review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I've seen all 3 now. I just can't believe how bad Naqoyqatsi is. Not in comparison to the others, but simply on it's own merit, or lack of. <br /><br />I can't understand how the average rating for this movie is over 6 out of 10. I gave the first 2 movies 8 out of 10. They were thought provoking and beautifully done. I gave this movie a rating of 1. If a 0 or negative number was available, I would have given it that rating instead. What a total waste of time it was watching this movie. I thought after the first 30 minutes that I should turn it off, but then I figured that it was just a (very) slow starting movie. I thought the same thing after 45 minutes, then 1 hour, etc. Then I realized that it wasn't going to get any better.<br /><br />It's very tedious to watch and without any redeeming qualities. Don't take my word for it, watch it yourself. Be sure to see the first two movies before this one. If you see this one first, I can just about guarantee that you'll never want to see the first two, but they are definitely much, much better than this "piece of work".<br /><br />The best part of the movie is when the credits role at the end. That's when your penance on this earth is complete and you can foregoe 89 minutes in purgatory, for the suffering that you've endured watching this "film". If God is truely merciful, he'll be more generous.
|
negative
|
A very gritty, gutsy portrayal of a part of world war 2 history, that most of us in the U.S. had/have no idea ever occurred. I would love to have this on video. It only was shown on t.v. one time as far as I know, back in 89or 90. I have asked around for this movie, and most video stores don't even know about it. Great actresses all around, Wish that I could see it again. Top notch series.
|
positive
|
I was not expecting much from this movie. I was given a ticket for an advanced screening. I had just gotten off of work. It was hot and I was tired. I had to wait in the movie line for 40 minutes and there seemed not to be any cool air flowing through the hallways of the theater complex.<br /><br />Once seated in the theater, tired and frustrated, the movie started, I did not recognize any of the actors in the beginning, but the flow of the movie was perfect. Right from the beginning I became consumed with the movie, getting more and more excited with each minute passing. I think this movie is destined to be a fantasy/fairytale classic. The actors were fabulous, the pace was perfect, and the ending was magical.
|
positive
|
BONJOUR, MONSIEUR SHLOMI is simply a wonderful film! Writer/Director Shemi Zarhin has created a story unlike any other and cast it with such consistently fine actors that it remains a puzzle to me that this film has not become an audience favorite throughout the world. It is intelligent, emotional, edifying, and warm, entertaining, and in all categories it is a winner.Shlomi (Oshri Cohen, in a brilliantly understated performance) is a 16-year-old lad who takes care of his highly dysfunctional family: his mother (Esti Zakheim) is about as distasteful a shrew as ever concocted and in a constant state of ill temper because of her husband cheated on her, and because she is stuck working double shifts to support her ailing father-in-law (Ariek Elias, who as Shlomi's grandfather is a bright, funny, wise, loving old man who deeply cares for Shlomi); a married sister Ziva (Rotem Abuhab)who periodically moves back in to the house because of constant spats with her husband who doesn't help her care for their infant twin sons; his brother Sasi (Assi Cohen) whose life is loud electric guitars, braggadocio about female conquests, and the favorite son of his mother. Stir this mixture and the result is the penultimate dysfunctional family unit. Shlomi cooks gourmet meals for them, shops, cleans house, runs errands, bathes and cares for this grandfather and in general leads a life of submission to a family that views him as a 'retard'.Shlomi longs for a girlfriend and practically fails his school because of his lack of time devoted to caring for his family and a lack of concentration. Serendipitously his math teacher Begin (Nisso Keavia) notes his natural mathematic genius on a discarded test, and with the aid of the headmaster (Yigal Nair) the two encourage him to be tested and discover that he is a genius (?with dyslexia?) and arrange for him to try for a special school in Haifa. Shlomi's mother will hear none of it but between fights with Shlomi's absentee father (Albert Iluz) and confrontations with the teacher and headmaster they finally consent to his testing for the school.Meanwhile Shlomi discovers a girl his age Rona (Aya Koren) who has moved in next door and gradually the two become intertwined in a physical and intellectual relationship. Always in the background is the support of Shlomi's grandfather, and when the grandfather dies, Shlomi sets off on the journey to live his life for himself, to realize his gifts, to find his happiness. The manner in which the family comes to grips with this is the peak of the movie and need not be revealed for the sake of loosing the power of the message.The film is beautifully photographed, the musical score is creatively lovely, and the final result is one of exaltation of the human spirit. Highly recommended on every level. In Hebrew with English subtitles.
|
positive
|
If you need a clue as to whether Playmaker is decent or not, look to its star, Colin Firth, who refers to it in an interview as "absolute rubbish -- I sincerely hope no one ever sees it."<br /><br />The script and plot are ludicrous, the female lead is unconvincing. The only thing worthwhile is Colin Firth, and he seems slightly embarrassed throughout.<br /><br />For diehard Firth fans only -- the shower scene alone is worth the $3.99 you might have to shell out, should you find it in a video cutout bin like I did.<br /><br />I'm happy for Mr. Firth that his days of taking projects like this one are over!
|
negative
|
Putting the UFO "thing" aside. This was the best documentary I've seen. Factual reporting by Neil and Buzz... a must see. The interviews and reporting are a revelation since most of the information was stamped confidential in 1969 and only released in 2006. No documentary to date has the detail or accuracy for such a brief 47 minutes... The FACTS will blow you away, and you will be left in awe of the risks taken to be the first on the moon... Neil and Buzz are probably the biggest hero's of our time. Ever see a man save his own life? Bet not. Neil saves his life when only mili-seconds separated him from death. Amazing to watch. It is a travesty people have not known all the details assosiated with landing on the moon and the courage those men had when facing certain death, from a failing computer... 10 stars!
|
positive
|
OK maybe a 13 year old like me was a little to old for this movie. Its about this pampered rat, who lives in a palace. Then a sewer rat flushes him down a toilet! He ends up in this rat city and meets this girl rat who has a gem a greedy frog wants. He will do anything for this gem he sends a whole army after these two rats.He plans to take the gem and to flood rat city! THe cool part about this movie is the slugs. They do all the sound effects. They sing, make noises, its awesome, its also pretty funny. OK bottom line, it is aimed at 7 year olds. Other wise, a great movie to take a younger family member to see. I didn't think the animation was real dreamworks art though, more like WAllace and Gromit. i thinkthey slacked a little on that. The movie was just decent, not worth spending $9.50 for though, sorry.
|
negative
|
Let me get this straight:<br /><br />"Hotshot plastic surgeon loses a patient on the operating table while removing a cyst from her face and ends up falling in love with recently separated bed and breakfast hostess within about 24 hours of meeting her due to her solid advice on bedside manner."<br /><br />Wow. Move over "The Notebook", there's a new kid in town.<br /><br />Where to begin. Well, how about the depth of this "relationship"? I think we can safely sum up the foundation of this undying love in the following steps:<br /><br />1. Exchange polite pleasantries over a bite of salad. 2. Drink copious amounts of Jack Daniels; play basketball with old food 3. Provide glib, unsolicited advice to each other on your crappy lives. 4. Make love during a hurricane. 5. Devote your lives to each other via airmail.<br /><br />I noticed George C Wolfe has "The Hairball" and "United Kanye West Project" in his dossier. Would "stick to your genre" be too harsh? Enough said. I think most would agree that the best love stories make us cry, or laugh or even hope. But the reason they are able to do that is that, somewhere during the storyline, we really start to care about the characters we're watching on screen. To make us care, there must be time spent developing these characters...their lives, their history, why we're watching them now. Wolfe didn't seem to want to "waste our time" with such trivialities, and instead provided us with all of about 8 minutes of background information on each character before hurling us into an intense one-on-one interaction between two ACTORS we've all come to adore, but two CHARACTERS we could care less about.<br /><br />For one brief tender moment when Richard Gere exclaims that he doesn't expect her to listen to his problems, and she invites him for dinner, the viewer sees a glimmer - a beginning - of something special between these two characters. But instead of being allowed to enjoy the anticipation and playfulness of "what happens next" in the wonderful, unpredictable joy that is courtship, we are instead pushed headlong into a love affair between two people we hardly know.<br /><br />Let's face it. We have all heard cheesy one liners in Romantic films. But the reason we cut some slack to Bogart in "Casablanca" or Nicholson in "Something's Gotta Give" is because our hearts and minds have been lifted to the heavens and dragged through the mud and back again with these characters, and by the time they deliver the line, we're so deeply involved with their plight, we don't even notice the cheese factor. Since Wolfe doesn't allow us to love or even like our protagonists, all we're left with a fromage sandwich and a few snickers in the audience.<br /><br />Wolfe takes the old Hollywood director's phrase "cut to the chase" much too literally here. As each stilted one liner is delivered by our cast, the viewer is left wondering if director Wolfe is subliminally saying to the audience: "c'mon. it's a Richard Gere romance. just buy in."<br /><br />It is as a result of this stunning lack of character - or relationship - development that the film's climax fails miserably to tug at our hearts. When Gere's character dies, I felt like I was watching the news about someone I didn't know passing away. Or watching a ladies' eights rowing race during the beijing olympics. Just. Didn't. Care.<br /><br />Epic. Fail.
|
negative
|
The Lone Ranger was one of my childhood heroes, and I never missed a chance to catch his adventures on Saturday morning re-runs during the mid 1950's. Somehow however, this film got by me until I had a chance to catch it today courtesy of my local library. I was struck by a number of elements during the story, as right from the start, you have a new Lone Ranger theme song before you hear the traditional opening used on the TV show. The adventure uses Tonto (Jay Silverheels) in a nicely expanded role, even though he takes his share of lumps throughout, getting beat up and shot more than once. Perhaps most interesting of all, the Ranger actually shoots to kill in a couple of situations, putting his character at odds with the vision created for the TV series that he would never use his weapon to kill, only to wound or to protect himself and others. <br /><br />Aside from that, you have a fairly traditional Western adventure. The Ranger and Tonto come to the aid of an Indian tribe whose members are being murdered by hooded raiders attempting to track down five medallions that together, form the key to a fabulous treasure. Interestingly, the leader of the bad guys is an already wealthy woman, disarmingly portrayed by Noreen Nash. Her top henchman is played by Douglas Kennedy, and it was no surprise to see Lane Bradford as one of the baddies. Bradford's character was one of the men shot by the Lone Ranger, which got me to thinking how many times that might have happened in the TV series. A quick check revealed that he appeared in 'The Lone Ranger' show fifteen times, while Kennedy appeared a total of six times. <br /><br />What might be most interesting of all about the picture is it's attempt to portray Indians in a revisionist light at a time when TV and movie Westerns were still largely portraying the red man as an illiterate savage. The character of Dr. James Rolfe (Norman Fredric) is the most revealing in that regard; he's an Indian who attained an education and went on to become a doctor, returning to the land of his tribe to tend to the needs of all it's citizens. For purposes of the story, he had to impersonate a white man to be accepted by the local ranchers. This was the hardest thing for me to accept about the story line actually, as Dr. Rolfe was the grandson of the elderly Chief Tomache (John Miljan). That no one in the story except Paviva (Lisa Montell) knew that he was really an Indian was something of a stretch for me. I suppose it was possible that he left the tribe at an early age, but without that back story fleshed out, it didn't make sense to me that no one else from the tribe would know who he was.<br /><br />I don't know why I'm intrigued by this so much, but after watching and reviewing over two hundred Westerns on this site, I've suddenly come across three films in the past month that utilize a blanket pull gimmick like the one performed by Tonto's horse Scout in this picture. Roy Rogers' Trigger did a similar stunt in 1952's "Son of Paleface", and I caught it again in 1958's "The Big Country" by a horse named Old Thunder in that flick. It's done as a bit of comic relief in a situation that wouldn't normally come up for a horse, and it now makes me curious when the bit might have been first done. I'll have to keep watching more old time Westerns. Not to be outdone, Silver had a chance to shine in the picture as well, making the save of an Indian baby that was about to be used as a hostage by bad guy Brady.<br /><br />Speaking of gimmicks, Clayton Moore borrowed a tactic from the TV series when he donned a disguise as a Southern gentleman to smoke out the villains posing as the hooded raiders. Whenever he would do so in the half hour format, it was always clever enough to hide his real features, usually with a beard as done here. One of the more interesting episodes I recall had to do with the Ranger impersonating an actor in the guise of Abraham Lincoln.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for a couple of goofs I spotted along the way. In an early scene at the opening, an Indian is shot by one of the hooded raiders, and in a close up, there's blood on his shirt but no bullet hole. Later on in the story, Ross Brady and Wilson ride up on the Indians after they've kidnapped one of the villains out of jail. Brady shoots him from a standing position to prevent him from identifying the raiders, but is immediately shown about to make his getaway on horseback with Wilson.
|
positive
|
The DVD for "Danaza Macabra" (Castle of Blood) is very odd. That's because parts of the film are in French with subtitles and the rest is dubbed into English from the French. Sometimes, characters switched between the two in the middle of a scene! When I tried to get the film to be JUST subtitled or just dubbed, it made no difference! Odd, but still watchable.<br /><br />The story purports to be based on a Poe story, though I can't recall which one. In fact, the character of Poe appears in the beginning and end of the film--though it didn't look especially like him.<br /><br />A rich man makes a bet with a guy down on his luck that he cannot stay the entire night in a manner home. It seems like an easy bet to win--even if the house is very creepy. However, it can't be that easy, as the rich guy says that all those who previously took the bet died--yet this fool STILL wants to make the wager! While in the home, he meets lovely Barbara Steele within and falls madly for her. Later, however, he learns that she died more than a decade earlier! How can this be?! I could tell you more about the plot but don't want to spoil any of the suspense. See it for yourself to find out the rest of the story.<br /><br />This film gets very high marks for creating a creepy atmosphere. The house, black & white cinematography and music work together to make for a scary looking film. As for the plot, it's interesting--especially because there are many twists and turns--so many that you are wondering just who is and who isn't among the undead by the end of the film.<br /><br />The only negative is that I felt sorry for the poor snake that was needlessly killed. Crazy as it might sound, I felt sorry for it and it hardly seemed necessary.<br /><br />Also, parents may want to know that towards the end there is a bit of nudity. A strikingly beautiful woman appears topless, but it's hardly necessary for the plot.
|
positive
|
this could be one of the worse movies i've ever seen. i don't see how could this ever be described as a horror movie, or even a thriller? its more like a lumbering drama. the scary music is EXCELLENT but since there weren't any scary situations the director thought it would be a good idea to use it for everyday activities like taking a dump or walking down stairs. the movie had so much potential. they had beautiful cinematography (sp?) and interesting characters, but it seemed as if the writers assumed you already knew them. they would undergo peculiar activities without explanation or even a clue at what they meant. this is simply one of those movies that says its about one thing and it something totally different.
|
negative
|
My God, Ryan Gosling has made a lot of deep characters in his career, this is one of his wonderful acting jobs. For me this is a very deep movie, needs a lot of concentration, not because is difficult to watch, just because you understand it if you put your shoes in this kid, even though has everything and has famous father that is a writer, has a deeper mind, you don't understand why he kills this poor kid, until you really heard what he has to say and you start to think, at least to me, that a lot of things that he says is true. Simple kid, sweet, very gentle, in a way normal like any teenage, but inside of him suffer because he start to look at the world in a different way, then you understand why he did what he did. I recommend this movie for those who likes deep drama.
|
positive
|
This was just an awful movie. I've watched it once when I was roughly 12, I am now 19 and I don't think I will ever forget this movie.<br /><br />I still feel sick whenever I think about it, it was just everything horrible that could possibly fit in one movie. I really don't understand what kind of person would enjoy this utter rubbish. It's not enough to simply turn off your mind to enjoy this movie, I can enjoy the dumbest made-for-TV Disney movies as much as the next person, but this is something else completely.<br /><br />Usually I don't like to judge a movie until I have seen it myself, but believe me I am doing you a favour. Do not watch this movie.
|
negative
|
I bought this DVD for $1 at Walmart. After seeing it, I might just return to the store and try to get my money back! The only reason I gave the movie a 2 and not a 1 is that the story has a few novel story elements, though it really never rises to the level of being interesting. This film has all the earmarks of being a made for the drive-in theaters market--ultra-low budget, amateurish acting and a liberal dose of sex (for an early 60s film). In fact, I wonder if perhaps the only reason the film was made was to make a fast buck AND because someone knew some strippers they could use as extras. The film is about a wacko doctor who wants to transplant his girlfriend's severed head onto the body of an unsuspecting donor. Most of the potential donors are skanky strippers or a model--whose only real purpose in the film is to titillate as they remove most of their clothes. However, they keep too much on to make the movie even worth watching for the naughty bits and the film isn't quite awful enough to merit watching by bad film buffs.
|
negative
|
It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!<br /><br />Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.<br /><br />I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.<br /><br />The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question.
|
negative
|
This movie is not a remake of She's all That ( 1999)?<br /><br />Where is the renewal of the american movie? This was probably the worst movie I saw in the last 5 years. This and the last movies of Schwarzenegger.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
when this show first came to Disney, i love it started watching all the time. It quickly became one of my favorite Disney shows ever but this show somehow transformed into something that is disturbing and disappointing.<br /><br />I do now find any of the second and third season fun, they seem like a re-watch of some teens shows. I hat that garbage. The first season was very unique because it showed Sadie who loved science and animals and creatures. The first season was very entertaining. I mostly don't like the second season because of Ben. He annoys me and pisses the crap outta me. The plot in the second season also sucks and is just awful
|
negative
|
Worst movie of all time? Wow, whoa now. You cannot be serious.<br /><br />Maybe it's all about what you expect a movie to do to you. I live in Oregon, so I got to enjoy the beautifully-filmed shots of familiar yet still amazingly beautiful Smith Rocks and other areas in Central Oregon (as well as the sweet cameo of our own Ken Kesey and Ken Babbs looking down on baby Sissy's cradle at the beginning of the movie). Those alone were enough to spur me to give the movie a better than "average" score.<br /><br />Or .... Maybe it's all about what expectations you have. Having read the book AGES ago, and thinking to myself "goodness, no one could ever make a movie out of this interesting, quirky, weird book ... especially 20 years later, when mores (MORAYS -- can't put in the accent mark online) have changed" -- I was actually quite pleasantly surprised when I first watched the movie when it came out in 1994 and even liked it more today watching it again.<br /><br />Sissy was exquisitely cast, and I don't care what you all say, I was also pleasantly surprised at Rain Phoenix's and John Hurt's performances. I am not a lesbian nor bi nor trans, but have met many folks who are similar to the folks they were supposed to portray -- and those "real" folks kinda acted the same way as these actors acted. Stilted a bit, stage-ey -- always a bit "on." Gus Van Sant is one weird native Oregonian but by garsh he done a good job adapting this crazy book, IMHO.
|
positive
|
This film is truly a sorry excuse for film making. The pacing is poor, the budget must have been depressingly low, and the acting is cut-rate (that is, except for Bela Lugosi). The audio at this point in time is also terrible, with so much extra noise in the background that it sounded to me as though a jet were taking off for the entirety of the movie. If these things bother you at all, don't watch this film.<br /><br />If you can get past this, however, you will find that the idea behind the film is a very good one. A German plastic surgeon (Bela Lugosi) was hired by the Japanese to operate on several Japanese agents and turn them into the likenesses of upstanding American businessmen whom the Japanese have kidnapped and killed. After completing his work, he was betrayed by the Japanese and thrown into prison. He later escapes and travels to America to seek revenge on his patients through a series of highly-publicized murders.<br /><br />It seemed as though Bela Lugosi was the only decent actor in the film, and, to be honest, the rest of the actors were completely forgettable and stodgy. The leading actress ended up being rather boring and stereotypical, while the police officer assigned to her case was the common, chauvinistic and always correct dominant male that is found in many films of this time period. <br /><br />I also found that the camera work was completely uninspired, often taking the exact same angles of the exact same rooms time and time again. After a while, this tends to drag the film down, setting a very slow pace for the "action," which is more or less non-existent anyway.<br /><br />To me, the idea is a fascinating one, and with a better writer, director, script, equipment, and actors it could become an excellent film. Sadly, these handicaps keep the film back for now, and I can't recommend it to anyone but the most open of movie lovers.
|
negative
|
Human pot roast Joe Don Baker (MITCHELL) stars in this dull, unremarkable `action' movie as Deputy Geronimo, a fat, gassy slob who sits around in a stupid looking cowboy suit, listening to country music and eating too many donuts. Meanwhile, a vaguely criminal guy named Palermo (played by the guy who owned the drill in Fulci's GATES OF HELL) stumbles into Joe Don's territory and shoots the sheriff in a poorly edited scene. Joe Don- slowly- gives chase and offs Palermo's brother after uttering his now legendary catch phrase `It's your move. Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on'. For some reason Joe Don, a Texas lawman, must transport Palermo to Italy (`Mr. Palermo's been a major source of embarrassment to the Italian government,' says Mr. Wilson, another vague character played by Bill McKinney, who was in MASTER NINJA 1, SHE FREAK, and a lot of good Clint Eastwood movies). <br /><br />Anyhoo, Joe Don's plane must land on the island of Malta, where Palermo escapes with the help of a briefcase and a guy who looks like Jon Lovitz. And that's where the movie grinds to a halt. For the rest of the movie, Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don keeps looking for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. This is one aggravating movie.<br /><br />At one point Joe Don is thought to be dead at sea. All the other characters wonder if he's dead or not, finally concluding that he is. But then he shows up (he was rescued by a poor family) and no one mentions the fact that he was missing at sea for several days. Even his cute, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss-esque sidekick doesn't welcome him back. She does, however, offer to help him find Palermo, so Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more.<br /><br />Highpoints include, a bizarre carnival with strange colorful floats, some sexy strippers, a shoot out involving a kid dressed like Napoleon AND a cart of tomatoes, a chase scene involving a guy dressed like a monk, and any scene without Joe Don. Lowpoints include Joe Don threatening a stripper with a coat hanger.<br /><br />It should be noted that this is from Greydon Clark, director of ANGEL'S REVENGE, who appears as the sheriff. Ick!<br /><br />
|
negative
|
I would recommend this as the most successful attempt so far to make a movie on Soviet Afghan war. And it is very honest and responsible picture starting from small details of uniforms and weapons up to human relations, war routine and Central Asian landscapes. It's been shot in Tajikistan just after the the troop withdrawal which happened in 1989 not in 1985. The Italian star Mr. Placido was just perfect in the role of Major Bandura. Other characters looked also very natural especially always drunk club managing officer:-).The scenario seems a bit jammed in the end but it might be an impact of the Civil war in Tajikistan which had started right during the shooting of the film. All movie team had to escape sometimes even under fire. The last scene is purely "harakiri" type of behavior and reminded me the final phrase from one famous samurai movie - "We've won all battles but lost the war". It could be also a metaphor of USSR collapse - the great country allowing to shoot itself to the back by the small offended child.
|
positive
|
I'm a huge fan of Ivan Reitman-I loved Evolution and who didn't like Ghostbusters? From the trailer you already know that Uma's character will get dumped by Luke's.So the build-up is obviously towards the moment when she unleashes her superpowers on him.But the pay-off is just not there.The shark tossing did manage to get a (slight) giggle but once again, it was all in the trailer.<br /><br />No one does breathless quite like Uma and Luke is diet Owen on his good days.If not for Riann Wilson you would sit there with a constipated smile until your cheeks start to cramp.This is a comedy,right? <br /><br />It's not awful-it just sits there like a stale cracker behind the fridge.This could have been such a brilliant send-up of Superhero movies and Feminism but fails on both counts.Let's see if Jason Reitman can salvage the family name.
|
negative
|
As a kid, I loved computer animation although it was EXTREMELY limited and the tools were almost nonexistent. This movie, as I sat in awe and watched the amazing images and almost-hypnotic music, shaped the desire in me to create moving things in the computer. This is a whole-package deal, between the music and the video, that really packs a one-two punch. If you know any child that wants to get involved in computer animation, this is a MUST HAVE. <br /><br />I still, almost 20 years later, rate this movie as one of my top 3 favorites. The originality, I think, is still unsurpassed by most of today's McMovies that Hollywood spits out. I am currently wanting to see if I can re-make it on my own; if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then this movie deserves a TON of imitation =)
|
positive
|
While Watching this movie you notice right away the cheesy elements of a standard TV movie... though through out the picture the plot changes (if you are bold enough to say this movie has a plot) are by the book and unoriginal... and with every one the movie KEPT GETTING WORSE!<br /><br />Candace Cameron Bure, famous for her role as DJ Tanner on the hit TV show Full House, is not very convincing as a Possessed twenty something.. trying to avenge the Possesers Death. I believe she is fine actress.... just not in the thriller range.<br /><br />The Filming was trashy, and like I said the plot stale... though watching it I knew I was in for automatic cheese, I had NO idea how much worse this film could get...<br /><br />I highly do not recommend this movie... unless cheep Filmaking and poor writing is what you looking for
|
negative
|
THE MERCHANT OF FOUR SEASONS was Rainer Werner Fassbinder's first shot at mainstream acceptance. In a turbulent career of just fifteen years, he managed to create an astounding body of work in film and theater, both as a performer and a creative producer, actor, and director. Although this movie might not appeal to many viewers, the film has much to offer. The storyline is fairly straightforward. A man is ostracized from his upper middle class family due to emotional and economic problems, and proves unable to control his downward spiral. THE MERCHANT OF FOUR SEASONS is shot with a slavish devotion to elegant detail, and each set is very carefully designed and constructed. Every object on set seems painstakingly arranged so as to provoke layers of emotional texture. Many religious paintings and icons decorate the walls of the various rooms and seem to speak to Hans's desperate quest for spiritual meaning or direction in his life. Much thought was given to how lighting and color were employed to contrast and enhance the drama. Several times during the film, I froze the frame to marvel at the beauty of the shot's composition. I streamed this film, and the print was nearly flawless and second to none. Fassbinder employs his actors in an almost vehement "Anti-Natural' style. He does everything possible to prevent the actors from reacting in a normal or colloquial manner, and this creates a rather stilted effect. However, by doing so, he injects an almost 'hyper-reality' to the narrative. Rather than the presentation of a mundane melodrama, the actors almost militant lack of affectation forces the viewer to confront the film in a different manner. Fassbinder's film intentionally prevents the viewer from easily connecting with the characters' trials and tribulations. You are constantly on the outside, looking in. This will be a disconcerting experience for many, but I found it to be a unique and satisfying artistic adventure.
|
positive
|
I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like "Switch". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto" ("Man & Woman Up to a Point")
|
negative
|
Garden State must rate amongst the most contrived and pretentious films of all time. The plot is a simple one, involving a young man returning home after his mother's death and discovering love. But really, the plot isn't important. What is important to Zach Braff - writer, director, and star is that he is able to hang from the plot all the necessary accoutrements of an 'indie' or 'arty' film. We therefore are presented with endless cute and quirky characters and scenes that don't exist for reasons of plot or character development, but simply to give some artistic credibility to the film (à la Wes Anderson - or so Braff hopes). Unfortunately and somewhat astonishingly, Braff has not only fooled many on IMDb, but also some critics who really ought to have known better.<br /><br />Of course, Braff's gratuitous use of the quirky alone does not make Garden State a bad film. What really makes Garden State a stinker is Braff's script. He simply does not have the writing skills to carry this film off, and the dialogue and characterisation are abysmal. Braff often has to resort to blunt devises and symbolism to achieve what he can't achieve through the writing. For example, the numbness of the Braff character is shown to us by his indifference to an impending plane crash (this can't be worked into the plot, and so has to take place in a dream!), later he is shown fighting back against his circumstances by screaming into a bottomless abyss (life = a bottomless abyss, very clever Mr Braff). Those two scenes must rank amongst the most ludicrous and contrived ever seen on a cinema screen.<br /><br />On the plus side, the acting is passable despite the lack of material for the cast to work with (by which I mean a script), and I do admire Natalie Portman for her efforts as the love interest - a character so badly written and implausible that she is little more than a mindless doll that Braff moulds into his fantasy woman.<br /><br />It apparently took Braff 3 years to write the script for Garden State (3 years to write a script this bad - he really is inept!). Hopefully therefore it will be some time before he makes another film.
|
negative
|
this is a great movie for all Corey Feldman fans. This movie has a great cast of young actors. a group of teens decide to rob a bank to get some quick cash, but all goes wrong when a security gaurd gets shot and they take hostages
|
positive
|
Leslie Nielsen is usually someone whose movies I really like (even critically panned flicks like "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" and "Wrongfully Accused"). So the fact that I'm slamming "Mr. Magoo" should show that it's a piece of junk. It casts Nielsen as the myopic title character, something gets planted on him, and he makes a mess of everything. It seems like the combo of Nielsen and director Stanley Tong (behind two of Jackie Chan's movies) would make this one hilarious movie, but it doesn't; it seems like they just have people to do anything, and there's no real humor here.<br /><br />So, the original cartoon with Jim Backus providing the voice was worth seeing, so avoid this movie. Leslie Nielsen has also done much better, so there's no reason to waste your time on this. Also starring Kelly Lynch, Stephen Tobolowsky, Ernie Hudson, Malcolm McDowell and Miguel Ferrer; they probably don't wish to emphasize this hunk of junk in their careers.
|
negative
|
Did Beavis and Butthead make this movie? It is just that bad. Truly an uneven and unfair portrayal of "bad" vs. "good" in the wine world. Did you notice the filmmaker trying any of the wines from the featured protectors of individual wines and terroir. The camera work is dizzying at best while the content may put you to sleep before long. This is not insightful journalism. What I got from this movie was that the filmmaker was trying hard to make a point about the globalism of wine by showing, for example, that the Mondavi family owned wineries in all parts of the world. Okay, that is a good start. So, how do these wines compare? Does the Mondavi Napa cab taste like their Italian wines. We never find out because no one in the film comments on this. Instead, there is a lot of innuendo about Nazi's and fascism. Well, those things don't grow grapes. Hmmmm.
|
negative
|
This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.
|
negative
|
Perhaps one of the best movies ever made. Orry and Goerge's friendship runs deep, and the War puts a strain on their strong friendship. As a Southerner, I can honestly say this epic is as accurate as it gets. Brothers fighting brothers. Can you imagine what life must have been living during those times? The best part of the movie, for me, was when The South surrenders; General Grant is urging President Lincoln to really stick it to the South, he says, "Mr. President, a lot of folks want The South to bleed over what they've done..." President Lincoln, turns to him and in a very tired voice says, "The South has bled enough...and so have we..." I burst into tears, and take a deep breath. What a President! It's like a father saying his son has been punished enough, and despite his anger he realizes his point has been made. This War was a very dark time for our young country, and it had to be fought. President Lincoln knew this. I'm urging everyone who reads this to watch this movie, and add it to your DVD collection. Then, thank God that our country was preserved. As Jesus said, a "House divided against itself cannot stand."
|
positive
|
This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.
|
negative
|
Based on the novel by Michael Chabon, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is about the young son of a notorious gangster who spends his last teenage summer roaming around with two friends. The year is 1983, and young Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) is at a crossroads. Completely opposed to his father's lifestyle, Art plans to become a stockbroker. Visually contrived with painful attempts to create beautiful hip indie cinematography, the whole film feels like the director - whose previous effort Dodgeball was funny if outright commercial - is desperately seeking indie credibility by cobbling together aspects of other indie films but sprinkling it with stars like Mena Suvari, Sienna Miller and Nick Nolte. Like so many of the star-laden premieres at Sundance this year it felt like this was a secrety studio-sponsored vanity project to help the director earn some indie credibility points - it failed in that respect and as a film in its own right.
|
negative
|
Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.<br /><br />If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.<br /><br />But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".<br /><br />These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.<br /><br />And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.<br /><br />For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered.
|
negative
|
Now, I like the Bollywood films and I'm very glad they have recently gained success in the UK. However, Suneel Darshan's latest effort is a deeply flawed film from start to finish.<br /><br />The idea of a modern-Bollywood take on Amadeus was quite an exciting one, that is until the two supposed 'musicians' appear on the scene looking as if they have never touched a piece of manuscript in their lives. Upen Patel is a very good looking man, and the film plays to his narcissistic sensibilities, but he is never once believable as a modern Mozart. In terms of acting, all he can do is stand there and pout. His expressions, hair and clothes all look the same throughout, including the scene where he is supposedly 'dying', when in fact he appears to have nothing but a slight sniffle. Bobby Deol, playing the Salieri role, does his best to liven up what little wooden script there is but, alas, just comes across as a little bit angry when he is supposed to be fuming with jealousy.<br /><br />Bollywood films are widely renowned for their stunning set-pieces and colour schemes, but Shaklaka looks like a drab BBC drama reproduction. In fact, the closest thing Shakalaka comes to is Hollyoaks, as it blatantly hides a really bad script behind beautiful people looking, well, beautiful. "He has yet to reach mediocrity" - the same could be said for the totally forgetful songs.<br /><br />In short, Darshan's latest offering has no boom, bang, wallop or twang. Instead it merely plods along with its head held low hoping to catch your attention with a soft tap on the shoulder. And that is not good enough at all.
|
negative
|
/*may contain SPOILERS, but of course it does not matter :) */<br /><br />Battleship Potemkin is one stunning spectacle of haunting images. The visual direction is (well, and has been) inspiring, the sheer scale of the film is impressive, and the technique is certainly pioneering. What is really amazing is, to my mind, the depth and effectiveness of a film, devoid of proper literary script, sound (save the soundtrack), decent image quality, the faux-profound (self-)referentialism of today, exceptional acting, pretense, etc. What you get is a purely visual experience to be remembered.<br /><br />BTW, the previous poster noted: "Eisenstien felt after a lot of suffering to give the heroes what they wanted. The problem is that you think Eisenstein is building up to a big final fight and then he tricks you. It's a little cheap. I would've rather seen a huge final action scene."<br /><br />I must warn you, that the end is not cheap, and Eisenstein wasn't being generous to the heroes. History, however, was. Potemkin really did go through the squadron as it was shown in the film.<br /><br />Finally, I'd strongly recommend seeing Battleship Potemkin to anyone more or less seriously interested in cinema. See it with a fellow movie buff, it kept me talking for hours. However, if you tend to consider films, generally accepted as "great" or "classic", to be "slow" or "boring", this film might not be for you yet. Not much cheap entertainment here.<br /><br />For me though, it is a full 10/10.
|
positive
|
The discussion has been held a thousand times. Is the "Merchant of Venice" antisemitic? (I think it is.) Isn't it unfair to always point out this little bit of antisemitism in an otherwise great piece of art? (I think it isn't.) Does this play stain Shakespeare's reputation as the world's greatest playwright? (I think it does.) Does it play a role if he didn't do it on a particular racist purpose? (I think it doesn't.) Michael Radford knew all this and this is why he added to his movie a prologue about the pitiful situation of the Jews in Renaissance Venice.<br /><br />In vain; for the play remains what it has always been and the new make-up only gives a first (but futile) hope that someone has dared to set something right that remains a permanent outrage, not because its degree of antisemitism would be particularly shocking but because the play comes under the name of William Shakespeare.<br /><br />Why spend so much time in portraying the hatred of a man -- Shylock? Why employ a great and serious actor like Al Pacino, if in the end everything is getting ruined in this outrageous (but hey, I'm-not-responsible-Shakespeare-wrote-it) court room scene. And now I'd like to be very precise, just like Shylock himself.<br /><br />He's demanding his right, according to the contract which the -- not very responsible -- Christian Antonio, who always used to look down on him, signed in full awareness of the consequences. Sure, what Shylock demands is cruel and useless, but that's not the point. What we see (or should see) is a man who has been humiliated for all his life, to the point where all what remains on him is his hatred. I think, it is certainly a bit inappropriate to lecture such a man on things like compassion.<br /><br />But what the play/the movie (they are one and the same now) does at this point is... become a soap opera! The cruel madman with his knife, the horrified (but rather short-minded) audience, the poor "victim" tied to his chair. True, Antonio accepts his fate but why can't he just say one word, "sorry"? I think we need not lose many words on the ridiculous verdict of the young Dottore from Padua; it's a truly "popular verdict" not much different from what would be seen 400 years later in the show trials of the Nazis. From one minute to the next this Jew is robbed of everything he owned, sentenced to being baptized Christian, and kicked out.<br /><br />Isn't that outrageous??? Obviously not. The story moves on to the romantic intricacies of the rings and its happy end.<br /><br />What one can learn in Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin and similar places all over the world is that antisemitism often goes unnoticed by the mass because what's so devastating for a minority or some individuals is embedded in the alleged greater good for the majority. It should be exactly the task of everyone of us to develop a sensitivity to detect and unmask such tendencies.<br /><br />I don't accept the excuse that this film was made to create empathy with the badly treated Shylock (it just doesn't work out). I don't think that anybody can be forced to be merciful.<br /><br />I don't recommend this movie; in particular not for an Oscar.
|
negative
|
The world is facing imminent destruction and a suicide mission is sent to the Sun to avert catastrophe by firing a bomb into its fiery heart: yes, it's Solar Crisis, aka Crisis 2050, which burned up a huge chunk of change that's never apparent on screen back in 1990 and returned barely enough to buy a Happy Meal for each of the cast in Japan before going straight to video (remember them?) in a re-edited version credited to one Alan Smithee. The plot hook's pretty much the same as Sunshine - suicide mission to the Sun, saboteur on board, logic cast adrift - except that this time they're not trying to reignite the sun but to prematurely detonate a solar flare before it can reach Earth. With a talking bomb. Voiced by Paul Williams. Who wants to be promoted so the crew will take him more seriously
Given that the cast also includes Jack Palance at his most dementedly OTT, Charlton Heston at his most rigid, top-liner Tim Matheson at his most anonymous, the original Hills Have Eyes' unforgettable Michael Berryman (you may not remember the name, but you DO remember that face) and Peter Boyle as the industrialist out to sabotage the mission because, er, if it succeeds the world will be saved but his share price will go down, you'd expect if not a laugh-a-minute at least a laugh every reel. No joy. This is the worst kind of bad movie: a boring one. The fate of the world may be hanging in the balance but the whole film is shot with a complete lack of urgency or momentum at the same unvarying deadly slow pace. There's low-key and there's walking through it, but here the cast don't even do that. Instead, they just stand still looking at screens in near darkness for most of the time. You keep on hoping for Paul Williams' talking bomb to suffer an existential crisis, but instead the film just... stands there, doing next to nothing. Literally. This is one of the most inert movies ever made so inert that if Clive Owen had been cast, he'd almost have looked lively by comparison. Even a poorly explained suicidal repair attempt fails to raise a fritter of interest since it mostly involves, yep, the cast just standing still looking at screens in near darkness. Even when the bomb prematurely goes into countdown before being launched they deal with the new crisis by
standing still looking at screens in near darkness as if they had all the time in the world. Merchant-Ivory films have better action scenes.<br /><br />Things aren't much livelier down on Earth where the movie spends most of it's running time with Matheson's son/Chuck's grandson Corin Nemec trying to hitch a ride to the spaceport across an arid landscape with Palance's insane desert artist "looking for that note out there while the chicks still dig me" while waylaid by rejects from a Mad Max ripoff and evil corporate suits who track him down so they can
release him on a nice beach. Just don't expect logic, if you haven't already guessed that much. Best moment? A ditzy girl in a bar describing Jack Palance as "An old guy with white hair and a face like rotting leather," though Chucky Baby taking out the villain's aircraft with a bazooka fired from the hip from an office window or beating up a barfly who likes his beret are welcome morsels of camp in a film that for 99% of it's running time offers a whole lot of nuttin'. Richard C. Sarafian's slightly longer original cut that played in Japan offers an additional six minutes but cries out to be cut down to a more manageable 17 minutes: the director of Vanishing Point must have thanked his lucky stars when the re-edit gave him an excuse to take his name off the film. A film so bad it's not good, and painfully unfunny with it
|
negative
|
This movie is about a group of women (perhaps not of the highest repute) who are heading to a small fort to take over a recently departed uncles property where they plan to set up shop. Upon arrival in a nearby city they find no one will go there (even though its only 15 miles away), so they walk. When they get there they find there are no soldiers but a good amount of people who have taken over use of the fort and built up a small city nearby. They soon find that something isn't right here and Fort McMillan (Ft. Doom as the locals call it) is in some serious trouble. <br /><br />Rather than go into the plot line I will make some comments about things I noticed about the movie. First off the acting is very flat, only a few of the people seem to be real enough to believe in. My first though was poor acting, but at the end I watched some of the outtakes and these same people became alive. So my only thought left is this is how the director wanted it. On top of the bad acting I have a great problem where the people don't react right to a given set of circumstances. Take for example no one would take them to Ft McMillan for any price even though its only 15 miles away. Yet when we arrive at the Fort we find it is well maintained by a decent population of people, all of whom must get supplies from some one, not to mention mail etc. It is supposed to take place in 1867, yet we can see the railroad car has electric lights (they aren't on at least) and a locomotive engine that is at least 30 years later, not one of the general style of locomotives so popular at that time. There are also places where you can see paved blacktop, (and maybe a car at one point, didn't want to bother to go back and look) and other anachronistic items. If they had followed the rules of the "world" they made and let the actors be actors it might have gotten a 4 from me instead of the 2 I gave it, and they rewritten it about 4 more times it might have done even better.
|
negative
|
This is the kind of movie England can do in its sleep, and that's meaning it as a compliment. Because of the success of very British comedies of manners situated at the end or beginning of the Twentieth Century, most notably adaptations of E. M. Forster novels, this very Merchant-Ivory like production was received in the light it brought when it was released in 1992. It was an exceptional year for actress Miranda Richardson, having appeared as the wife of Jeremy Irons who discovers her husband has been having an affair in the worst possible way in DAMAGE, and as the IRA terrorist who eventually dons a wig and gets a nasty comeuppance in THE CRYING GAME. Here, she plays a quiet, serene type of woman in Rose Arbuthnot, one who with Josie Lawrence who plays Lottie Wilkins, embarks on a trip that is filled with self-discovery. They are joined by an unlikely pair of ladies: one Caroline Dester, played by the enigmatic Polly Walker who resembles a very vamp Louise Brooks (and not just in the style of hair she wears), and Mrs. Fisher (Joan Plowright). This foursome will eventually merge together into becoming deep friends only because the story is so filled with spring and an overwhelming, dreamy sweetness it almost preordains it, but this is fine; it's the movie it wants to be. Alfred Molina and Jim Broadbent (then relatively new to American audiences) fill out the cast as the husbands of the two main characters, and all in all, Mike Newell makes with his movie a living thing of near-magical elements, full of quiet moments and wonder.
|
positive
|
Anyone who has ever doubted Ingrid Bergman's ability to play comedy need only look to "The Bells of St. Mary's". OK, so she's a nun with TB who's probably in love with Fr. O'Malley, (think what Luis Bunuel could have done with that), but she also displayed a wonderfully sly sense of fun that made you wish directors had cast her in comedies more often. In "Cactus Flower" she's a starched dentist's nurse, (Walter Matthau is the dentist), in love with her boss but keeping it buttoned up. When she's forced to act as his 'wife' in order to hoodwink his mistress, (don't ask), she lets loose and the buttons pop. And she's a joy to behold.<br /><br />The movie itself is a hardier than usual translation to the screen of a Broadway hit, (you can see it's three acts). It's a French Farce, (it was originally; it's taken from the play 'Fleur de Cactas' by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Gredy), and it hits all the right spots. Matthau uses his great hang-jowl expression to wonderful effect and a klutzy blonde newcomer, as she was then, called Goldie Hawn almost steals the film as the dizzy mistress who decides to give up her meal ticket because she feels sorry for 'the wife' even though 'the wife' is having a ball. Hawn made such an impression in the role that what she did steal was the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.
|
positive
|
The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.<br /><br />The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.<br /><br />Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.<br /><br />That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.
|
negative
|
This is the best mob film ever made. It deserved more then what it got at the Oscars. Nominated for things like its score, art direction, supporting role (Newman), this film could have easily been nominated for Best Picture, Director (Mendes), Actor (Hanks), Supporting Actor (Newman and Law) and won!! Hanks gives one of his best performances, and the kid who played Michel Jr. was so good that I'm surprised i don't see him in more movies today. Critics themselves didn't give this film enough credit. But besides the incredible performances, another real star of this film is the incredible music. This was by far the best score of the year. It was nominated but didn't win. This is a great film that should be seen by everyone. My Grade-A+
|
positive
|
Moonwalker by Michael Jackson is a real adventure film for the whole family!<br /><br />Before the real story of the movie starts, we get a performance of the Bad Tour (Man In The Mirror), and it kicks off a great movie. After that we get a kind of a collage of Michael carrier, as it was until Moonwalker came out in 1988. After a few Music Videos also (Speed Demon, Leave Me Alone, etc.) the story starts.<br /><br />The plot is basically that Michael and his 3 friends (who are kids) are being chased by the bad guy of the story "Mr. Big", because they discovered his evil plans of getting children all over the world hocked on drugs. During the chase we see fantastic segments, fx. Michaels video for Smooth Criminal, which is absolutely fantastic with its dance sequences, etc. But then one of the kids get kidnapped by Mr. Big, and Michael will haft to save her before she gets a drug addict.<br /><br />During the movie we see special effects not only amazing for those days standards, but also impressive today. For instance, see Michael turning in to a robot/spaceship in order to protect his friends! It's so cool!<br /><br />The movie ends with a performance of Come Together (later published in Michaels double-album of HIStory), and you leave the movie with a magic feeling. Amazing!<br /><br />I recommend this for every family who wants to spend a nice night together with candy and popcorn in front of the TV. And now some parents might stand up and say: "But Michael Jackson is an alleged child abuser!" Yeah, he is indeed, but, come on, we all know it isn't true! Wait and see..
|
positive
|
Home Room really surprised me. In comparison to other movies that were written regarding Columbine high school this one is the best. Home room does not show the school shooting but rather the aftermath and the effects of the community and the town. The movie focus' on two opposite characters., Alecia(Busy Phillips) and Deanna(Erika Christensen). Alecia is an outcast who witnessed the entire shooting. She seems to show no emotion about it. Deanna is a popular girl and the only surviving victim. Alecia is forced to visit Deanna at the hospital in order to graduate. Meanwhile the police are investigating Alecia as she might have known the shooting was going to happen. Alecia and Deanna are very different and do not get along at first. Eventually they develop a mutual understanding for one another and become friends. (very much in the style of the breakfast club). Home Room Beautifully shows the power of closeness and turmoil after a school shooting. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone.
|
positive
|
This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.
|
negative
|
It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.
|
negative
|
I saw this movie yesterday night and it was one of the best made for TV films I've seen. It was very well directed and the acting was superb, very convincing. The music was good and the cinematography was beautifully shot. Take out the hopelessness out of Requiem for a Dream and you get wasted. An excellent depiction of the world of drug addiction and its consequences given in a very open way in wich anyone can relate to. cudos to mtv for giving us a good flick for a change from !*$*% like Crossroads.
|
positive
|
A documentary filmmaker explores seemingly unrelated paranormal incidents connected by the legend of an ancient demon called the "kagutaba."<br /><br />From the looks of it, the film looks like one of those camcorder movies that have been popular these last few months, even one that's going to be released next week (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY)! However, unlike movies like CLOVERFIELD, REC, and BLAIR WITCH, where most of those movies are in complete chaos and mayhem with all of the shakiness, this one is basically shown in a traditional documentary style. It has TV excerpts and interviews and the scares are very subtle, well, excluding the last 20 minutes where we go into the chaos effect and where the fear factor is raised up tremendously.<br /><br />And it works. The film is very engrossing and it makes you think. Yes, you heard me right: It makes you think. You have to pay attention to those unrelated details given throughout the film and the payoff is great when, in course of the film, these things start to intertwine one another. The film is also very slow moving, which, in this case, is a good thing. We, as the audience, get to absorb the details shown on screen, however subtle or blatant they are.<br /><br />Above all, it's a frightening little film. I'm a person who is scared of ghosts and the paranormal more than killers who slashes away teenage victims so yes, the film gave me some nightmares. There are some images in here that are really disturbing to watch, including one closer in the end where it makes you go "What am I looking at?!" Well, it's better left unanswered. There are around ten reoccurring characters in here, all of which gave authentic performances in their roles.<br /><br />The only thing I don't like about the film is the ending because most questions are left unanswered. The question "That's it?" went though my mind. It left a bad taste in my mouth. However, the rest of the film is just engrossing and really frightening. Don't see this alone in the dark because you'll regret that choice. Also, I can see in a couple of years that Hollywood would remake this film. That will be interesting.
|
positive
|
i, too, loved this series when i was a kid. In 1952 i was 5 and my family always watched this show. My favorite character was the one played by Marion Lorne as a rather stuttering, bumbling and very lovable "aunt" type person. i can still recall her "ubba bubba um um" type comments as she would try and say something important. And then when she came back and played Aunt Clara in Bewitched it was great casting! <br /><br />It was the first time that i can remember seeing Walter Matthau whose career i followed as a fan for many many years.<br /><br />i have a question if anyone can verify: was the title or end credits music the "Swedish Rhapsody" by Hugo Alfven? Every time i hear it played on my classical radio station here in Southern California it brings back memories of the image of Mr. Peepers walking away with his back to the camera. i'm not even certain if this image in my mind's eye is correct.
|
positive
|
Casting aside many of the favorable comments that have obviously come from friends and/or relatives that pepper this and many other low budget independents listed on IMDb, one is lost when it comes to using these reviews as an accurate gauge. So eventually you have to go out and rent the flick just to see for yourself. One of the first things you must understand are the catch phrases that camouflage the reality of the movie. In this case the term "dark psychological thriller." Read: "hack writer/director who thinks he's an auteur, who replaces plot, story, and action, with what he believes is a deep insight into the human soul. His great insight? Festering and repressed childhood traumas emerge to wreck havoc when we become adults. Wow, I bet Freud would be really impressed! Too many would be film makers like Kallio, who were raised on low budget horror flicks of the last few decades, fail to dig their own fresh grave. Instead, they fall into the pre-dug graves of the many other directors that came before them. They are content with rehashing old and tired horror clichés that they borrowed from a dozen or more films. The result is an unoriginal, uninspired, unbelievable waste of film stock.
|
negative
|
This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed "zany beauty".) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude. <br /><br />
|
positive
|
This movie was pretty bad. Sci-fi is usually my favorite channel so I watch all the original movies that play on it. I really don't know if this movie can be called original. Starting a zoo/theme park on a remote island sounds pretty familiar. What was it, oh yeah, Jurassic Park. But this has Sabertooth tigers instead.<br /><br />The movie starts out with a few stereotypical college kids on an island doing some kind of treasure hunt. One of them ends up dieing a rather gruesome death with some of the worst special effects I've seen. The blood looked a lot like ketchup. Also at the beginning there is a scientist who wants to make as many saber tooth tigers as possible for people to enjoy. 3 of them have already escaped and are going around eating the tourists, or the people invited to the island to see the tigers first hand. Again, sound like Jurassic Park. Probably the coolest thing was the 1000lb saber tooth who crawled around on his front legs killing the mad scientist with a tooth statue of sorts that somehow shrinks and goes through the guys neck. Funniest death I've seen on TV.<br /><br />The acting is extremely cheesy, the special effects are horrible. The CG tigers could almost pass for clay models, and even some of the sounds were off. For instance, when one of the college students is trying to escape, he uses an ax to break down a door, the ax goes into the door and about 2 seconds later you hear the sound. This movie was pretty bad. The cheesy deaths were quite funny though.
|
negative
|
$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.<br /><br />Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.<br /><br />Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.<br /><br />The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.<br /><br />In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".
|
negative
|
Ronald Colman plays a famous Broadway actor who has begun to lose his mind and sense of identity. After years of playing a wide range of parts, he can't remember who he exactly is--who are his roles and who is the self. And, much more serious, he begins to see and hear his play even in regular everyday life. So, since he's currently playing in "Othello", he begins to act jealous and suspicious--just like the title character. Ultimately, it leads him to the depths of insanity and murder.<br /><br />I saw this film years ago and liked it. I just saw it again and loved it. Now perhaps some of my enthusiasm is because I have always liked Ronald Colman and this is a great triumph for him--and for which he earned the Best Actor Oscar. And, looking at the competition that year (Gregory Peck for GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, John Garfield for BODY AND SOUL, William Powell for LIFE WITH FATHER and Michael Redgrave for MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA), I think Colman was a very good choice, as he stretched from his usual comfort zone and did a much more demanding role.<br /><br />Now I noticed that one reviewer hated this film because they hated Shakespeare--and this took up about half their review talking about their dislike for him. However, this film isn't really about Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter at all if you dislike Shakespeare. I am no huge fan of Shakespeare, but marveled at the small portions of the play that Colman re-enacted--though, as I said, this is NOT a really movie about Shakespeare. Instead, it's a wonderful portrait of an actor losing his mind and mixing his stage role with reality. It could have been ANY play, though "Othello" was an excellent choice because of the murder scene--which gets acted out for real later in the film.<br /><br />Overall, a very clever film due to a lovely script--with some overtones of Film Noir. Fortunately, the acting was terrific also, as Colman had excellent support from Signe Hasso, Shelly Winters and Edmond O'Brien (who was particularly good--he played his part just right). And, considering the great George Cukor was directing, it's no wonder it's a wonderful film from start to finish.
|
positive
|
I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of "real" science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda. <br /><br />As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the "consciousness" of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term ("consciousness") that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay "Politics and the English Language." To refer to "consciousness" in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as "based in science" in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states "democratic republics" and Hitler when he called his party a "socialist workers" movement.<br /><br />I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love "instant enlightenment," and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).<br /><br />By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several "expert commentators" with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her "Ramtha" voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of "good" and "bad" advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)<br /><br />What a mess.
|
negative
|
Maybe if you've never read any English literature or only ever watched the Hollywood version of any book you might find merit in this awful film. It has the directorial and scripting skill of Shoreditch. The BBC 1995 adaptation is both very enjoyable and close to the book and captures the atmosphere between Elisabeth and Darcy very well.<br /><br />The characters in this production are badly miscast, Sutherland as Bennet seems a total buffoon. Bingley likewise acts the fool and it is imcomrepnsible that he my be a friend of Darcy. I can't imagine how Judi Dench could have accepted the role, maybe she thought it was a surreal comedy version.<br /><br />Quotes from the book are thrown in out of context. Huge chunks are missing, the important episode with Wickham is glossed over.<br /><br />Mr Collins is however very good, and towers above the other members of the cast.<br /><br />The only good thing is we didn't pay to see it. Wait for the DVD and use to keep a table from wobbling.
|
negative
|
Closet Land. The title itself conjures up thoughts of secrets. And that is really what's at the heart of this Amnesty International film. Government secrets, personal secrets, both are integral pieces of this story.<br /><br />By far the greatest acting seen in too long a time, both Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe were phenomenal in their portrayal of a Government Interrogator and Victim respectively. With only the two actors in this unusual standard length film, it is instantly clear that both actors were dedicated and talented enough to pull the viewer into this tiny bubble of a world and shut the door.<br /><br />A WORD OF CAUTION...<br /><br />What isn't mentioned on the description of this movie is that there is a subplot that deals with childhood sexual abuse. While there is no graphic detail about the abuse, the nature of it may be difficult for some viewers to watch - especially given the intensity of the film on whole.<br /><br />I'm not a big fan of Amnesty International films, but this movie drew me in because the acting was so exceptional, and I can't help but make this movie one of my personal favorites.
|
positive
|
Sometimes, you're up late at night flipping through the stations, bored out of your mind, and wanting some light and fluffy romantic comedy that doesn't make you feel bipolar. And this movie fit that exact billing. Sure, the plot was ripped right out of the 1930s....the writing as schmaltzy as the Hallmark Greeting Card company's legendary poetry, and the one- dimensional characters were played by a cast plucked straight from Central Casting - but it was CUTE, and exactly what I needed last night. <br /><br />Lauren Holly and Costas Mandylor have great chemistry together - I liked it on "Picket Fences," and I'm happy to say they still have it over 10 year later. Costas Mandylor, at 41, is still possibly one of the handsomest men to grace the screens since ol' Rudy Valentino kicked the bucket 80 years ago. RRROWRR! Bonus points for casting that funny man who used to be on the roller skates on that show about the cartoon lady. I always thought he was something straight out of a Hepburn-Grant comedy. BRAVO!<br /><br />Some people will probably say this was the corniest piece of cinema ever made, and I would probably have to agree - but come on! It's on the Hallmark Channel. What were you expecting? Just sit back, relax, eat some sesame sticks, and watch a sweet little movie with two cute people and down a bottle of Zinfandel. Trust me, you'll love and accept the schmaltz a whole lot more, and then you can go to sleep dreaming about Costas Mandylor swimming in a sea of tempered chocolate feeding you petit fours with minty fresh chocolate icing. YUMMO! (PS. Now I have a hankering for petit fours. THANKS A LOT, HALLMARK!)<br /><br />I really wish the evil girl had been cast with Rachel Ray, and maybe that dishy food nerd Alton Brown as the announcer instead of the creepy dude with the Van Dyk beard. Shudder! <br /><br />That would have made my night. But hey, check out "Just Desserts."
|
positive
|
i don't believe it sixty percent of voters voted this show as ten now how the hell is the rating a five point eight it impossible i don't get it, its totally pathetic i mean how. anyway the show is great the story is great and the characters are interesting, definitely a ten out of ten from me i think the creatures are cool they look great and i wish i had a nimrod great show great cgi hope there's a second series as a lot went unanswered in the first season and when is nimrod gonna get any bigger as the rest of the creatures are huge, again why is the rating so low when the votes were so high <br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
updated January 1st, 2006<br /><br />Parsifal is one of my two favorite Wagner operas or music dramas, to be more accurate, (Meistersinger is the other.) though it's hard to imagine it as the "top of anyone's pops". The libretto, by the composer as usual, is a muddle of religion, paganism, eroticism, and possibly even homo-eroticism, and its length may make it seem to the audience like hearing paint dry.<br /><br />Wagner, being a famous anti-Semite, (Klingsor may be one of his surrogate Jewish villains.) naturally entrusted the premiere to an unconverted (not for want of RW's trying!) Hermann Levi, who was his favorite conductor! (Go figure!) Kundry, a most mixed-up-gal and another likely Jewish surrogate, is both villainous or benevolent, depending on the scene.<br /><br />Considering that many video versions of Parsifal seem on the stodgy side, this film of the opera is, in comparison, a breath of fresh air. Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, the director, has brought considerable imagination to it but it's hard to know why he made some of his choices. For example: the notorious dual Parsifals (of each gender!), the puppets, the death-mask-of-Wagner set and various dolls and symbols such as the Nazi swastika in one of the traveling scenes. (If I remember, the "real" Engelbert Humperdinck wrote the actual music to pad out the scene changes.) Though Wagner himself died much too early to be an actual Nazi, many of his descendants (As well as his second wife Cosima.) were at least fellow-travelers, including their grandson Wolfgang Wagner who still runs the Bayreuth Festival at an advanced age. In fact, Wolfgang's son Gottfried Wagner, in complete opposition to his father, has tried to come to terms honestly with his great-grandfather.<br /><br />Syberberg, too, seems politically ambiguous from what I've read. In 1977, he made a well-known film on Hitler, "Hitler: ein Film aus Deutschland" (Sometimes called "Our Hitler" in English.). Since it lasts all of 8 hours and hasn't been widely distributed, most people have not seen it (including myself.).<br /><br />Armin Jordan, the conductor of the audio CD on which this film is based, plays Amfortas (sung by Wolfgang Schöne) Edith Clever (Yvonne Minton) plays Kundry, Michael Kutter and Karin Krick play the dual Parsifals (Both sung by Reiner Goldberg.!) and Robert Lloyd and Aage Haugland both play and sing Gurnemanz and Klingsor.<br /><br />Though the opera takes place over a long period of time and all (except Kundry?) have been described as having aged considerably between Acts 2 and 3, no one looks a day older by the end of the opera. (The magic of the Grail? In this opera the Grail is the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdalene as in more recent times, an idea I find preposterous!).<br /><br />The conducting and singing are all quite serviceable and the DVD seems to have improved the sound, if not the picture, to a great extent. (Yes, I agree that "Kna's" approach is superior, even on the second, stereo, version but he is probably superior to all recorded versions on the whole.)<br /><br />Not a Parsifal for all Wagnerites but I think it works quite well as a filmed opera.
|
positive
|
NOTHING (3+ outta 5 stars) Another weird premise from the director of the movie "Cube". This time around there are two main characters who find themselves and their home transported to a mysterious white void. There is literally NOTHING outside of their small two-story house. Intriguing to be sure, but I thought the comedic tone established for this movie from the get-go was extremely ill-conceived. There needs to be some humour, certainly... and I have no problem with the humour that was eventually derived from the plight of our two heroes (their final "showdown" was definitely a hoot)... but I really think the movie would have been a lot better off if it had stayed more rooted in reality in the beginning. After watching the movie I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and a short trailer at the end is almost totally devoid of the "sillier" comedic aspects... making it look like a completely different (and slightly better) movie. The last half hour of the movie is where things really start to come together... similar in a way to the recent movie "Primer." The actors are fine when they are not overdoing the comedy shtick. They are really quite believable in their more "normal" moments. I was probably ready to write this movie off as a failed experiment at the midway point... but it won me over by the end. (And keep watching past the credits for the final scene... just don't ask me to explain it.)
|
positive
|
The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent.
|
negative
|
I must admit that this is one of the few Lou Costello films that I actually saw in the theater. Most have now been seen on T.V. and I must admit that Lou is really enjoyable and he gets the girl,too. This was my first time seeing Dorothy Provine perform and of course I fell in love with her like so many others that day. I have seen most of the work she has done and enjoyed each one. Her performance in The Great Race is one of the reasons I bought the disc in the first place!<br /><br />Every comment on this movie tells that this is the one movie that Lou Costello did with out Bud Abbott,which is true,but if Lou had lived he would have made many more. He really does a good job and doesn't have to rely on his old routines to get laughs. I for one am sorry that the little man from Patterson,N.J. didn't get the chance to do that.<br /><br />I hope this comes out on DVD some time so I can add it to my comedy/sci fi collection.
|
positive
|
Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.<br /><br />The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.<br /><br />The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.
|
negative
|
'The Cell' is a journey into the mind of a serial killer and I mean this literally. The film is about the journey, about the world it shows during this journey, the destination does not really matter. In my opinion this journey through the mind gives such beautiful images other things do not really matter as long as they are not distracting. In fact, the story is pretty good.<br /><br />We start with Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) in the mind of a catatonic boy. How this works exactly does not really matter, but it looks a lot like virtual reality. She and other scientist including Henry West (Dylan Baker) and Miriam Kent (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) believe that this method might work. Catherine enters the mind of the boy and speaks with him there, in a world that is completely created by the boy. She hopes she can let him do things that in the end will give results.<br /><br />The real story then. A serial killer named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) just dumped the body of one of his victims. FBI Agents Ramsey (Jake Weber) and Novak (Vince Vaughn) are on this case. Another girl (Tara Subkoff) disappears and at that time, after forensic research on the dumped body, Carl can be traced and captured. Two problems occur. 1. Carl just went into a coma; he has been sick for a long time. 2. His house and the house with his last kidnapped victim are not at the same place. In a way this part of the story is pretty standard.<br /><br />Things are about to get interesting again. To find out where the girl is, Catherine has to go into Carl's mind. This is dangerous for a lot of reasons. In short: Carl is unknown territory, schizophrenic and a serial killer. If Catherine starts believing Carl's mind is the real world then her mind can convince her body; she could die in the mind of Carl. A tape of how the last victim was killed, a fate this girl will have in about twenty hours, makes sure Catherine will try to get the location out of Carl's mind.<br /><br />It is the journey through this sick mind that makes this film more than worth watching. Director Tarsem Singh, who did music videos before this, in a way goes back to these music videos. Every room in the imaginative world is another short clip that exists out of beautiful and sometimes haunting images. For me the visual style felt completely new, the way 'Three Kings' had a new visual style one year earlier. If something like that can make you like a film, 'The Cell' will not disappoint. But fans of the thriller and horror genre can like this film anyway. The story itself, without the great fantasy world, is good enough for that. I think you have to be a little open minded, of course events are not (yet) possible in our real world. Still, a very entertaining film with nice ideas that looks terrific.
|
positive
|
The Thing has to be one of the all time great movies. Of course it was ground breaking special effects at the time of it's release that impressed me so much, back in 1982 it just blew my mind, I'd never seen anything like that! However, although the effects themselves made the movie more horrific, it was the story itself, the music score , the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Anarctic as well as the interaction and tension between the members of the doomed research station that makes it a classic. <br /><br />Movies don't get any better than this! In the opening scene with the the chopper chasing this husky you just assume that it was some bored scientists from some station letting of some steam. Yet when you see them continue their chase at the US base you then think that the Norwegians are suffering from some form of advanced or extreme strain of cabin fever. Yet this is offset by the menacing opening music score that sets the tempo! You just know that something is not right! At this point it's a mystery until 'the thing' reveals itself. <br /><br />However, the mystery returns because it becomes a sort of Agatha Christie "who dunnit" ( i.e. ten little Indians movie) sci-fi style as the members don't know which one of their team is really an alien. Suspicion continues to go back and forward between them all as one by one they eventually get knocked off or revealed as the alien. The mistrust between the station crew is absorbing as the movie progresses until the final showdown.<br /><br />After 20 years of advances in computer graphics and film making production the special effects in "the Thing" don't carry the same weight as it did in 1982, but other than that it holds up very well all round with some great performances by the cast.
|
positive
|
This is one of the few comedies I can watch again and again and still laugh out loud. In other places, I have read complaints about racism and sexism from sanctimonious, politically correct prigs. There is neither here, unless you define sexism as a woman as housewife and racism as a family employing a colored maid.<br /><br />The lines are hilarious, and all the leads have never been better. Melvin Douglas is especially brilliant.<br /><br />If you've ever thought of or tried to build a new house, you will be relieved to know that no matter how infuriating the process, no matter how much a lamb among wolves you may feel, you are not alone!
|
positive
|
Good films cannot solely be based on a beautiful garden and a hill top. Surprised to see it has won two awards. Extremely overrated. I first saw that kind of films from China, visually stunning BUT also with really something captivating to say, well, more than 10 years ago and I'm sure there are still more coming up. This is not one of them, I'm afraid.
|
negative
|
This time the hero from the first film has become human and this time uses fist and foot combos against super universal soldiers and a computer which has gone awry and is prepared to take over the world. I'm pretty sure it was Double Team, which convinced everyone that Jean-Claude Van Damme was no longer credible in providing watchable action flicks. However it was this that tarnished his credibility forever. While Universal Soldier:The Return isn't as dull as Double Team or The Quest,it's still pretty awful indeed, with none of the style and flair of the original and no star pairing. This sequel is made simply for kids who enjoy professional wrestling. As I look back, not even the action sequences were all that exciting and therefore this movie is a worthless dud. In other words another clunker in Van Damme's assembly line.<br /><br />* out of 4(Bad)
|
negative
|
This isn't the best Bigfoot ever made, but by the recent standards of Nature gone awry movies, mostly showing on the Sci-Fi channel, this is quality stuff. It has some action, some humor, decent F/X and Bigfoot. CG is used, but so are some practical F/X, which I like.<br /><br />Overall this movie is worth a watch if you are a fan of B horror/sci-fi and need a fix. It's better than the movie Sasquatch and not a sequel to it, so don't be fooled.<br /><br />The acting is better than you may expect to find in a movie like this and the directing is more than adequate. Expect a bit of a lul as the characters are "developed", but know that things will pick up. If you are watching a DVD you may want to skip a chapter or two.
|
positive
|
I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes
|
negative
|
I have not figured out what the chosen title has to do with the movie. This is another gathering of monsters just like the HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Not exactly a masterful plot, but Universal needed to capitalize again.<br /><br />Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) is either very ambitious or over the top in the ego department. He is working on the cure to keep Larry Talbot from turning into the Wolf Man. Somehow Count Dracula happens to drop by to get a fix on his vampirism. And rounding out the good doctor's experiments is the restoring of the Frankenstein monster's energy. Along the way, the kind hearted doctor's blood is tainted with that of Dracula.<br /><br />John Carradine plays Dracula again. This time he is more convincing. Lon Chaney Jr. as usual is the soulful Wolf Man. Glenn Strange is the Frankenstein monster, who has very little to do this outing. Also with mentionable roles are Lionel Atwill and Martha O'Driscoll.
|
negative
|
I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne
|
negative
|
Hey if you have a little over an hour to kill and find paint to be too exciting I'd suggest it. If thou you happen to like cheap b-movies like me it's good for a giggle! Other than that I wouldn't suggest that you rent it, I'd wait till it comes on the tube say round 4 am on the free access channel of your cable/satellite supplier. The band that did this sound track by the way was on the road after for about two years after this flick, and no they sounded just as bad live according to the two small town reviews I could find on them. So once again good if you find grass growing to much fun but good to watch if you like to see how NOT to shoot a low budget movie.
|
negative
|
When I first saw the Romeo Division last spring my first reaction was BRILLIANT! However, on future viewings I was provided with much more than masterful film-making. This picture has a singular voice that will echo throughout the annuls of film history.<br /><br />The opening montage provides a splendid palette which helmer JP Sarro uses to establish his art on this canvas of entertainment.<br /><br />Sarro truly uses the camera as his paintbrush while he brings us along on a ride that envelops the audience in a tremendous action movie that goes beyond the traditional format we have become accustomed to and dives deeply into dark themes of betrayal, revenge and the importance of companionship. This movie is any director's dream at its very core.<br /><br />However, Sarro was not alone in this epic undertaking. The writing, provided by scribe Tim Sheridan, was just as breathtaking.<br /><br />The dialogue was so precise and direct that it gave the actors such presence and charisma on the screen. Specifically speaking, the final scene (WARNING: SPOILERS!!! SPOILERS!!!) where Vanessa reveals herself to be one of the coalition and a villain all the time, is written in such a dark tone that it is one of the most chilling endings I have ever seen. Sheridan is the next Robert Towne.<br /><br />In a final note it is obvious that this production was no small feat.<br /><br />Therefore much praise must be given to producer Scott Shipley who seems to have the creativity and genius to walk next to Jerry Bruckheimer. Never before have I witnessed a production so grand with so much attention directed at every little detail. A producers job is one of the hardest in any movie and Shipley makes it look easy.<br /><br />All in all this film combines creative writing, stunning production and masterful direction. This is the art of film at its best. When the ending of the film arrives the only thing that is desired is more.<br /><br />The Romeo Division is groundbreaking, a masterpiece and, most importantly, The Romeo Division is indeed art.
|
positive
|
OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.<br /><br />The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.<br /><br />Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.<br /><br />So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.
|
positive
|
One of the worst movies I've seen this year. Everything about the film screams "AMATEUR". For a movie set in the 1800's, everybody speaks like it's the 1990's. The acting, particularly the people playing the white slave masters, is horrible. After about an hour into this movie, I walked out. What a waste of time and effort. For a much better film on this subject, see Steven Spielberg's far superior "Amistad."
|
negative
|
Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap.
|
negative
|
This movie was not made by Who fans. Most of the great moments that fans will look forward to in the half-hour Tommy medley are simply missed or glossed over: In Christmas, they didn't show Daltry's screams after the line "Tommy doesn't know what day it is...", they showed almost *no* Townsend guitar shots in Pinball Wizard, there were excess crowd shots during the best moments of Go to the Mirror, and worst of all, in the second half of We're Not Gonna Take It (Listening to You), they robbed us of almost every shot of Pete's blazing guitar chords. Huge chunks of the film are shot from in back of the band. It's a very frustrating film to watch, and doesn't deliver the goods. I don't know if director Murry Lerner is just not a Who fan, or worse, for him at least, if he *is* a Who fan and this is all the *eight* cameras could deliver for him. To its credit, there are some rare numbers before Tommy, as well as some faves, that are very well shot, and sometimes the editing is brilliant. This might be enough to make some viewers happy, as long as you're not anticipating Tommy. The sound overall was mediocre in the transmission I watched from DirecTV; it may be different on video or DVD.
|
negative
|
I saw this movie awhile back and can't seem to track it down. Does anyone know where I can get a hold of it? I feel it is worth seeing again.<br /><br />I'm sorry to say I had never heard of Chloe Nicholle until this film. Yes she can act. When I first began to track this movie down I mistook it for another one of her movies, Sex Spa. The plot seems similar to me but the roles are reversed.<br /><br />This is the first film I've seen Dru Berrymore. I looked up some of her other films and I feel she looks better as a blonde. <br /><br />I agree this is a good introductory movie. Not too soft. Not too hard. You got to start somewhere.
|
positive
|
Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 3/10
|
negative
|
This movie was such a waste of my money. it was disgusting as well as disturbing. honestly, i would never recommend this movie to anyone. who thinks of a movie where a girl blows her dog?? seriously... it was a waste of my time. i kept watching the movie, hoping it would get better and a plot would emerge but that never happened. i'd rate the movie an F-. This movie should have been rated R for its disturbing nature. I would never let children of any age see this movie. this movie sucks. this movie is horrible. this movie was a waste of my time. i could have spent the night doing some worth my time instead of renting this movie. this movie was a waste of gas money to get to the store and definitely a waste of two dollars to watch it. pretty much, no one should watch this movie. this movie should be banned and burned.
|
negative
|
Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.
|
negative
|
I saw this in theaters and absolutely adored it. Geoffery Rush gave the best performance as a super villain that I have ever seen since Gene Hackman as Lex Luther. Kel Mitchel and Paul Rubens were a match maid in heaven. This film also introduced me to William H. Macy, who is now one of my favorite actors. Hank was great as the Blue Raja, and I especially loved that the character wasn't really British. The scene with him and telling his mom that he was a superhero almost brought tears to my eyes. I loved the fact that The Bowler talked to the ball. Some of the funniest stuff involved Stiller and his character Mr. Furious's false rage, and the fact that his threats and one-liners were all gibberish, and that they never made any sense. I could barely stop myself from applauding when he said "fraculater, Freinken-puss," was said. But one of the things I most enjoyed was that Captain Amazing actually dies in the movie. I HIGHLY recommend this film for any occasion, and I give it my own personal two-thumbs-up.
|
positive
|
This movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.
|
negative
|
The plot outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle/frog/puffin first the "bad" magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment.
|
negative
|
This work is less about Steve Martin's character Davis, than it is about Kline (Mack) and Glover (Simon), and Kline and McDonnell (Claire), but the dialog inserted via Davis is pondering, contemplative, near-poetic existentialism at its best. He is witty, intelligent, and thoughtful in both dialog delivery and content. The writers deserved an Oscar.<br /><br />The performances are easy, relaxed, and natural; just what you would expect from "A List" actors. Martin contributes the performance which leads into his more recent Shopgirl, guiding you through life, love, and the pursuit of wisdom if not happiness. Kline is the straight - the suit - the conformist of the film, and as such his performance is crisp and refreshing.<br /><br />This work deals with life in all aspects. It engenders a true emotional investment in its characters, and leaves you feeling hopeful that Mankind is not doomed, after all, no matter WHAT you believe, deep down.<br /><br />All in all? This is delightful, with a gritty moment or two, and easy natural dialog which draws you in, assisting its audience in gaining a high enjoyment from this work. It's definitely worth your time, though it may not be every one's top choice as Friday/Saturday night entertainment.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the intelligence this exhibited. It's not typical, and was an unexpected surprise. Another wonderful surprise was the honesty exhibited herein. The couples and friends hold detailed conversations, which feel and sound fully honest and (again) natural. I was very impressed with this work, and will be adding it to the DVD collection soon.<br /><br />It rates a 9.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
|
positive
|
In this film, we're invited to observe the descent into a moral and emotional funk of someone who isn't likable to start with. What was the point of making the film, then? To show that it would have been better not to have had IN COLD BLOOD - a book I admire, incidentally - in order to have kept our hero's integrity intact? Hardly. He behaves at the party at the start of the film exactly in the same way he behaves after his triumphant reading from the book, so his degradation is a matter of degree. Are we supposed to care enough about Capote to take seriously his claim that he and murderer Perry Smith are kindred spirits, with the former having had all the breaks while the latter had none? Mr Capote's plight didn't touch me at all, I'm afraid, so if that was the central idea it was wasted on me. But even if I could fathom why the filmmakers visited this pointless project on us, the clunky storytelling would still have bored me as it did. Hoffman gives a bravura performance to no emotional effect, while Keener and Cooper are so warm and interesting that I was yearning for more of them. Dreary beyond belief.
|
negative
|
If I could say it was better than Gymkata, I at least felt my money was not totally wasted.<br /><br />Then I saw Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground.<br /><br />This movie should see a resurrection though on MST 3K. If Santa Claus Conquers the Martians could make Tom Servo's head explode, one wonders what mayhem this movie could cause.<br /><br />There is a very good reason why Kurt Thomas never had a movie career.<br /><br />The writers of this dreck should be forced to wear placards every day of their lives that say "Bitch slap me! I was a writer on Gymkata."
|
negative
|
I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as "Troll 2", "Ator the Invincible", and "Quest for the Mighty Sword", so I was compelled to watch.<br /><br />As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking "Okay someone better get killed soon",or "Someone better mutate". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask "Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.<br /><br />I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.<br /><br />The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's "Quest for the Mighty Sword", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!
|
negative
|
Why a film maker with a track record like Wes Craven would want to lend his name to a tedious collection of cliches like this is anyone's guess. And if he did stump up any money for it - all of £50 judging by the looks - he should have been banging on the director's door for a refund the minute the film was released. There are many "Alien" rip-offs and this is one of the worst. Even the reliable Lance Henriksen, saddled with a character dumb enough to allow his kids to wander around a dangerous government lab, can't save it. As a cure for insomnia, this rates a 10+. As a piece of quality film making - forget it.
|
negative
|
COULD CONTAIN SPOILERS.....I'm surprised by the high rating of this film to be honest..really am. All I saw was a slow moving propaganda movie with nothing much to say. (Note to self must check the rating for Platoon on here)This movie was so black and white...Americans good...anyone else either evil or useless. I take it the British troops in it were meant to be SAS (one of the most elite units in the world most would agree with I'm pretty sure) they lost 3 men and the others ran away while the US troops who weren't even Elite soldiers in the fighting sense held the ground and opened up a can of whoop ass on them evil sneaky Iraqis. Aye dead-on strings to mind. The only good thing I have to say about this movie did come in this sense when the sniper took out the SAS man...muzzle flash from distance, good noise used...really well done that bit but the rest...Spare me what am I 10 years of age over here??!! Well I'm not and can see nonsense propaganda in a movie and boy did this movie have it.<br /><br />SPOILER...Oh aye and in the main crazy,wild guy can't stay at home with his wife and young child..no he has to sign up for another year to fight in a nonsense lie of a war!! Why...because young men need thrills or something apparently. Like say I'm surprised by the high rating of this movie really am.<br /><br />P.S. I'm not hating America I'm hating the message of this movie that seems to not even want to confront issues of an illegal war (in my eyes) which OK fair enough because clearly there are people out there who think it's a just war for whatever messed up reason (wanted to say something else her but censored) but hey that's up to them. But to churn out a movie so one-sided like it's black and white...good v evil is lazy and treating me as a child. In war there is a lot of grey and it's two (sometimes more)sides who believe in what they are fighting for. Not Star Wars with something something dark side verses the goodies. F' sake Hollywood at times you really do take people for mugs...then again 7.8....well maybe you are right to but I'll not be buying it. Glad I downloaded this movie tell you all that for nothing. ;)
|
negative
|
If you have few expectations, then this will entertain for 90 minutes. My problem is that they've dumbed down this tale for the modern audience. Highwaymen are already sexy, exciting characters. They don;t need the techno soundtrack and snappy dialogue.
|
negative
|
And I am afraid that I cannot imagine why. It really is a genuinely dire and exceptionally boring film. In some ways it is reminiscent of early science fiction when every set had been knocked up on a Hollywood back lot out of whatever was lying around. From the minuscule and unconvincing set (snipers seem to be about ten meters away) apparently made of plaster, to the actors who are also apparently made of plaster with "amusing" stereotypes painted thinly on top, to the oddly warm pool in a frozen cave, to the survival of the cast uninjured when medium artillery shells burst a few meters away on open ground, and finally the awful script that reads like a training manual more than a film.... I really cannot say how dull this is. Even the opportunity to see whether the young James Dean survived wasn't enough to keep me watching for more than an hour. This really is one to be avoided at ALL costs.
|
negative
|
This is the first of these "8 Films To Die For" collection that I've seen and it's certainly not made me want to see any of the rest...although I've heard at least a couple of them are decent. I don't know, this wasn't terrible but it didn't really do much for me. Your basic dysfunctional cannibal family in suburbia kind of thing, mom & dad died, the family sold the farm & moved to San Francisco (?) where they continued to bring home stray food sources whenever possible. The best part of this was the creepy Goth sister, who of course invites a friend over from school that never leaves. Anyway, of course we have a butcher shop in the basement and so on and so on. This family is sort of like the white-bread version of the Sawyer Clan, they're nasty & they do bad things but they ain't go no soul. I see a lot of reviews from people that liked this, and I guess I don't know what I missed, but I found it to be very mediocre & I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, really. 4 out of 10.
|
negative
|
****SPOILER ALERT**** All throughout Australia the summer turned into a deluge of rain and hail stones the size of baseballs that was causing havoc in coastal cities like Sydney. It's under these hectic conditions that tax lawyer David Burton, Richard Chamberlain,got involved in a case, as a defense attorney, involving the death of a local aborigine who was found dead outside a Sydney bar. <br /><br />Having five fellow aborigines arrested for Billy Cormans,Athol Compton, death it's determined by the police coroner that Billy died of drowning not by violence even though he had bruises on his neck and shoulders. Yet the court decided to prosecute the five for his death charging them with manslaughter instead of murder.<br /><br />David defending the five gets no help from them in their defense with the accused assailants opting to remain quite and keep what happened to Billy to themselves and take what's coming to them from the court. One of the defendants Chris, David Gulpili, begin to somehow invades David's dreams as if he want's to tell him what was really behind Billy's death.<br /><br />David at first not taking his dreams of Chris seriously begins to sense that their real when he meet him at the courthouse. Chris confirms David's dreams by showing him a strange looking black rock that David saw Chris have in his dreams. Later meeting Chris and, what turns out to be an aborigine shaman, Charlie (Nandjiwarna Amagula) who came to his house that evening David is told that he, like Charlie, has spiritual powers that he inherited from his mother's grandfather. Those powers will reveal to him the future that has to do with the strange weather conditions that are flooding the Australian continent. The earth,Chris tells David, is going through a gigantic cleansing cycle with the old world about to be washed away and the new world ready to take it's place.<br /><br />David is confused about what both Chris and Charlie are telling him but as the rains continue to increase and the ocean waves start to rise he feels that something terrible is going to happen. David want's to know if it's all aborigine folklore or there's some scientific facts, or logic, behind their end of world-like revelations.<br /><br />By now it's obvious that both Chris and Charlie are members of an aborigine tribe right in the heart of modern Sydney. That alone can get Chris off, as well as his four friends, for the murder of Billy. Since the Australian government will not prosecute tribal aborigines, leaving any justice to be done by the tribes themselves. Still Chris refuses to admit he's a member of a native tribe and he and his four friends are convicted of manslaughter in Billy's death with the sentences to be handed down by the judge within days.<br /><br />David now determined to find out what was the reason for Chris' silence, and why Billy had to die, is taken by Chris to the scene of the crime. It's there that David finds out that Billy betrayed Chris' tribe members by going there with Billy not being a member of Chris's aborigine tribe. It's also revealed to David that he himself has some kind of spiritual connection with the Austrailan aborigines as both Charlie and his step-father Rev. Burton,David Parslow, told him. <br /><br />The stage is now set for the great and final cleansing cycle that David's been seeing in both his night-time dreams and day-time visions. It comes in the form of a massive tidal wave rolling out of the Pacific Ocean into the Australian coast city of Sydney and then submerges the entire continent.
|
positive
|
There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.<br /><br />The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.<br /><br />It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.<br /><br />The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.<br /><br />The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.<br /><br />The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).<br /><br />In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.<br /><br />TOTAL: 4%
|
negative
|
I loved this movie from beginning to end.I am a musician and i let drugs get in the way of my some of the things i used to love(skateboarding,drawing) but my friends were always there for me.Music was like my rehab,life support,and my drug.It changed my life.I can totally relate to this movie and i wish there was more i could say.This movie left me speechless to be honest.I just saw it on the Ifc channel.I usually hate having satellite but this was a perk of having satellite.The ifc channel shows some really great movies and without it I never would have found this movie.Im not a big fan of the international films because i find that a lot of the don't do a very good job on translating lines.I mean the obvious language barrier leaves you to just believe thats what they are saying but its not that big of a deal i guess.I almost never got to see this AMAZING movie.Good thing i stayed up for it instead of going to bed..well earlier than usual.lol.I hope you all enjoy the hell of this movie and Love this movie just as much as i did.I wish i could type this all in caps but its again the rules i guess thats shouting but it would really show my excitement for the film.I Give It Three Thumbs Way Up!<br /><br />This Movie Blew ME AWAY!
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.