the gut, but in a good way. It's almost a huge relief to feel something after so long with these characters. The last five minutes of the film don't have any dialogue at all and the result is the best part of the film subtle, detailed (Cole does his best work of the film) and most importantly, cinematic. Then, with the closing credits comes the most staggering revelation of all that it's based on a true story, which got me to thinking. With all the dialogue, the minimal locations and the lack of cinematic qualities, it occurred to me that with two kick ass actors and a tightening re-write, TWO HARBORS might make a really kick-ass stage play maybe even a one-act. If there are any bold theater producers out there reading this, I definitely recommend seeing if you can get a hold of the film and contact the filmmaker, Reel 13 or whomever. There might be something to this story after all
<br /><br />(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)
|
negative
|
So, it has come to this. In the top-rated comment on this flick, somebody says "Nishi is an honorable man". Really? This is a guy who mainly kills and maims people in the movie. He takes a short break to rob a bank. Honorable? How would you like your kids to go to school with the kids of someone who calls that honorable? Wait, there's more! The person also says "we can tell he's constantly thinking." How can we do that? Well, do you know that joke "How can you tell when a CEO/politician/lawyer is lying?" ... "His/her lips move." Well, Nishi's lips never move, so I guess that means he is thinking.<br /><br />Of course, this is existentialism to warm the hearts of the cult of victimization. Existentalism supposedly stresses that an individual take responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Not Nishi. Borrow money from the yakuza. What, they want it back? Kill them. The cops find out. Kill yourself and your wife.<br /><br />Really honorable.
|
negative
|
This BBC series is excellent. I am no Paleontologist, but this series gives the best historical representation of dinosaurs I have ever seen. The 3D animation and animatronics are very good and make you believe you have travelled back in time. The BBC deserves a pat on the back for such a fine series as well as Tim Haines who must have spent a great deal of time getting this series to air.
|
positive
|
I think that this film is one of the funniest films i have ever seen. I think Debbie Reynolds is hilarious and the chemistry between her and Glenn Ford is perfect. There is not a dull moment in the film and Debbie looks beautiful as always. <br /><br />The story is about a showgirl Maggie(Debbie Reynolds) who meets a penniless soldier Joe (Glenn Ford). She takes an instant dislike to him but after he accidentally tears her dress, he returns it to her on the condition that she goes on one date with him. They end up getting married the night they have their date after just one kiss. Joe and Maggie move to Spain and find they have nothing in common but physical attraction, so Maggie proposes that for one month they live but not as man and wife which means that Joe is not allowed to kiss or sleep with Maggie, much to Joe's frustration.A hilarious plot and a wonderful film. Not to be missed.
|
positive
|
I enjoy all the versions of this story but this one is my all time favorite. George C.Scott gives a depth to the Scrooge character that the others do not give. The movie shows more about why he becomes so bitter. The changes in Scrooge appear gradually as he encounters the different ghosts and the incidents that they show him. <br /><br />This movie has the best Tiny Tim by far. He is the right age rather than being played by someone who is almost a teenager as in the other films. Anthony Walters still has all or most of his baby teeth. <br /><br />David Warner is wonderful as Bob Cratchit. He is such a versatile actor. He portrays a man who clearly loves his family. He plays the role with dignity neither as a wimpy man cowering under Scrooges'thumb but as a man who gracefully puts up with it because he has a family to provide for. Susannah York and the other actors do a fine job of bringing the characters to life. Edward Woodward is the best Ghost of Christmas Present I've ever seen. Most often he is played as a jolly Santa type character. In this he shows anger at Scrooges attitudes and really makes Scrooge reconsider. <br /><br />The costumes and the sets really bring the London of Dickens time to life. A wonderful movie.
|
positive
|
I was very excited when Paranormal State first came on A&E. I thought that it may bring some more interesting ghostly evidence. The production value looked good and I really love the logo. Then, after about few episodes in, I started to feel that this show may not be looking for evidence but had a strong religious agenda.<br /><br />It seems like every case they investigate has some big powerful evil demon that can't even make a teacup move on camera, yet everyone is terrified. Then comes some power of Christ ritual that saves everyone.<br /><br />Also, there is very little focus on other members of the team. The entire show focuses on Ryan and he feels like one of those people that hands you pamphlets about his church on the street.<br /><br />Has paranormal phenomenon and demons become the new missionaries of Christianity, scaring people to convert? Really, this should be on a Christian network. I was very disappointed.
|
negative
|
It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace!
|
negative
|
Dull, predictable and uninteresting story of a man contaminated by a chemical substance (Weller) who goes on across the country just to find his ex-wife and children; meanwhile, he kills everyone in his way only by a single touch of his hands. In his dangerous track, a doctor (Hurt) and a young reporter (Natasha) try to stop the man. The movie has a not original premise but even though could be much better. The final result is just a movie without suspense or gritting moments. Even the good cast is completely waste. I give this a 4 (four).
|
negative
|
I work at the video store that rents this video in Lexington and I must say...it should have never been made. I even know some of the people who worked on it who regret doing so. Bad effects, horrid acting, bad script especially. I swear the dialog wouldn't have passed for the original PSX Resident Evil; it's that bad. If you want to know how not to make a movie, watch this film to learn a thing or two. If not, don't waste your time. And even the director know it sucks because he keeps coming in to try to get us to upsale the movie. No sir. I've watched two-thirds of the horror section and this rates even lower than Plan 9 from Outer Space. Even Ed Eood would have said, "Nope. That's too stupid even for me."
|
negative
|
A terrible movie as everyone has said. What made me laugh was the cameo appearance by Scott McNealy, giving an award to one of the murdered programmers in front of a wall of SUN logos. McNealy is the CEO of SUN Microsystem, a company that practically defines itself by its hatred of Microsoft. They have been instrumental in filing antitrust complaints against Microsoft. So, were they silly enough to think this bad movie would add fuel to that fire?<br /><br />There's no public record I see of SUN's involvement, but clearly the makers of this movie know Scott McNealy. An interesting mystery.
|
negative
|
The danish movie "Slim Slam Slum" surprised me to be the worst movie i have seen to this date. I didn't think that it was possible to top my list of bad bad b-movies but this one deserves the gold. It's not funny. It's bad acting, It's bad filmed and the storyline is bad. The only positive thing i can say about this movie is it has three girls in it. I truly believe this flick has the potential to knock of the other danish movie "Stjerner uden hjerner" as the badest danish film ever made! And that's truly something. Congratulations in advance!
|
negative
|
This film is not devoid of charm and also shows a bit of warmth, but ultimately this effort is too vain and too strongly focussed on the leads. There is no doubt that Mary Tyler Moore knows what to do with all her screen time but she takes too much of the limelight away from the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Another problem is the overburdening of the script with cliches. The daughter who secretly drops out of college, an older woman finding it difficult to get a good job (and first ends up with fairly demeaning work), the sleazy network executive with his executive toys who goes for glitz over substance, the journalist who sticks up for her beliefs, etc. There is nothing really wrong with any of these, i.e. they are all firmly rooted in reality, but in combination they are just too much and leave us with too much deja-vu and too few surprises.
|
negative
|
Imagine watching a slide show where the projector lingers on every slide long enough for you to completely memorize it three times over. Now imagine that the images in the slide show consist entirely of mundane scenes a small park; and empty tennis court; a piano. Now imagine that the people running the slide show are having a frustratingly slow, semi-lucid conversation about events that only occasionally relate to the slides they're showing you. Great you've just imagined the entirety of the film `India Song.'<br /><br />The film is an agonizingly slow montage of images that do little except to simply scream out `Look at me! I am PROFOUND!!' with such blatant self-importance that the images themselves and the movie as a whole are rendered not merely bereft of profundity, but COMICALLY bereft of profundity. The visuals could easily have been replaced by a series of static images as described above, since it is so rare that there are actually people on screen, and even when they are, the people actually move only slightly more often than the furniture. They never speak or interact in any meaningful way they just stand there looking at each other, and occasionally crying. The most energetic moment in the entire first hour of the film is when three people walk across a parking lot in slow motion. In fact, the visuals could easily have been left out entirely, as the story is told completely through narration. The story is about a woman who hates India because it's hot, and hates people don't hate India because it's hot (this point is covered several times). It is also about a man who feels that he is entitled to sleep with the aforementioned woman, since she will sleep with anyone who asks her to, but he doesn't get to sleep with her simply because he never asks, and he's very upset about this. So he stares at her as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Later on, he stares at his bicycle, as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Actually, you don't get to see the single tear running profoundly down his cheek when he's staring at his bicycle, but you know it's there anyway, just because that's the sort of film this is.<br /><br />At best, the narration becomes background hum, serving as a perfect compliment to the coma-inducing visuals. Simply staying conscious through the entirety of this film would require a supreme act of determination. To watch it and actually come away with a serious and meaningful idea of what it was supposed to be about would induce the same sort of migraine as trying to read lengthy technical documents in the dark. This film is perhaps the greatest monument of pseudo-artistic pretension that man will ever know.
|
negative
|
It took us a couple of episodes to "get into" Dark Angel as a story and a series, since we were transitioning from The Sopranos, a very different mentality framework. But, once we got with the gist of the series, we were very quickly hooked. It's a shame that the series ended just when it was just starting to past good into the excellent category: Dark Angelwas much more than your average TV series. It kicks ass and rocks as far as action goes, but the interactions of the characters and societal reactions to "mutants" reminds us of the constant prejudices that we face (and make) everyday. That the story is set in the future keeps the mood surreal and prevents the anti-discrimination message from being rubbed in our faces (hence not ruining the "fun" for those who don't like to be lectured during entertainment), but every event and human/societal interaction remains relevant to the present. We all make judgments, face our own prejudices, but, in the end, the question of who you are lies in: do you sit back and shut your mind to it, or do you get up and do something about it? For those who have no choice but to fight, for survival or justice, this series empowers them. For those who've never had to face the question, this series "sneaks in" that message under the guise of pure action entertainment. It is much more well-made and well-written than most TV series; I'm highly disappointed it ended before it could really kick into high gear.
|
positive
|
Zipperface is the kind of experience one waits an entire lifetime to avoid! Mansour Pormand ranks as one of the worst film directors of all time! If, however, you love bad films, see this at all costs!
|
negative
|
I was looking forward to this movie. I like road trip thrillers. I like sex, drugs, youth, action and a great sound track. And I was especially interested in taking the movie trip across Europe to see if I recognized any of my own travel spots.<br /><br />From the first scene, however, this movie was unwatchable. What was Guy doing driving on the wrong side of the road? What could possibly have blown up the van that rolled gracefully down a shallow grassy incline? If they're such bad drivers, why would they take a delivery job? And that's just the first scene! Not even bad enough to be campy or silly. Just Horrible! Horrible! Horrible! Waste of time. Move on to something... anything else!
|
negative
|
Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.
|
positive
|
That is what this movie is. Good God the special effects suck in this movie. It is difficult for anything to suck more than this movie's plot, but the special effects manage to pull it off. Let me try to explain just how bad this movie is.<br /><br />First, there is the plot. There are four punk-ass teenage dirt bikers who are riding around in a forest in Duluth, MN. One of them is a dumb-ass and tries a ridiculous jump and breaks his leg. A paramedic comes to help him, but gets stranded with them when the helicopter breaks. Then all five realize that there is a forest fire, which we see is started by some guy dumping tons of gas all over the forest. All they show us is his boots, and they show scene after scene of this guys boots walking around dumping gas and starting fires. Meanwhile, the teenagers try to escape the fire, only to find that boot man has somehow managed to get ahead of them (while they were speeding through the forest on dirt bikes!), dump gas all over the area they were riding through, and start more fires. He does this several times, and the paramedic finally catches him and starts him on fire. I won't spoil the ending, but this guy's resilience will have you shouting "WHAT THE BLOODY HELL?!?!" at the screen. Anyway, they are now surrounded by fire, and their only escape is through a mine which is filled with methane gas. Yes, methane gas. I'm not even going to try to describe the ending, because it is too ridiculous, and you'll enjoy it more if you don't see it coming. Which you won't, because you can't possibly expect what happens. This is because of the second major problem with this movie: consistency.<br /><br />Is some semblance of consistence too much to ask for? Apparently so. I cannot even count the number of broken limbs in this movie (they keep breaking arms and legs while crashing their bikes). I think each character breaks at least one limb, and several more than one. They then limp around until the scene ends, and then forget that they're supposed to have broken limbs. There is one scene where three of them who are supposed to have broken legs start dancing. But then their injuries suddenly return when the plot needs them to.<br /><br />Finally, the CGI. If there is a hell, it consists of watching the fire in this movie. All they did for the forest fires is line the dirt paths with CGI fire. You can clearly see that the only CGI fire is along the paths, and all of the trees more than two feet from the path are left untouched. And then they zoom out and show the whole forest being engulfed in flames. It's hard to describe in words how ridiculous it looks, but I assure you that the ridiculousness is quite impressive.<br /><br />This movie is one of those so-bad-its-good types. There are some occasions where it descends into the painful-bad category, but for the most part it stays above the line and is laughably inept. I can't wait to check out the other Nature Unleashed movies that came in the four-pack with this one.
|
negative
|
OK, so this is a complete rip off of the first Karate Kid. However, I think there can never be too many movies like the first Karate Kid. There's something about this type of story that particularly seems to apply to people like me. You get a overall sense of being able to overcome adversity by finding out new things about yourself. In this movie, Hillary Swank is a particular gem as the Next Karate Kid. You can really tell that she has a bright future ahead of her.<br /><br />Not to say this movie is not without it's problems. Unlike the first one, Mr Miyagi appears to be a little to eager to get Julie to learn martial arts and get her involved in fighting. It almost seems like he forgot what his values were from the first movie. Also, one must have a suspended disbelief when examining the monks. The movie makes the monks appear to have a way too simplistic view of life, and doesn't really explain why they do what they do in the plot-line. The villains are also a bit questionable, even though truly hateable bad guys. I also have a suspicion about Martial Arts movies that end on prom night.<br /><br />So maybe this isn't a perfect movie. So maybe this wouldn't be the greatest movie to rent on a Friday night. However, in more ways than one, it's a guilty pleasure. Hillary Swank is just so loveable, and the story, even though unoriginal, works. In a genre of movies that seems to be based around nothing other than action and violence, this is a breath of fresh air. Unlike all those Steven Seagal and Jean Claude Van-Damme, this is a movie about the spirit and the heart. There are some people that need movies like this, and we'll take whatever we can get. My rating: 8/10
|
positive
|
I still can't describe what to feel when I received this by the fnac site. Such a rare movie, so little spoken and known, is difficult to find, even to fans, but the contrast betwen past and present is devastating: now I hold a DVD of the movie, with the finest quality possible. As I did in Atlantis, the other rare Besson movie I bought by the internet, I saw this one at home, with all the lights of my dvd and tv turned off, and marveled at the experience. I didn't know what to expect. Wickedly, I always searched some kind of disappointment when I saw a film by Luc Besson I never had seen before. But it never came. This movie was no exception. From the start, I understood that the person who makes a film like this as a first feature is destined to be big in the future. And so it happened. This won several prizes (including the highest prize in a film festival of my country, which makes me proud) and it shows that this movie is preparating many bigger things. This may be the most original after-the-war movie I have ever seen, beating Mad Max in originality and artistic feel. There is not a problem with this movie: its cinematography is genius, as well the perfomances of the actors. I am also proud to say that finally I saw all the movies of my favorite director, and have a copy of almost all of them (Joan of Arc is still waiting for me to buy the DVD). This movie is most of all a work of style and dedication, which makes clear why Luc Besson is a director of my choice: good taste, beautiful framing, excellent use of music (I also marveled at Eric Serra's first feature-length score) and the promise of great achievements. Gaumont did well to bet in its boy-genius, the man who would later change the face of France's and Europe's relation between movies and their public. Let's hope Besson starts working in a new directorial project. I will be the first to cheer it. Until then, I recommend this movie to anyone who need to learn a lesson of how good movies are made with little money. I loved the atmosphere of the movie, which, by its black and white cinematography, suggests us an even more depressed view of the world after the holocaust. This movie works by the sheer magic of movies: showing in pictures what we can't explain by words. And I'm with all the people who wrote comments to this movie and liked it: good choice! A great hug to everyone who sees this and feels that a little of their lives were changed.
|
positive
|
Let's face it-- if you rented a STDVD sequel of a forgotten 80's gem, and expected it to be better than the aforementioned, then you are an idiot. Wargames: The Dead Code joins the long running list of unnecessary sequels that the DVD market has filled so easily. Movies like this don't need spoilers, because YOU already know them.<br /><br />The "plot" for this "film", is as follows: Nerd meets girl; girl likes nerd; nerd likes girl; nerd gets accidentally involved with Top Secret Government computer; nerd and girl go to another country; nerd and girl end up being persecuted by Government suits in the other country; nerd and girl meet some important old guy that dies at key point in the "film"; nerd and girl are captured; the Top Secret Government computer gets crazy; nerd is hired to beat Top Secret Government Computer; nerd beats Top Secret Computer by using the same old Top Secret Computer from the first Wargames "film"; nerd saves the day; nerd gets laid. <br /><br />The end.<br /><br />The acting, script, effects, score, and cinematography are what you would expect-- B-grade. Some familiar faces are in here, and unless you are a mega fan of Colm Feore, then you should avoid this one. Granted, the movie won't make you insane enough to eat your own toes by seeing it, so if you like cheap looking STDVD sequels, then you are right at home.<br /><br />Sadly, Mathew Broderick was too involved with some "masterpiece", that he couldn't even do a five second cameo in this one. But can you blame him?
|
negative
|
Imagine an exploitive remake of The Defiant Ones with a black chick and a white chick attached to each other. Set the story on some Caribbean island where the drug dealers rule and the revolution has arrived. And have the black woman be from Huggy Bear's stable of ladies and the white woman be a watered down Patty Hearst and you've got Black Mama, White Mama.<br /><br />In those waning days of the drive-in theater this item must have been a big old hit. All the hot buttons of the Seventies are pushed in this one. Even though they both fill out their clothes better and will get a few whistles from the males in the audience no one is ever going to mistake Pam Grier and Margaret Markov for Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. All right, Halle Berry and Jamie Lee Curtis.<br /><br />Margaret and Pam are prisoners where the guards and the warden look lasciviously at the new fish arriving. Margaret is a rich girl from the state who took up 'the revolution', whilst Pam's your basic high priced call girl who's been servicing the local drug kingpin and grew tired of it and tried to leave the island.<br /><br />Margaret's fellow revolutionaries ambush the bus transporting them from the women's prison to town, but they get lost in the escape. Both have their different agendas, but like Sid and Tony they can't quite agree on whose agenda comes first. Makes for some interesting times as the police, the drug dealers, and the revolutionaries are all looking for these two illfated chain buddies.<br /><br />Just so you don't get any wrong ideas the head of the revolutionaries and Markov's kanoodling partner is named Ernesto played by Filipino actor Zaldy Zshornack. The whole mess was shot in the Phillipines who were getting their own film industry started.<br /><br />Nice location photography in the Phillipines is all that Black Mama, White Mam has to recommend it. But if you're a fan of really bad black exploitation flicks, this is one for you.
|
negative
|
Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Following a dispute with Anderson, Laurel continued the informal series of parodies at Joe Rock's smaller (and more indigent) production company.<br /><br />Most of Laurel's parody films were only mildly funny at the time, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. 'West of Hot Dog' is a fairly generic parody of cowboy shoot-'em-ups. It's marginally a specific parody of 'West of the Pecos', an oater released two years earlier with no major actors. Since 'West of the Pecos' was never a huge success, it's difficult to see why Stan's film unit chose this particular movie as a target for their lampoonery, much less why they waited so long after its release to parody it. And where did they get that title 'West of Hot Dog'? Possibly it's down to the fact that 'Hot dog!' was a sexual interjection favoured by American lechers in the 1920s. (As in the opening scene of the stage play 'Machinal'.) <br /><br />'West of Hot Dog' was produced and co-directed by Joe Rock. Among his many other achievements, Rock introduced Laurel to Lois Neilson, and he was subsequently best man at their wedding. Full disclosure: In the last years of his life, I had the great privilege of befriending Joe Rock and interviewing him. Nearly ninety years old at the time, Rock's memory was impressively clear ... but he remembered nothing at all about 'West of Hot Dog', and I can't blame him. This movie is eminently forgettable.<br /><br />The leading lady's character is named Little Mustard: If that's meant to be a parody of something in 'West of the Pecos', I don't get it. There are a couple of 'impossible' gags here, including Laurel's method for mounting a horse. For just one moment in this movie, Stan Laurel reminded me of the great Buster Keaton when he suddenly broke into a run. 'West of Hot Dog' is vaguely similar in subject matter and tone to Keaton's short comedy 'The Frozen North', but Keaton's version is much funnier. The plot of this film somewhat anticipates a situation in Keaton's feature 'Our Hospitality' but (again) suffers by comparison: here, two tough varmint brothers expect to inherit the Last Chance Saloon, but the previous owner has bequeathed it to weakling tenderfoot Stan. However, the brothers will become the legal heirs if Stan dies. Hmmm...<br /><br />Seriously, though: is such a bequest legal? As soon as Stan takes possession of the property, surely any further questions of ownership or inheritance become his decision, not the previous owner's decision. I had plenty of time to consider such points of law while watching this dull comedy.<br /><br />At one point, a gag involves some crude animation drawn directly onto the film stock. It looks cheap and isn't funny.<br /><br />This 'Hot Dog' is no weiner, and no winner: it's just a whiner. My rating: one point out of 10. Hang on, Stan: in a few more years you'll be one-half of a comedy legend.
|
negative
|
I scooped up this title by accident with the Grindhouse Vol. 1 collection of pure Euro-trash movies. But this movie has a nice stamp of approval and should deserve a better transfer than what is out there. Stupednous it is not... satisfying it is! Watching this movie I couldn't help to wonder... how come Sergio Martino didn't make this flick? This has his signature all over it and punctuated by Edwedge Fenech (alas not as well known as she should be but she did get a nice cameo in Hostel II). Double-crosses and triple-crosses underly and cement this film from beginning to end with Lee Van Cleef oozing coolness under pressure from the 1st second. Did this guy have to go to Italy to finally reach his potential or did the studio system let this guy slip through? Besides Lee's more recognizable films, film-goers should try this on for size and see how if Sergio Leone would've lowered his epic scale down on Once Upon a Time in America to half the running time (and 1/4 of the budget) this is what it would've turned out to be like. So refreshing, it should be taken in during the day at home and make it for an couch matinée
|
positive
|
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten<br /><br />***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see<br /><br />*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece<br /><br />**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws<br /><br />** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)<br /><br />*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments<br /><br />BOMB = Not of a viewable quality<br /><br />- Kalifornia = ***<br /><br />- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)<br /><br />I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.<br /><br />Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless "white trash" husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.<br /><br />The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.<br /><br />I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.<br /><br />I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving "KALIFORNIA" a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do.
|
positive
|
To call a film about a crippled ghost taking revenge from beyond the grave lame and lifeless would be too ironical but this here is an undeniably undistinguished combination of GASLIGHT (1939 & 1944) via LES DIABOLIQUES (1954); while still watchable in itself, it's so cliché-ridden as to provoke chuckles instead of the intended chills. However, thanks to the dire straits in which the British film industry found itself in the late 1970s, even a mediocre script such as this one was able to attract 10 star names - Cliff Robertson (as the conniving husband), Jean Simmons (in the title role), Jenny Agutter (as Robertson's artist half-sister), Simon Ward (as the enigmatic chauffeur), Ron Moody (as an ill-fated doctor), Michael Jayston (as Robertson's business partner), Judy Geeson (as Simmons' best friend and Jayston's wife), Flora Robson (as the housekeeper), David Tomlinson (as the notary reading Simmons' will) and, most surprisingly perhaps, Jack Warner (as a gravestone sculptor) - although most of them actually have nothing parts, I'm sorry to say!
|
negative
|
Another direct to video movie from Disney, that is essentially perfect for the kids. The problem with Kronk's New Groove I find is that everything that made the first movie a fun great ride is replaced with a more sad and sombre film. In this movie, Kronk learns a great deal of lessons at many others' expenses. It takes away much time that could be spent at creating a more enjoyable film.<br /><br />Kronk's New Groove deals with two stories: Yzma returns for payback and one Ms. Birdwell hopes to defeat Kronk's camp counseling championship. This all leads up to Kronk confronting his father and his disapproval over his son's direction in life.<br /><br />From Lord of the Rings to Michael Jackson's Thriller, Kronk's New Groove recycles every bit of time that it allows to entertain its viewers. If you loved the original, or are looking forward to the upcoming TV series about Kuzco, I recommend Kronk to his loyal fans.
|
negative
|
What can I say? The little kid inside has always had great affections for the following...giant robots, giant monsters and a cackling, megalomaniacal lead villain and this movie delivers on all counts. As an adult, it's easy to point out the many flaws in this film and to say hey it's really only a bunch of episodes taken from a children's TV series strung together. Despite all of this, I find the ending very moving and the content surprisingly adult in nature. Tremendous Fun if a little nonsensical at times.
|
positive
|
This was an excellent 2-part episode, although I had never been seen the older ones, I never thought the doctor would go up against anything that is paranormal, extra terrestial of course but not paranormal.<br /><br />This episode brings the things that we most fear and how would we humans, in a futuristic time, would fight and defeat real live evil when most odds say that would be impossible.<br /><br />Being that it's a family film I am surprised that they brought some stuff in like fear and faith, especially if its also going to entertain American audiences. But who care about what Yanks say, we rock! Doctor Who has shown potential ever since from episode one from the new series in 2005, first being so harmless to scary, from fun to serious, from light to darkness. I hope many old fans will one day soon say "The old Doctor Who has returned".<br /><br />10 out of 10
|
positive
|
I thought this movie was going to be good. It absolutely wasn't, despite the Oscar-winning lead actors. I may have laughed once, and I never heard anybody else in the theater laughing. Renee Zellweger's pancake make-up was very unbecoming. Everybody seems to be trying so hard in this movie, running around in imitation of slapstick but not pulling it off. I think perhaps the movie must've sounded good in development, but something got lost in translation. Were the roaring 20's really like this? I think not. Everything seems a tad artificial. Randy Newman's score was annoying. The film is in sepia tones, just like every other movie that takes place in the 20's or 30's. There's just not that much originality here.
|
negative
|
This is a pretty good thriller at a nuclear power plant in southern California that was directed by James Bridges and stars Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas. Fonda plays a TV reporter who wants to be an investigative journalist but is only allowed to be a TV reporter. Douglas is an independent cameraman and Lemmon is a supervisor at a nuclear plant. Fonda and Douglas are sent on a routine assignment at a nuclear power plant and an accident almost happens and they get it all on film. Everyone tries to cover it up except Fonda and Douglas, so Douglas steals the film. Lemmon starts to investigate and finds out the company cares more about profit then safety at the plant. It's a good movie with a pretty good ending.
|
positive
|
In the film, Lumumba, we see the faces behind the monumental shift in the Congo's history after it is reclaimed from the Belgians, and we see the motives behind those men into whose hands the raped and starving country fell. <br /><br />Lumumba is not a movie for the hyper masses; it demands the attention of its viewers with raw, truthful acting and intricate, packed dialogue. Little of the main plot is shown through action, it relies almost solely on words, but there is a recurring strand that is only action, and it is the stroke of genius that makes the film an enlightening and powerful panorama of the tense political struggle that the Congo's independence gave birth to. <br /><br />This film is real. It is raw inits depiction of those in power, and those on the streets. It is eye-opening in its content. And it is moving in the passions and emotions of its superbly portrayed characters. <br /><br />Whether you are a history fan, a film buff, or simply like good stories, Lumumba is a must-see.
|
positive
|
I saw this when it premiered and just re-watched it on IFC again. This is a great telling of the many possible stories about the immigrant farmworker population that came to Hawai'i to work the sugar plantations in the early 1900's. My grandparents were part of that migration; my parents were born on a Kohala plantation (Big Island) at the time setting of the movie. I moved to the Big Island over a year ago after living in California for over 30 years. I was surprised to see that many of the former cane growing lands are still undeveloped, with wild cane still growing, years after the plantations closed. I've heard many stories from my aunts and uncles who were kids growing up on the plantation. This movie helps to image those kinds of stories and memories. This story is more of an historical document than a romantic plot-driven movie. It leaves me shaking my head to read a review like ccthemovieman's. Some people just don't get it.<br /><br />I didn't recall that Youki Kudoh had the starring role, with which she did an incredible job. I recall her great performances in Jim Jarmusch's "Mystery Train" and in an Australian film, co- starring with Russell Crowe, "Heaven's Burning". Tamlyn Tomita did a great job with her pidgin English, especially for someone who didn't grow up in the Islands. I had forgotten that Toshiro Mifune had a cameo role as the moving picture show narrator. And I missed the fact that Jason Scott Lee had an uncredited, non-speaking part as one of the plantation workers during the payday scene. <br /><br />I was saddened to find out that the director and co-writer, Kayo Hatta, died in an accidental drowning in 2005. <br /><br />There are two other excellent foreign films that mirror this cane plantation experience: "Gaijin" about the immigrant cane workers in Brazil (many of them Japanese) in the same time period; and "Sugar Cane Alley" about the cane plantation experience in Africa. The latter is still available, but "Gaijin", sadly, doesn't appear to have been shown in quite a while. Another great film about the early Asian in America experience when immigrants were more like slaves is "A Thousand Pieces of Gold". This was set over the Chinese workers' involvement in the building of the railroad, starred Rosalind Chao, Chris Cooper, Michael Paul Chan, and Dennis Dun.
|
positive
|
Overall, this is entertaining and odd film. Don't try to make sense of it. There are more holes in the story than a computer could keep up with, but Robert Cummings and a cast of minor characters are mostly fun to watch in this "Fugitive"-like story.<br /><br />Unlike the popular TV show and then 1993 movie, this fugitive isn't looking for a one-armed man, but a two-armed Nazi saboteur by the the name of "Frank Fry." Cummings ("Barry Kane") gets blamed when a defense plant blows up in Los Angeles and goes on the lam looking for the man who did it (Fry) to clear his name.<br /><br />The first 40 minutes or so are very tense and interesting. Then Priscilla Lane ("Pat Martin") enters the story, and it starts to bog down a bit with some sappy dialog. Director Alfred Hitchcock often did that with his female characters, to the point I wonder if he had a clue how woman talked. Lane's character here was a little lame.<br /><br />Actually, the villains played by Otto Kruger ("Charles Tobin") and Norman Lloyd ("Frank Fry") were the best, in my opinion......just fascinating. Kruger's acting and dialog was especially good.<br /><br />If you haven't seen this film but saw Hitchcock's well-known "North By Northwest," you'll chuckle at the ending and really enjoy it. Instead of a climactic scene at Mount Rushmore, here we have a memorable last 10 minutes at the State Of Liberty. As usual, Hitchcock camera angles are great and fun to view.
|
positive
|
This is one of the most boring films I've ever seen. The three main cast members just didn't seem to click well. Giovanni Ribisi's character was quite annoying. For some reason, he seems to like repeating what he says. If he was the "Rain Man", it would've been fine, but he's not.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
|
negative
|
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.