review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
In our household, we are enormous fans of A Christmas Carol and watch virtually every version each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the modern 1999 Patrick Stewart. Our overall favorite is the 1951 black & white classic, because Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge and his conversion rings the truest. However, this 1984 rendition has its own unique merits and makes a lovely & entertaining story, quite faithful generally to Dickens' novel. (See my comments on the other film adaptations, if interested)<br /><br />First of all, George C. Scott can certainly seem pretty crotchety and doesn't make a bad Scrooge. I adore his sideburns, his long topcoat & hat. He cuts the finest fashion figure of the lot, and quite a handsome gentleman. However, sometimes it seems Scott is enjoying his role as Scrooge just a wee bit too much and not taking it quite as seriously as he ought!<br /><br />This rendition has the best overall Christmas atmosphere, hopeful and optimistic. Somehow you know this story is going to have a happy ending. Filmed in the town of Shrewsbury, England, it just seems somehow very British. The film has a lovely musical score, with wonderful, lively caroling music throughout all the appropriate portions of the tale. Sometimes I could almost smell the chestnuts roasting and the pudding singing in the copper! <br /><br />Marley's anguished ghost (with his wonderful jaw dropping scene) and the three Spirits are all quite convincing. Christmas Past is a lovely ethereal lady, Christmas Present wonderfully giant and jovial, Christmas Yet To Come shrouded and foreboding as always. However, I found Scrooge's nephew, Fred, a wee bit quiet & grim, not nearly as jolly & hearty as he should be. I like the nephew's wife, whom they've named Janet, with her lovely, sprightly period hairstyle. Instead of blind man's bluff, they've concocted a game called Similes for the nephew's Christmas dinner party, which is a cute little touch, Scrooge getting right into the spirit of the thing.<br /><br />The Cratchits and their somewhat meagre (though much appreciated) Christmas dinner are well depicted, with Bob (David Warner) suitably sympathetic and long-suffering in his miles of scarf. Mrs. Cratchit is charmingly portrayed by Susannah York, who also starred with George C. Scott in the wonderful 1970 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Above all, this version has unquestionably the best Tiny Tim, not only an adorable & endearing little waif but sickly. With those dark circles under his eyes, the frail wee thing looks unlikely to survive the hour!<br /><br />This is a delightful & heartwarming version of the holiday classic. With its festive atmosphere, it's sure to put you in the spirit of the season.
|
positive
|
Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.
|
negative
|
A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong.
|
negative
|
In Frank Sinatra's first three films, he was purely a speciality act: ostensibly playing himself, he merely shows up to croon a song during a nightclub sequence in somebody else's movie. In his fourth film, the very enjoyable 'Higher and Higher', Young Blue Eyes transitions into an acting career by playing an actual role ... a task made easier because he's playing himself in a fictional story that gives him a chance to croon a few numbers.<br /><br />Sinatra's entrance is quite funny. Michele Morgan hears a knock at the door, and asks who's there. From outside, a Hoboken-toned voice answers 'Frank Sinatra'. Sure enough...<br /><br />The opening credits of 'Higher and Higher' may confuse some viewers, as the names of songwriters Rodgers and Hart are prominently displayed. In fact, they only contributed one song to this musical: 'Disgustingly Rich', which this cast manage to toss off as a sort of intro to an entirely different song, 'I'm a Debutante'. Interestingly, that Rodgers & Hart song -- one of their weakest -- is perhaps the least enjoyable song in this movie's score; several others are lively up-tempo numbers, notably 'It's a Most Important Affair', 'When It Comes to Love, You're On Your Own' and 'I Saw You First'.<br /><br />Sinatra's good in this movie, but he would do better work (and sing better material) elsewhere. The real merits of 'Higher and Higher' are the delightful turns by some performers who rarely made films. Paul and Grace Hartman were an extremely popular husband-wife dance team who starred in several Broadway revues: genuinely graceful ballroom dancers, they put plenty of physical comedy into their dance material. (Here, Grace does a high kick that knocks a shoe out of Paul's hands.) Grace Hartman, who died of cancer at age 48, did almost no film work, so it's a real pleasure that this film gives us a rare chance to see her close-up, to hear her beautiful singing voice and to notice how sexy she looks in her maid's uniform. After Grace Hartman's death, her husband had a long career as a character actor, just occasionally dancing solo. (Or alongside Ken Berry in one memorable episode of 'Mayberry RFD'.)<br /><br />Also quite attractive in a maid's uniform here in 'Higher and Higher' is the vivacious teenage singer Marcy McGuire. Why didn't this talented girl make more movies? Perhaps she was just a bit too similar in personality to Betty Hutton. I enjoy Hutton's performances but I like Marcy McGuire even better. Near the end of 'Higher and Higher' there's an amusing bit of physical business featuring McGuire and Mary Wickes as waitresses, taking it in turns to move from table to table in a nightclub. The alternating strides of short McGuire and tall gawky Wickes are hilarious! Regrettably, although Leon Errol plays a large role in 'Higher and Higher', he is given almost no comedy business: not once does he do his famous rubber-legged dance. Jack Haley, despite his prominent billing, is also wasted.<br /><br />Very well-represented here is Dooley Wilson, inevitably remembered as Sam from 'Casablanca'. In that film, Wilson did his own singing but faked his keyboard performance of 'As Time Goes By'. (In real life, Wilson couldn't play piano.) Here in 'Higher and Higher', he sings pleasingly and gives some amusing reactions to the other players. Less enjoyable is Mel Odious, I mean Mel Torme. Victor Borge gives a rare film performance here, handling his dialogue deftly but never doing any of the keyboard comedy which he later did successfully in his stage shows.<br /><br />The plot? Forget it. 'Higher and Higher' is nobody's idea of a 'great' musical, but it's an enjoyable delight, and I'll rate it 8 out of 10. Director Tim Whelan, who worked in Britain as well as in Hollywood, deserves to be much better known.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie in September with my mother. I was expecting a good movie, and I saw an excellent one. This is now my most treasured movie. It did not leave me after I left the theater. The situations in this movie reminded me of my late grandmother. Meryl Streep and Renee Zellweger were equally incredible. This movie has made me realize how important family relationships are. Rent it. I can't recommend it enough.
|
positive
|
The funniest thing about Fortunes is that one of the main characters, Lewis (Urbaniak) has writer's block and apparently so did the screenplay writer for the film. This is sad, as well, as I guess by large, this is supposed to be a comedy, or dramedy, but that's the funniest thing I can remember from watching this.<br /><br />Three friends go out and drink one night. On the way home, two decide to get their fortunes told by a "gypsy," as they call her. Those two lives fall apart while the third friend stands by. Then, nothing happens.<br /><br />I hope I didn't spoil the movie there, but really, this extremely low-budget, bad quality movie had some kind of idea when it started but quickly snowballed into the depths of hell. Yeah, I'm being harsh. Honestly, it wasn't that bad, it was just blah.<br /><br />The aforementioned writer was annoying to watch, though he delivered maybe one or two of the only two funny lines. The clichéd "ladies man," the only one that didn't get his fortune told was just annoying. The only bright spot, was the remaining friend, the married dad whose fortune was told that something big was to happen to his son and he needed to be prepared. He was funny, genuine and clearly the best actor in the movie. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm being too cruel. Heck, they got the ambition to make a movie, went and got funding and accomplished something. Unfortunately, however, I can't at all recommend the film on the basis, there's hundreds of thousands of other independent movies that have hundreds of thousands better ideas and executions. This one was literally 10 minutes of an idea stretched another 81 boring minutes.
|
negative
|
This movie seems to send the wrong message. There can be morality without using Christ. Poeple of other religions, I believe, can get into heaven. I am a Catholic who goes to church every week, but I do not agree with such Christian arrogance. This is the worst time travel movie I have ever seen and I've seen Timeline.
|
negative
|
This is first of all a good, exciting story, with well developed characters. But all the other details are well crafted on top of that, leading to a wonderful film. Don't let the Disney label lead you to think this is dumbed-down or only for kids -- it has a lot to offer to all ages, whether you like golf or not. One of the more impressive things is that the film manages to make a golf game look really exciting. And speaking as one of many who can't abide golf on TV, this is no small feat.<br /><br />The first half of the film does a good job of laying out the basic characters with their motivations and backgrounds, enough that you end up liking all the important competitors once the pivotal match begins halfway through. Sure, you root for Ouimet's character all along, but his primary opponents are likable and interesting in their own right. The background layer is important once the golf match becomes a match using minds as well as golf clubs, since you get a good understanding for what each person's strengths and weaknesses are as the play progresses.<br /><br />The computer effects are flashy, but they do help the story more often than not. The directing has all sorts of clever golf shots, and the period costumes and sets are really top notch.<br /><br />There are a few small quibbles -- many of the minor characters seem a little too stereotypically cast from the class warfare mold, but this is forgivable with the major characters so well drawn.<br /><br />Shia LaBoeuf playing Francis Ouimet is, as usual, callow and sympathetic. But the real standout is Steven Dillane, playing Harry Vardon. He rarely moves his face, but his intense, often sad, eyes and minor changes of expression say so much.<br /><br />Ouimet's caddy Eddie Lowery, played by Josh Flitter, steals the scenes he is in. After you see the film, Google to find the actual photograph of Ouimet and Lowery at the tournament, to get an even better appreciation of how incredible this match truly was.
|
positive
|
I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.<br /><br />Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.<br /><br />Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a "don't do this" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.<br /><br />In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :)
|
positive
|
Just seen Which Way to the Front? on TCM (UK) it is a truly awful film. If I'd paid at the pictures I'd have walked out.<br /><br />A terrible mess of a film. Byers (Lewis) and his mates prance around in cast off uniforms from an Italian sci-fi movie of 1960's. Were the CND/Peace symbol badges on the uniforms meant to be Ironic? The sets were pure 1970, I'm sure a Hollywood TV back-lot could have provided a more realistic set.<br /><br />The film is riddled with racism. The film takes the mickey out of veterans. <br /><br />Not funny how Lewis every got to make another film is beyond me.
|
negative
|
This Movie is complete crap! Avoid this waste of celluloid at all costs, it is rambling and incoherent. I pride myself on plumbing the depths of 70's sleaze cinema from everything from Salo to Salon Kitty. I like being shocked, but I need a coherent story. However if watching horses mate gets you off this film is for you. The saddest part was that lame werewolf suit with the functional wang. I mean its just plain hard to sit through, not to mention the acting is terrible and the soundtrack is dubbed badly. Please, I know the cover is interesting (what looks like a gorillas hands reaching for a woman's bare ass)but don't waste your time or money as you won't get either back.
|
negative
|
Zentropa is the most original movie I've seen in years. If you like unique thrillers that are influenced by film noir, then this is just the right cure for all of those Hollywood summer blockbusters clogging the theaters these days. Von Trier's follow-ups like Breaking the Waves have gotten more acclaim, but this is really his best work. It is flashy without being distracting and offers the perfect combination of suspense and dark humor. It's too bad he decided handheld cameras were the wave of the future. It's hard to say who talked him away from the style he exhibits here, but it's everyone's loss that he went into his heavily theoretical dogma direction instead.
|
positive
|
I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.<br /><br />Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a "tastefully" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and "swings" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of "role reversal" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.<br /><br />There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.<br /><br />Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.<br /><br />5/10
|
negative
|
Off the blocks let me just say that I am a huge zombie fan so I don't make statements like the above lightly. Secondly let me say that this is an Italian zombie film and Fulci only directed 15 minutes of it before handing over to Bruno (Rats, Night Of Terror) Mattei. This is no Dawn of the Dead folks.<br /><br />That said this is easily one of the most entertaining zombie films I have ever seen. <br /><br />The script is wonderfully horrible. Just check out the two scientists trying to find an antidote ("Let's try putting these two molecules together"). <br /><br />The zombies come in all varieties. From moaning shufflers, to machete wielding maniacs, to birds! <br /><br />The gore is plentiful. Legs are bitten off, arms amputated, stomachs burst open. <br /><br />The pace is fast, flying from one zombie attack to the next. <br /><br />Then there's the head in the fridge. Oh the head in the fridge! One of the greatest moments in horror since Ash got his hand possessed in Evil Dead 2.<br /><br />You should know already whether you're the sort of person who's going to like this sort of film. Get some mates and some beer and you'll be in for a fun night.<br /><br />Did I mention the head in the fridge?!?!?
|
positive
|
When the Italians and Miles O'keeffe work together nothing can go wrong! As ever, Miles is great as the almost as great Ator; the most lovable barbarian of all times. Totally lives up to the first movie.
|
positive
|
This adaption contains two parts: <br /><br />1. The "now" time, when Gulliver is at home in England and soon is put into a mental asylum by the Evil Dr. Bates <br /><br />2. The "described" time, in which Gulliver describes his travels.<br /><br />The times are interspersed with a very choppy tempo, which makes willing suspense of disbelief far more difficult than it would have been if the movie simply would have discarded that part, and followed the book as written. In the book, there is no Dr. Bates, no asylum, and Mrs Gulliver gets very little mention. The travels - in plural - are depicted as one in the movie. There are several movies covering the topic of sane people dumped into asylum by some nasty person out there, look at them if you want that stuff. The "now" time part adds absolutely nothing to the story's value, is a complete invention by the movie adapters, and takes valuable time from the real story. All the time when this was going on I was longing for the next bit of real travel to be shown.<br /><br />So much for the drawbacks. The parts which actually are part of the real story are well done, and the CGI is really well done for its time. Many small (and a few medium-sized) parts of the real travels are simply cut out, but that does not make the story halt. This is AFAIK the only version which depicts all four travels, and for that the movie should get special mention. <br /><br />The two interspersed parts get approximately equal time. I rate the first part 0 out of 10, and the actual travel coverage as 8/10. Averaging out, I give it a 4/10. If only they would have cut the rubbish and focused 99% on the actual travels, since that cut would have freed up a lot of time much better spent on filling in the details cut from the travels. <br /><br />Why some adapter think that he is gifted enough to improve upon Swift's work, I do not know. My best guess is that CGI was so costly back in 1996 so that the movie company felt a need to incorporate a lot of filler which did not need elaborate sets, GCI, etc. in order to keep total costs under some limit, while at the same time producing a mini-series which clocked in at some set number of minutes.
|
negative
|
As other reviewers have noted the film dies in the last 1/2 hour. However before that it suffers from predictability and a stunningly vapid performance by Kate Capshaw, who clearly never found her character and ruins every scene she's in. Connery is fine as is Fishbourne, but most scenes are manipulated for effect rather than truth which overlays the entirety with a sense of unreality. And the ending is simply bizarre. The film makers apparently knew when they pieced this mess together that all they needed were sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie to have Thanksgiving dinner, so to compensate they added an overloud "dramatic" score. Every little jump is accompanied by a crescendo of orchestration, to the point where it becomes laughable. If you want an example of major league bad film this is one to see, otherwise skip it.
|
negative
|
I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.<br /><br />The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.<br /><br />Both bands in the start of their careers promised to "make a revolution" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of "record industry". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.<br /><br />First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.<br /><br />First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.<br /><br />Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.<br /><br />Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: "... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know...
|
positive
|
Irwin Allen, past master of cinematic schlock, pulled out all the stops in VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. A badly aged Walter Pidgeon, who actually may have been dead when he played this role, is the commander of an atomic submarine that must be the size of the Empire State Building. Every room is gigantic and some even appear to have no ceilings. You could bowl and hold a formal ball simultaneously in some of these rooms. The sub, called the Seaview, is on its maiden run when all hell breaks loose: the Van Allen radiation belt catches fire and the Seaview must launch a missile into the belt by a certain time or the world will go down in global warming flames! Along for the ride are a bunch of truly terrible character actors, many borrowed from TV. This makes them TV hack-tors. The worst is probably that poor man's Stella Stevens, Barbara Eden, as a naval secretary, squeezed into too-tight clothes, sporting high heels and acting like she's appearing in a beach party flick. Maybe that's because Frankie Avalon is also along for the ride. A badly aged Joan Fontaine, almost unrecognizable here, plays a visiting doctor with a big bad secret, but in truth who cares? VOYAGE is a truly bad movie obviously made for small children, but what child is going to sit still for endless shots of a miniature Seaview model moving over and over again from right to left across the screen in what is obviously a studio tank? There is not one scene where we believe these folks are actually aboard a sub. When the Seaview shakes, the actors fling themselves about, sometimes in opposite directions to one another. Just like on the good old STAR TREK TV series, when the bridge shakes. If I remember correctly, not one fish or sea creature is seen -- except for an octopus that momentarily latches onto the sub, a nod to 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. The octopus, if it was real, was probably about a foot long and it shows. Worse, when folks are standing at the Seaview's glass nose, the ocean they are supposedly watching is obviously a closeup involving an unseen air hose spouting bubbles, probably filmed in a fish tank. You have never seen bigger bubbles in your life. You'd think these bubbles alone would smash the damned sub to pieces. Sadly, a badly aged Peter Lorre is also along for the ride. Near the end, when the missile is entering the flaming belt, Lorre is seen enthusiastically congratulating Pidgeon while everyone else is still waiting for their cue to start shaking hands and embracing one another in victory. A one-take scene if I've ever seen one. What a stinker. It's not even good for a laugh. Stick with SILENT RUNNING.
|
negative
|
This is so embarrassing. It's a REMAKE of The Wedding Singer, which happens to be my favorite movie which gives me another reason to disapprove of this film. It has the same plot, same jokes, same characters. Jeez, people need to be more original.
|
negative
|
First of three Aztec Mummies film is the only one that to the best of my knowledge was never completely dubbed into English. The film was chopped up and used in pieces by people like Jerry Warren in other films (he combined it with another Mexican horror comedy with Lon Chaney to make Face of the Screaming Werewolf. And it showed up in Attack of the Mayan Mummy and elsewhere.) The longest of the three films, a good chunk of this film makes up the two later films which use this as a basis of flash backs. The plot of this film has a scientist conducting a past life regression experiment which causes his subject to travel back and discover hidden chambers in an Aztec pyramid. The group, as well as a sinister figure known as the Bat, hope to use the information to discover hidden treasure. Instead they discover a living mummy who has other plans. Long and long winded this film has way too little action to sustain its 80 minute running time (worse the mummy doesn't even show up until an hour has passed). Probably the least of the three films, its easy to see why this film was cut apart, it's the only way to fashion a non-sleep inducing film. Watching the film late last night I found myself fighting to stay awake. It was a tough haul and I found that I ended up scanning to the point where the mummy showed up. Given the choice I'd take a pass and watch the second two films.
|
negative
|
I think this still is the best routine. There are some others, like Rock's "bring the pain", and Allen's "Men are Pigs" that are hilarious; "Damon Waynes last stand" is also funny in a tearful way - but this routine has no errors. All the jokes are funny, and the time limit of 70 minutes is perfect. Just long enough to last 20 years. I just love how he allows the audience to be totally themselves and unrestricted. I'm a fan of the classics and for a guy who watched a lot of of Jim Carrey growing up, watching a more laid back comic is pretty cool. Not putting in a category with Ellen and Newhart, but something you can watch if you're bloated. Thanks Eddie, god bless.
|
positive
|
Many animation buffs consider Wladyslaw Starewicz the great forgotten genius of one special branch of the art, puppet animation, which he invented almost single-handedly . . . and, as it happened, almost accidentally. As a young man Starewicz was more interested in entomology than the cinema, but his unsuccessful attempt to film two stag beetles fighting led to an unexpected breakthrough in film-making when he realized he could simulate movement by manipulating beetle carcasses and photographing them one frame at a time. This discovery led to the production of Starewicz' amazingly elaborate classic short THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, which he made in Russia in 1912, at a time when motion picture animation of all sorts was in its infancy.<br /><br />The political tumult of the Russian Revolution caused Starewicz to move to Paris, where one of his first productions-- coincidentally? --was a dark political satire variously known as "Frogland" or "The Frogs Who Wanted a King." A strain of black comedy can be found in almost all of Starewicz' films but here it is very dark indeed, aimed more at grown-ups who can appreciate the satirical aspects than children, who would most likely find the climax upsetting. (I'm middle-aged and found it pretty upsetting, myself.) And indeed, prints of the film intended for English-speaking viewers of the 1920s were given title cards filled with puns and quips in order to help soften the sharp sting of the finale.<br /><br />Our tale is set in a swamp, the Frogland Commonwealth, where the citizens are unhappy with their government and have called a special session to see what they can do to improve matters. They decide to beseech Jupiter for a king. The crowds are impressively animated in this opening sequence-- it couldn't have been easy to make so many frog puppets look alive simultaneously --while Jupiter, for his part, is depicted as a droll white-bearded guy in the clouds who looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. When Jupiter sends them a tree-like god who regards them impassively the frogs decide that this is no improvement and demand a different king. Irritated, Jupiter sends them a stork.<br /><br />Delighted with this formidable-looking new king who towers above them, the frogs welcome him with a delegation of formally dressed dignitaries. The Mayor steps forward to hand him the key to the Commonwealth as newsreel cameras record the event. To everyone's horror, the stork promptly eats the Mayor and then goes on a merry rampage, swallowing citizens at random. A title card dryly reads: "News of the king's appetite spreadeth throughout the kingdom." When the now-terrified frogs once more beseech Jupiter for help, he loses his temper and showers their community with lightning bolts. The moral of our story, delivered by a hapless frog just before he is eaten, is "Let well enough alone."<br /><br />Considering the time period when this startling little film was made, and considering the fact that it was made by a Russian émigré at the height of that beleaguered country's Civil War, it would be easy to see this as a parable about those events. Starewicz may or may not have had Russia's turmoil in mind when he made "Frogland," but whatever prompted his choice of material the film stands as a cautionary tale of universal application. "Frogland" could be the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany or Japan in the 1930s, or any country of any era that lets its guard down and is overwhelmed by tyranny. It's a fascinating film, even a charming one in its macabre way, but its message is no joke.
|
positive
|
OK this movie was by far worse then the first one and the first one sucked! The zombie make up was extremely fake! The acting is very poor! And it doesn't really follow the first one! While watching this I kept thinking wow the first one is a masterpiece compared to this. I would say catch it on TV, Don't spend your money on it! Its not the worst movie i've ever seen but its on the list. I started watching it last night and fell asleep so i watched it today and almost fell asleep again! The plot was pointless, I mean i get the fact that a small military group are sent on a mission to get the blood of the lead zombie and bring it back so they can use it to save lives and stop zombies but they made it where you wanted everyone to die. They made plenty of bad guys who really were just annoying. If you ask me this was a rip off of resident evil and not a good rip off either. The plot could have made it if the acting was good and if they actually made you feel scared to see whats behind the corner. With these zombies my grandma could have went in that building and survived! out of a 1-10 i give it a 2.
|
negative
|
I feel like I've been had, the con is on, don't fall for it. After reading glowing reviews (the Director was a film reviewer with Sky for years so must have a lot of mates in the press ready to do him a favour by writing favorable reviews) I expected solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, an intriguing plot development and poetic moments. Sadly, 'Sixteen years of Alcohol', doesn't deliver on the critics promises, for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects (what was that clichéd cobweb scene in there for?), unrealistic fight choreography and mindless mind numbing narration, cliché edits and camera angles.<br /><br />'Sixteen years of Alcohol' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Scotland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin driving you crazy with self indulgent heavy handed twaddle voice-over's. The lead characters are so unsympathetic and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them, desperate Actors do desperate things...like this movie!. To make matters worse, the 'homage's' (typical of a director trying to pay his dues to past masters) are either utterly cliché or unconvincing. The soundtrack is the only thing that lifted me and kept me in the cinema but even that failed to support the dramatic narrative other connecting a period of time to the action.<br /><br />For some reason the movie got increasingly flawed and to be quite honest annoying. I still watched the whole damn thing!<br /><br />I guess I liked the attempt at gritty realism in the film but even that was destroyed when they were often inter-cut with weird and abstract, sometimes pointless scenes. You don't need a huge budget to make truly moving film, so much has been said about how little money they had to make this film, half a million is not a little bit of money...SO NO EXCUSES! Sometimes I wonder what the actors...Or their agents were thinking!<br /><br />Pass on this turkey unless you're masochistic or mindless anyway....NOT MY THING<br /><br />1.5/10
|
negative
|
Tatie Danielle is all about a ghastly old hag who torments her loving and oblivious family out of sheer spite. There's a bit of subtext that might be about France's colonial past but it's mostly just Danielle doing the sorts of things (like deliberately abandoning a small child in a park) that would soon have a man picking up his teeth with broken fingers. Sadly, that doesn't happen here. It looks good and the acting is fine and there's nothing really wrong with the concept but it's just so SMUG. God, does this movie love itself. Pity it isn't nearly as clever or as funny as it thinks it is. The only impetus in the show - sorry, movie - comes from Danielle getting nastier and nastier, and the only surprise comes from watching the increasingly improbable ways she does this. That's right: just like in a sitcom, which is what this is, with the added 'bonus' of delusions of grandeur and a 110-minute running time.
|
negative
|
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10
|
negative
|
Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that "Arthur" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally "unlikely" if not quite "impossible" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. "Arthur" makes no effort to "Underztand," much less rationalize, the scourge of "alcoholism" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner.
|
positive
|
Mel Brooks is a great writer,director and actor, but once in a while even he can have a klinker. The beginning of this starts out almost basically just meeting one character after another.You have Cary Elwes who's charming and talented, but he can't do comedy. His expressions into the camera show that even he can't believe the inanities in the script. Richard Lewis looks bored and distracted throughout without much to do and Amy Yasbeck is stuck in high-school acting mode. Dave Chapelle shows great comedy range mugging and hamming for the camera and Mark Blankfield is mostly stifled in the role of the blind man, but then he does still manage to show great comedy range. Eric Allen Kramer doesn't have much to do, but the few scenes he does have are binding. The best roles are those of Roger Rees, Tracy Ullman, Megan Cavanaugh and Brooks for when he does appear. Dom DeLuise has a funny turn as a Mafia Don employing a Clint Eastwood lookalike, but on the minus side, some of the jokes aren't very funny while some of the really funny ones seem stolen from Mel's other movies.
|
positive
|
"Crossfire" feels like an underdeveloped masterpiece -- it's well acted and beautifully filmed, but thinly written and way too short. As is, it's just a decent police procedural with hints of film noir (at its zenith in 1947) and social commentary (also trendy at the time) thrown in for good measure. It's remembered today as one of the first two Hollywood films to deal with anti-Semitism, and as being much better than the similarly-themed "Gentleman's Agreement" (no mean feat). But its real subject is the difficulty that WWII soldiers, as trained killers, were having as they made the transition to civilian life. (For a more genteel take on this topic, try "The Best Years Of Our Lives.") A man is beaten to death in the first few frames of the film. We do not see his attacker. The movie is about the investigation of this murder, which is actually pretty straightforward, but it takes some unnecessary detours, like when the main suspect, a depressed soldier, winds up in the apartment of Gloria Grahame, a dance-hall hooker with a really weird pimp played by Paul Kelly. There's also a civics lecture halfway through the movie that slows the proceedings to a crawl, and the ending is tidy enough for a cop show. But otherwise it's a pretty decent mystery. Still, what a great noir it could have been. Director Edward Dmytryk drops a few hints at the subject of the original novel -- homosexuality, not anti-Semitism -- like when sadistic creep Monty seethes at the image of his friend Mitch talking with a strange man at a bar. And the cast is excellent. Robert Ryan makes for a very credible cretin, and even becomes a little sympathetic in his final scenes, not unlike Peter Lorre as the child murderer in "M." He deserved an Oscar but lost to Edmund Gwenn that year (you can't beat Santa Claus). Robert Mitchum is onhand as a soldier friend of the accused killer. Was Mitchum a great actor or a great star? Someone else can figure that out, but his sleepy eyes and bemused half-smile work very well here since they imply that his character knows something everyone else doesn't. (And he does.) And Robert Young, as the detective assigned to the murder, is surprisingly gritty, discarding his usual avuncular affability even when he has to deliver the civil-rights sermon midway through the picture. There's no question that Bogart or Tracy would have been brilliant in the role, but neither of them were at RKO in 1947 so you'll just have to deal with Dr. Welby. Still, Young is good enough to make you wish someone had cast him in a detective drama instead of "Father Knows Best," which he hated and which drove him to alcoholism and suicide attempts. The man deserved better than smarm and Sanka.
|
positive
|
This was alright. It was one of those We Gotcha But We Don't Have Enough Evidence Yet storylines. In the couple handfulls of movies I've seen her in, I've never really though much of Stephanie Zimbalist. A professional TV actress she is but nothing really outstanding. Here in this she was definitely above average as the former fed (or was it fed on loan?) profiler. Her character got along well with the motley bunch of Special Investigation Unit cops she was assigned with. There wasn't really a goofy character you'd roll your eyes at and just despise which was good. Also good is it takes awhile to know who the murderer is... but when I found out I wasn't that surprised. Oh well. One more thing that was good was the Los Angeles locations. Quite possibly if this was made today they'd use Toronto or Vancouver but here they really shot in downtown L.A. Like that a lot (even though I semi-despise L.A.) Liked the movie, too. I don't know if I'd ever watch it again but it wasn't too bad. My grade: B-
|
positive
|
First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film.
|
negative
|
Just saw the World Preem of Fido at the Toronto International Film Festival and thoroughly enjoyed it. Here we have a welcome reworking of a genre widely thought to have been pioneered (certainly 'fleshed out' extensively and successfully) by George Romero. But this is a Canadian film by a Canadian Director and it's a Comedy! And, YES, I actually think it is better than 'Shawn of the Dead'. Thoroughly believable and, perhaps even more importantly, enjoyable performances by Dylan Baker, Carrie-Anne Moss and young actor K'Sun Ray, whom I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of in future features. However, I must confess that I most enjoyed the delicious turn by Tim Blake Nelson as neighbour Mr. Theopolis, essentially playing a willing animated version of Victor Van Dort from the Corpse Bride (or, for those who've seen the film, wouldn't that read even better here as the Corpse Pride?) and, of course, Scotch actor Billy Connolly in his least animated, yet somehow deeply moving role as the titular character. Just think, he would not have gotten this role had it not been for Peter Stormare's commitments to Prison Break (as was revealed in the Q&A following Thursday night's screening). I can't help but speculate that the Screenwriters must have drawn a lot of inspiration from Day Of The Dead's Zombie 'Bub'.I am not keen on ever revealing plot details during a Comment and I won't start now. Suffice it to say that Fido is NOT one of those dour, graphically gory Zombie films you can rely on from Romero. Rather it is a film that will have you constantly chuckling and, although (and I did have to think back carefully to be sure) there is a fair dose of blood-letting and violence, the delectable humour, so well enhanced by the surreal milieu created by Director Currie and his co-screenwriters, goes a long way towards making this seem like a feature that ought to be rated PG-13. I urge you to go see this little Canuck gem. I'll certainly be buying the DVD once it emerges hopefully by next Summer.
|
positive
|
Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.<br /><br />But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect. <br /><br />This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening.
|
positive
|
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!
|
negative
|
Ego. Seems it's the only reason this movie was made. This movie is so wrong in so many ways that it's below one's dignity to write much about it. Every character was only good at self praise and lead actors (i use this term liberally as has the director) emote in the likeness of stone. the little story, if that, fails on the basic aspects such as logic, feeling and drama. Direction leaves much to be desired. blatant flaws are all over the place (character motives aren't defined, prospective husbands are found overnight, broken car windows mend themselves among other things)<br /><br />Let's face it, Himesh can't act. neither, it seems, can Hansika Motwani. In her defense, she's still a chubby child who looks older than she is thanks to tonnes of make-up. Raj Babbar Overacts and makes his little presence as fake as possible. Darshan Jariwala laughs a bit too much. The actor who plays Himesh's friend is the only natural. <br /><br />a few questions do come to mind: how can such a film cost Rs.500,000,000?? where did the money go??? granted that one chase sequence was moderately well shot and Mallika Sherawat was paid an obscene Rs.15,000,000 for her 15 minute appearance and 2 songs. but the sheer stupidity of the film boggles the mind. (including 3 Mumbai auto rickshaws that show up and jump on a police car)<br /><br />the good: Himesh shows courage by allowing the film to make fun of his nasal voice and trademark "topi." Let's give the Devil his due: Himesh, as usual gives good music.<br /><br />The bad: Direction, Story, Himesh's singing is still hard to ignore<br /><br />The Ugly: Dialogs and everything else!!!<br /><br />Final Word: Painful in every sense of the word! watch this movie only if you loved Subhash Ghai's "Yaadein"
|
negative
|
This is meant to be a comedy but mainly bad taste, and nothing remotely causing a smile in the film. The movie is about a couple trying for a child, and those people in real life who are in that situation will wince at the depictions that are portrayed. For instance scenes at a fertility clinic are not in the least funny and are quite frankly embarrassing. The male lead who plays a construction worker and in his hard hat comes across as a poor excuse for a reject from Village People. The female lead is trying to look 20 years younger than she is. Both leads come across as unappealing,unattractive and completely unconvincing. There are various ridiculous and totally unassuming gratuitous scenes in the film, for example with a budget airline, which is devoid of any humor. The only reason I give this 3/10 instead of 1/10 is one mark for Shirley Maclaine, who is a a class above anything else in the pic, and one mark for some half decent(albeit old) music.
|
negative
|
Typically, "kids" films have some annoying quality to it that makes it way too sappy and unbearable for someone over 13. But then again, that's before Holes hit the scene. Sure, it has the very same moments that often times give a kids movie its aforementioned quality, but this film does a good job of staying away from such conventions. The acting was decent, and the uneasy dynamics that Stanley had with some of the other campers was more realistic than what most movies seek to portray. What I especially liked about this movie was the fact that this film didn't try to break your heart or make you cry. The emotional power was a little more natural than most would imagine, kind of like The Shawshank Redemption in many ways (which Holes also has a similar, redemptive ending to it). The only down side? The hokey looking lizards. Overall, however, an 8/10.
|
positive
|
Bullets may not have bounced off his chest, but The Lone Ranger was every bit the symbolic icon to me as my other boyhood hero - Superman. He represented truth, justice and the American way in a classic TV Western setting, living by the principle that he would never use his gun to kill, while scouring the American Southwest with his faithful Indian companion Tonto to bring every single outlaw to justice. The advent of TV provided the perfect opportunity for a post War generation to find it's ideal in an enigmatic masked man who stood for law and order, while providing unparalleled entertainment for five seasons spanning almost eight years.<br /><br />Today I had the opportunity to view for the first time the complete three part origin episodes start to finish without the standard opening and closing sequences to interrupt the continuity of the story. For fans of the Ranger, this is the grand daddy of all Western sagas, telling as it does how Texas Ranger John Reid survived the ambush by the Butch Cavendish Gang, and how he was nursed back to health by an Indian friend from his childhood. Tonto (Jay Silverheels) declares his companion a 'trusty scout', and names him Kemo-sabe. I've read various interpretations of the origin of the term Kemo-sabe, but I'm satisfied with Tonto's explanation. Reading too much into it just detracts from the story, just like the English translation of 'tonto' from Spanish, which I won't reveal, because it's just better not to know if you can help it.<br /><br />I thought it quite clever how the origin story created the mystique of the Lone Ranger, like the sixth grave that created the illusion that all the Rangers died in the box canyon ambush. You never see the face of the man who becomes the Lone Ranger, as it's always turned away or obscured to hide his real identity. Even the origin of Silver is handled brilliantly; the voice of the story's narrator describing the wild stallion's sterling qualities. Would that relate, say, to sterling..., silver? I got the biggest kick out of that.<br /><br />Of course with the passage of time, watching the Lone Ranger episodes today offers a view of how unsophisticated the show was beyond the origin story. Some of them are almost embarrassingly goofy, particularly when it comes to a Lone Ranger showdown when he shoots into the middle of a crowd of bad guys to knock a gun out of it's owner's hand. And how about that little wave he gives to Tonto whenever they're about to ambush the bad guys - it's always the same gesture, but Tonto always knows what it means in different circumstances. Then you have the episodes where Clayton Moore takes off the Ranger mask to don a different disguise to impersonate another character in service to the story. He even went under cover once as an actor portraying President Abraham Lincoln to uncover a villain, top hat and all!<br /><br />Few fans that I come across ever know that actor John Hart replaced Clayton Moore for the 1952/53 season in a contract dispute that Moore had with the show's producers. If you ever saw that "Happy Days" episode where Fonzie idolizes his boyhood hero, you'll notice it was John Hart listed in the credits. It's difficult actually, to tell if you're watching a Hart episode or not, the key is to listen to the voice; Moore's is so distinctive that it's a dead giveaway.<br /><br />If you ever get the chance to sample some of the final season color episodes, you're in for a treat. The renditions I've seen on VHS are absolutely gorgeous, although I don't know if commercial prints are available. Most of the black and white episodes around have been re-packaged by any number of distributors in different configurations, so getting your hands on those should be no problem. The must see of course is the three part origin, and if you don't watch anything else, this gives you all the flavor and excitement you need to capture the imagination of one of the West's most famous heroes. Hi-Yo Silver, Awaaaay!
|
positive
|
This movie wasted 2 hours of my time and just make me wanna scream: "LAME". Nicholas Stoller write the movie "Yes Man", but direct "this" maybe he should stick with writing.<br /><br />I am so disappointed because I heard all the great review. I was expecting something like knocked up. They say this is from the maker of "Knocked up"? why can't I see the resemblance? but this just felt like a shallow, overdone-theme kind of movie for me. I am so disappointed. Actually it's not bad if you consider it as your-average-chick-movie, but that character of the "band guy" just get on my nerves<br /><br />Maybe I was just not paying enough attention to the movie, but yeah they have some funny lines and scene, but i don't felt the originality. And the ending make the movie a little bit better. At least the ending is not some boring cliché one.
|
negative
|
A gentle story, hinting at fury, with a redemptive message and glorious celebration. The photography is wondrously well executed. Cinematographers look at this kind of film to hone their craft not just for what the eye can do to enhance a story, but what the right camera vocabulary can do to heighten an emotion. Feeding the soul is by definition what this movie addresses, but with an elegance and grace of delivery that simply doesn't not happen much anymore, at least with this degree of taste, restraint and finesse. If you care about story and character development, this is a also a great movie to see as an example of what simple lines and the right delivery can do to completely fill out a character's impression. Match all this with a film score that is almost minimalist in character and also perfectly conceived, and you'll "get" this movie.
|
positive
|
The title of worse film of all time is one that gets handed out quickly and often. Most of the time it is exaggeration of the fact but I would like to welcome Alone in the Dark to the short list of real candidates: Plan 9 from Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, and the Adventures of Pluto Nash.<br /><br />As I watched the 90 minute bore I found it difficult to even stay awake even while I was trying so hard to laugh at the film. But alas I felt alone in the dark (I was gonna try to avoid the pun but I couldn't resist) as I looked around hoping to see Mike Nelson and his two robot friends. Alas my friends and I had to provide comedy throughout the film.<br /><br />So... about the film itself. Lets talk about the action and effects since that should be the only positive part of the film. The film contains evil creatures that are a cross between the Xenos in Aliens (they even call them Xenos), and the creatures in Pitch Black. The can turn invisible at random (and I assure you it is random) and get hurt by light. Also present are small centipede creatures used to control humans that transform them into something resembling a zombie. All of these are shown with outdated special effects that would have been mediocre in 1997. The action scenes are chaotic and are impossible to follow. People shooting randomly on a blue screen stage or an empty set at monsters who were inserted in post. Light quickly flashes on a dark screen making your pupils burn from overwork while bad rock music blares in the background.<br /><br />And those were the high points. The story revolving around a paranormal investigator (Slater) whose idea of looking tough is wearing a black wife beater Tshirt with a trench-coat and not shaving for 2 days. An archaeologist (Reid) who is rather inept. And a government agent(Dorff) whose lines involve barking order. All three should be ashamed at their performances (not that they have really ever done a good a job before) and the casting director should be ashamed. Reid and Slater are supposed to be lovers in the film I guess. The film contains the single most awkward love scene I have ever seen on film between the two.<br /><br />Then comes the plot. Quiet frankly the parts that make sense are not interesting at all. The rest is illogical at best. The plot holes could contain the collective egos of all three stars. The film begins with text and a voice explaining the back-story. This opening lasts for over a minute and already the viewer knows they are in for something terrible. This opening narration is later repeated adnausem in the awkward dialog in a very clumsy and heavy handed fashion through the rest of the film. And the ending did not make one ounce of sense. Not only did it not make sense in the world of the film, it simply did not make sense.<br /><br />Finally the direction of one Uwe Boll. Disgrace, thats all that can be said. His use of shaking the camera to simulate suspense. His lack of direction with the actors. Just watch Reid in scenes in which she is not center focus of the shot. The complete waste of special effects money for bullet time effects. And finally choosing to use voice over to explain something that should be painfully obvious to the viewers.<br /><br />I payed a $1.50 to see this show at a second run theater. And while the laughs me and my friends provided made it worth every quarter I would advise people to avoid paying any more for this film. Grab about 3 friends and split the rental cost and tear this movie a new one.<br /><br />Shame on you Uwe Boll. Shame on you Tara Reid. Shame on you Christian Slater. Shame on you Stephen Dorff. Shame on anyone who was associated with this film.
|
negative
|
after seeing this film for the 3rd time now i think it is almost Adam's worst film PUNCH DRUNK LOVE IS POOR in comparison to this i must say at the end when Dickie gets thrown of the boat it is so funny (the hair is different to his and i like it when he flips everyone off. This film should only be brought if your a true Adam Sandler fan.<br /><br />the characters are poor in comparison to his funny films like the Waterboy, which has the same people in it (Peter Dante) who is one of the assassins trying to kill the Australian bird.<br /><br />this film lack depth and a decent story line and deserves to be in the bottom 100
|
positive
|
I remember thinking that due to the cast, the subject matter, and the director, I was going to love this movie.<br /><br />Stepping into the theatre and taking my seat, I was like a giddy schoolgirl as my anticipation for the opening scene built.<br /><br />I was not disappointed with the opening and felt that I was truly going to love this movie.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the movie and feel that anything that gives away scenes might be seen as a spoiler, please stop reading. I'm not going to give away anything really important, but it might be seen as such, so that is the warning.<br /><br />Spoiler may be included below, beware.<br /><br />I think that the first scene that really hit me as just utterly ridiculous was the Russian space station scene. I mean honestly, refueling a shuttle with no real prior warning, and then to simply show the station as being so fragile that a simple little mistake can cause the entire thing to just explode.<br /><br />While all of this is possible, it seemed to me to be way over the top. I'm not sure if it was just the situation or if it was the cheesy acting, the silly view of the Russian technology, or just the campy attitude of the scene itself.<br /><br />It only got worse for me after that because then we endure what seemed like 2 hours of constant super loud explosions in space...you know, that place where there is no sound because it's a vacuum.<br /><br />But the coup de grace for me, honestly, was the gun scene. (spoiler possibility) - Earlier in the movie, we see Bruce Willis tearing apart their land vehicle (the vehicle that they will use to drive around in when they get there and to help them drill) when he is told that this is what they will be using. He is taking pieces off and complaining about it because much of what's on it is heavy and not required for what they are doing.<br /><br />So then, as we are wandering onto the asteroids, we see that they have opted to add a massive gatling like gun to the vehicles...you know, standard NASA fare is to have heavy weaponry on all space missions in case, you know, aliens or something.<br /><br />I could have taken the explosive 2 hours, the silly Russian space station refueling scene, the cheesy love scene near the end, the Bruce Willis character being nothing more than most of his other past characters, but the Steve Buscemi going mad and shooting the space vehicle's gun all over the place and causing havoc/damage, well that threw the entire thing over the top for me.<br /><br />Save your money and time and avoid this movie. If you want a good meteor movie, see Deep Impact, if you want a fun space movie with awesome special effects, see Space Cowboys, but no matter what, avoid this flick.
|
negative
|
The proverb "Never judge a book by it's cover", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface. <br /><br />As I viewed the artwork to,"King of the Ants" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.<br /><br />"King of the Ants" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!<br /><br />Now there are a couple of interesting "hallucination" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!
|
negative
|
I saw this movie a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away.
|
negative
|
Cradle of Fear<br /><br />This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as "a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror".<br /><br />This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge. <br /><br />The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play. <br /><br />As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.<br /><br />What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, "Did I just see what I thought I did", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.<br /><br />Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the "Sick Room", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is.
|
negative
|
This movie looked as if it might be good at the beginning, but never fleshed out to it's expectations. The director is talented and has some good camera angles and artistic ideas (typical of the Asian directors), but doesn't know how to create or tell a good story to go along with it. The story was fragmented and seemed to go off in all sorts of different directions throughout the film, never finding a solid, explainable, interesting angle. Basically, the movie never fit the explanation on the press releases. The acting was very good, however. All the actors gave good performances, and Jude Law was outstanding as he is always is. It is too bad he chose to do such a weak film.
|
negative
|
The movie is truly poignant, unique and uplifting. The story is universal in that it's a battle between good, evil and the world between. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is that its rating is wrong, misleading, and a travesty. Blockbuster has it rated as though it were an X rated movie. The truth is is that it is closer to G than PG and should be seen by children who can read the clear and simple sub-titles.
|
positive
|
Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on "something that has had a great effect". "La Maman et La Putain" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: "Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry." And by that I don't mean "sick and angry" about "the human condition" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - "an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like "un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his "anxiety" and his "despair". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if "La Maman et La Putain" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being "unflinching" (though why one should even feel like "flinching" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch "La Maman et La Putain" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have.
|
negative
|
I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but "Look at how creepy this guy is." And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen.
|
negative
|
Did anyone else notice whenever they are in the car each time the camera takes a new angle they switch roads. Like in one scene it is a one lane residential with sidewalks, next they are on a multiple lane highway with a divider, next a two lane country road with double yellow lanes. I can understand a low budget but that was just sloppy film work.<br /><br />I also read the other reviews and disagree that it was a bad movie. I think that if you are a fan of Paul Reiser and his comedy then you may enjoy this movie. If, however, you find his work/not funny then I would recommend staying away from this one.
|
negative
|
Way back in 1996, One of the airliner pilots where I used to work gave me a copy of this film. He told me that It'll make me cry. I never believed him and we even made bets. After seeing the film....I cried a bucket! Even after the seeing the film, I found myself in the bathroom crying. It was actually the most touching film I have ever seen. I like the part where Dexter's mom confronted Eric's mother the line went something like... "your sons' best friend just died today..and it's not gonna be easy...if you ever lay your hands on him again...I will kill you!" The last part where Dexter took Eric's shoe was a scene that never left my mind until today. Honestly, just thinking about it makes my eyes teary. A story of what true friendship is all about. My girlfriend loved it too... She hated me for letting her see the film. I cried a bucket, she cried a river.
|
positive
|
Tromeo and Juliet (1996) is another jewel in the Troma Studios film archives. Like The Toxic Avenger, Troma's War, Class of Nuke 'em High, Terror Firmer and Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. this film is an instant Troma classic. James Gunn updates Romeo and Juliet taking a medieval tragedy and reinvision's it as a modern day street punk drama. If you have seen or read the play before nothing much has change except it has been "tromatized".<br /><br />Lloyd Kaufman adds his own twisted vision to the screenplay and makes it highly enjoyable film. The actors handle the script very well. I was surprised by how well they performed the dialog, a lot better than some Hollywood big budgeted actors utilizing a monstrous budget and expensive sets. I enjoyed this movie very much. Lloyd Kaufman doesn't disappoint because you know what to expect from his films and other Troma productions. I would rather watch one of his films and be entertained than watch an boring expensive movie with pampered over paid actors, lame scripts, lazy directors and those awful C.G.I. special effects.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie. If you like fun films with cheesy special effects, over the top acting and inspired directing, then this movie's just for you!
|
positive
|
This is the weepy that Beaches never was. As much as I wanted to love Beaches, it always seemed too hurried for me to "feel" for it (its soundtrack is one of my favorite albums though). Stella, on the other hand, moves at a slower (and occasionally too slow) pace and though it's somewhat manipulative in its tears-inducing tale about a self-sacrificial mother, it works because Bette and the rest of the cast turn in great performances. 10/10
|
positive
|
Geoffrey Wright, the director of "Romper Stomper", transplants Shakespeare's "Macbeth" in the contemporary, criminal underworld of Melbourne, Australia. The result is a semi-awful piece of cinema. Sam Worthington is Macbeth, and walks around looking very self-conscious and bored. Victoria Hill, who wrote the script with Wright, is Lady Macbeth, and she's neither awful nor good. Lachy Hulme, who plays McDuff, is the only actor in the cast who exudes any kind of authority. The rest, including Gary Sweet, are wasted and misdirected. Shot on HD by the late Will Gibson, the movie's visuals lack character. Everything is too clean and too deliberately lit. Wright's direction is uninspired in the extreme and the action sequences are confusing and inept. Marketed erroneously as "the most violent Australia movie ever", the film is violent at times and reasonably bloody, but it fails to deliver a single impactful moment. Slow moving and terribly pretentious, this umpteenth silver screen version of the classic play is the personification of wrong-headed.
|
negative
|
**SPOILERS**This was an ugly movie, and I'm sorry that I watched it. Like Jan Kounen's Dobermann, it suffers mostly from poor editing--or lack of it. It is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention, he added all of the footage he had shot together. There are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. One of them is *SPOILER* when Benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. That was cool--but okay, we got it! Move on please! The camera won't stop spinning around this guy! There's maybe one or two more cool scenes that I forgot about in this flood of mediocrity, but the last duel scene IS NOT ONE OF THEM! It may be because unlike in the earlier sword-handling scenes, Shanao isn't masked--but just because the director couldn't find a stuntman who somewhat resembled Asano Tadanobu doesn't give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close-ups of sword clashes! And all from the same angle, may I add. The director should learn from the American produced 1995 bullet-train ninja movie The Hunted! I personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. The situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the Japanese media, due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. The movie versions of GTO and Salary Man Kintaro are two other recent examples *END SPOILER* I don't understand. I just don't understand why people who don't speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. Maybe the worst was lost in the translation.<br /><br />The ending of the movie--on which marketing played a lot, is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between Shanao and Benkei. But that legend is not the most popular in Japanese folklore, and it is so detached from contemporary themes, that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques, who cares how the director wants to re-interpret the story!? Director Sasaki Hirohisa of Crazy Lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new Japanese directors to ignore Japanese audiences, and target their movies for foreign film festivals--in order to gain faster international fame. This works, although it doesn't make sense, because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries-what kind of movies people WATCH in those countries. Certainly not Gojoe and the like.
|
negative
|
Another movie that relies upon the trite, worn-out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. The movie centers around a surgeon whose life's ambition is to bring the dead...back to life. I know, I know...you've never heard that one before! Of course, as all of these movies go, the experiment goes very, very wrong and creates a maniacal, bloodthirsty creature. For this promising setup, you'd think that it'd be at least a bit suspenseful. Wrong. Like many movies of this era, the idea is nice, but the execution and the script is mediocre. Not the worst horror movie I've seen (no, Abominator: the Evilmaker 2 still takes the cake)...but not one of the gems, either.
|
negative
|
Drum scene is wild! Cook, Jr. is unsung hero of this and many movies. Fantastic actor, great flick. A few twists that keep you moving. A must-see.
|
positive
|
I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.
|
negative
|
Ben Stiller doesn't so much act as react. And he does it very well. He is very dependent on the comedy going on around him. In There's Something About Mary, the stand-up hair scene only works because of Stiller trying to keep a straight face. When he confronts Mary's other two suitors, he is the unfunniest guy in the room but the scene is hilarious.<br /><br />In Along Came Polly, the formula breaks down for reasons that are difficult to fathom. Stiller is surrounded by an array of comic talent. Hank Azaria and Philip Seymour Hoffman get the best lines, of which there are too few. Having said that, Hoffman relies a little too much on bodily humour - you know we are in trouble when they go to the fart jokes to raise a laugh. A basketball scene where Hoffman hams it up is completely overplayed (though it throws up one predicament in the form of a shirtless opponent that does raise a smile - noticeably through Stiller's reaction). However, everyone seems to be acting in a bubble, there is very little reaction. Hoffman and Stiller's characters could have played off each other much, much more. Aniston again reprises her Rachael role, but Stiller is no Ross. It is more of a "Joey with a crush on Rachael" scenario.<br /><br />Polly is a by-the-numbers rom-com and that is its failing - it lacks heart. You don't root for the characters. With a little bit more work we could have had a deeper story, but in the end the film's failure comes down to poor writing. Worth watching if it pops up on TV on a slow night, but you'll regret forking out cash to see it.
|
negative
|
In one of her first movies, Romy Schneider shines as young queen Victoria of Britain, as she is suddenly put into the throne at the age of 18, learns to govern despite the machinations of the politicians, and eventually romances and marries Prince Albert of Saxony. Kitschy and campy (though surprisingly faithful to the real events), this romantic piece is irresistible. Seeing this movie about British royals spoken in German adds to its quaint charm. On that front, one wonders why an Austrian movie was made about an English queen; but then one remembers that in 1954, Austria was still under occupation by allied troops, including British ones. Maybe this was one of the reasons for the existence of this film.
|
positive
|
Despite its low-key release in this country, and its apparent disregard in other countries (the 'R' rating in the States can't have helped - honestly, just because HBC uses the C-word!), this is actually a fine piece of work. The sentimentality does occasionally threaten to choke it, but it's overcome by the playing of the two leads.<br /><br />It's easy to win plaudits just because you're playing a physical or mental cripple (Daniel Day-Lewis, Geoffrey Rush, Dustin Hoffman, etc.), and Helena Bonham-Carter may not quite capture the physical degradation of MND, but her vocal stretching and ruthless emotional drive compensate entirely. In fact, almost all her performance is conducted through her eyes (and what eyes!). This is an intelligent turn from an actress who is rapidly undoing her English Rose reputation, and emerging as a figure of some stature. Awards must surely follow, though not, alas, for this fine performance.<br /><br />Branagh, one feels, has never quite given his best on film (except possibly 'Hamlet', and there his playing was diluted by the large cast). Here, though, he tops his other appearances, playing to the hilt a self-loathing, unstable, ultimately lovable guy with a subtlety he hasn't always displayed, and exhibiting both intelligence and depth. In short, we believe him, just as much as we could NOT believe him as Frankenstein, as the priest in 'The Proposition', as the lawyer in 'The Gingerbread Man', even as Andrew in 'Peter's Friends'. This is surely his finest performance yet - so why could he not produce the goods much earlier?<br /><br />As a film, it looks more like a television offering, and without its stars it probably wouldn't amount to very much. But it's been a pleasure to see this pair perform their socks off like this, and I eagerly await more from them (though not 'Love's Labour's Lost'...). 8 out of 10, but Branagh and HBC get 10 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Hmmm, not a patch on the original from Shaw Brothers. The fighting is average and looks very clunky. The story line is as to be expected from a 70's Kung Fu film, confusing and daft. Stupid voices for women,dubbed in posh English accents for men. i turned this off early and i love martial arts flicks. Get the original, its so much better than this average movie, don't be fooled, i bought the wrong flick what i wanted was the Shaw brothers movie. i have just started commenting, I'm only doing foreign and martial arts films this is just the beginning of my movie collection, i personally own most modern martial arts flicks. Hope you don't waste time watching this one, its for die hard fans of 70's Kung Fu only.
|
negative
|
I have three comments to make about this film, which I discovered hanging out forlornly in a lower shelf at Blockbuster. First off, it is interesting to see the approaches film makers take in trying to film essentially unfilmable works. Some have, as Kubrick did with "Lolita", gotten the original author to write a screenplay that is something like the original work. Of course that can't happen here; Kraft-Ebing is long dead. Some have used the premises of the original work as a launch point to go in a completely new, unrelated direction (the recent adaptation of "Tristram Shandy" comes to mind here). You can dumb it down - the film of "Slaughterhouse Five" is to my mind an example of that. Or you can simply take the format of the original and try to render it in cinematic vignettes. That would be the approach of Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex", and, arguably, this film. Upon consideration, it is probably the only thing one can do with a scholarly work like "Psychopathia Sexualis". The potential loss is that whatever cumulative point the original work had is obscured or destroyed. And so it is here.<br /><br />Point two is the cinematic style. Some would call it an "homage" to Murnau, Pabst, Carl Dreyer, etc., but I think it more crude than that. Its far too heavy handed and self-conscious to be effective for long. It is eventually just annoying.<br /><br />Point three is perhaps a less intellectual observation. How did the people responsible for this manage to make a film about wild sexual deviations and perversion that is so incredibly boring? I found the film impossible to pay attention to, and anyone who is not automatically drawn to depictions of sexual deviance will find it so as well. I don't want to be completely uncharitable and say the film is pointless, but I have to say that whatever point the film makers had is rather obscured by the nature of the source material, the overt copying of filmic styles, and the stubborn refusal to engage the audience on an emotional level (possibly for fear of being accused of titillation).<br /><br />The film is a dubious exercise from the start and doesn't really work for me, I'm sorry to say.
|
negative
|
A rare exception to the rule that great literature makes disappointing films, John Huston's beautiful farewell to life and the movies is almost entirely true to the narrative and the spirit of James Joyce's short story, a tender meditation on love, death and time expressed in the events of a Twelfth Night party in middle-class Dublin circa 1910. Unpromising as the material might appear, the film succeeds by its willingness to tell the story on its own quiet, apparently inconsequential terms, rather than force a conventional cinematic shape of plot points and dramatic incidents upon it. Only once is the wrong note struck, when old Miss Julia (a trained singer and music teacher whose voice is supposed to have been cracked by age, not shattered) sings so badly that the audience burst out laughing when I saw this at the cinema. Fortunately, the mood of hushed and gentle melancholy is re-established in plenty of time for the moment of revelation between the married couple Gabriel and Gretta Conroy in a hotel bedroom as snow begins to fall outside. It's a sad story, I suppose, but the kind that leaves you feeling better, not blue. Especially recommended as a date movie - for people in love who aren't frightened of confronting the sweetness and sadness of life.
|
positive
|
The only good thing that this movie created was that it made me hungry for ice cream, minus the dead body parts in it. The movie is one of the most cheesy I've seen in a long time. When the "Ice Cream King" dies in the beginning, I was laughing so hard because the kid took the ice cream from him and started eating it. His mom asked him to say something and should should have said "Leave me alone and let me eat the free ice cream so I can watch my acting career go down the drain at a young age." That seems about right for a line. Then I wondered why the ice cream prince was behind the bars of his ice cream truck. Was someone going to rob him of his twenty cents? I've never seen bars on a ice cream truck window. It seemed pretty stupid. You might as well forget about the acting because it is just awful. Forget about this movie and go down to dairy queen and get an ice cream.
|
negative
|
I hate a movie that doesn't have an ending. I don't care how good or bad the rest might be, I don't like to be left without a conclusion. Such shows should insist upon a disclaimer ... something like: The movie you are about to watch has either no ending or is so ambiguous as to not be conclusive.<br /><br />In the movie the last scene we are left with is Dee and Dominic having a bit of a row and he says, almost regretfully I thought, that it couldn't be him because the fingers were either that of a girl or a child. THEN IT ENDS! Well sure, the smoking gun, so to say, is in the hands of the Dee's son, but what about Dominic's daughter? I actually thought we might discover it was her! Anyway, unless you like inconclusive movies, then I'd avoid this one. Otherwise, I thought the movie generally good.
|
negative
|
The only thing about this film that bums me out is that the DVD is so expensive. It's too much for my budget at the moment, or I would purchase it, because the film is a good example of film noir...and I enjoy watching Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter.<br /><br />Criterion produces great DVDs but sometimes the asking price is just a bit much. That's the case here for an 80-minute black-and-white, mono sound film that is good but nothing extraordinary, cinematography-wise.<br /><br />The story is the story here (as opposed to visuals, actors, sound, sets, etc.) as a pickpocket (Widmark) inadvertently winds up with espionage microfilm in his possession after pilfering Peters' purse. (say that three times!). Everyone but Peters is a believable character in this movie: Widmark, the cops, the U.S. agents and the Communists and, especially Ritter as "Moe," an informant. She and Widmark are the stars of this film.<br /><br />Peters does a decent job of playing the cheap floozy but loses her credibility early on by "falling in love" with Widmark on the first meeting even though he's nasty to her. Only in world of film!! Too bad, because that ludicrous romance part of the story takes away from it.<br /><br />This an average film noir which means good, but not great and certainly not worth owning at a price of $25-$35. For that price, one could do a lot better in the film noir market.
|
positive
|
I personally found the film to be great. I had it on pre-order for a month and watched it twice the day I got it in the mail, and several time since.. Yes, the time lapses may be a bit much, but the rest of the movie clearly compensates for it. All amature cast, yet the acting was right on for each part. The plot itself is just... haggard! There's no other way to describe it. Who makes a movie about someone getting f**gered!??? BAM, thats who. Genius. Simply genius. Two thumbs up. I would be honored to work with him any day, any time, on any thing.
|
positive
|
if you watch this at home on DVD or Bluray! be sure you have great sound system. the musical score through this is what moves you through the movie. I have watched the movie several times and thought it was great but after just up-grading my home theater sound system, what a difference. I will be watching this movie many, many more times.<br /><br />if you do not have a great sound system. find a friend who does and watch it there.<br /><br />also watch the extra stories and behind the scenes extras that come with it (the BR or DVD.) the interview of Quimet in the 1960's talks about his scholarship fund...but for those times just boys got it. today I hope some of it goes to girls.......
|
positive
|
A really cool flick. A must for any music snob. You don't really have to know about the bands to enjoy the movie. Before the movie, I only heard only two songs from the Dandy Warhols. The only thing is required is an open mind. <br /><br />The movie centers around the Brian Jonestown Massacre. The Dandy Warhols have a role in the film, as the 'rival band,' but they are second fiddle to the BJM. The Dandy Warhols don't play as big of a role in the film as I originally guessed, but then again, they didn't have the element of excitement and unpredictability of the BJM.You can't help but be fascinated by the band and its very charismatic front man, Anton Newcombe. By itself, it's an insightful film and study on the music industry. Just watch this film and enjoy.
|
positive
|
I only watched this because I saw a couple of good reviews for this, so I was expecting at the very least a half-way cheesy movie. Toybox doesn't even deliver that. There are so many problems with this flick, that I don't even know where to start, so I will list a couple of main issues (Once again, spoiler warning. Just read them, it'll save you the trouble of watching this later).<br /><br />One, this movie starts out with, and often mentions, the mythical folklore of both Celeste Noir (A witch, who the main character claims she is the reincarnation of), and the mid-folker (or something like that, an evil man with a big smile who cuts people open with hooks and sells their innards in pies). I liked that, it was a cute concept, anything to do with pies is simply enjoyable. But then you watch the movie and it's all about this idiot girl and her boyfriend (And what was the deal with him? Was he psychic? Did he have powers? Why did he keep seeing visions that even the so called 'Witch' didn't notice??), and them meeting their insane family. Not really insane, they just argue a lot. That's what most of this movie is, arguing, and they barely touch on the supposed myth ever again except in a couple of confusing scenes that you can't make heads or tails of.<br /><br />In one scene, Berenice (The main witch-related character) wanders off and does some sort of ritual by candle light. It seemed rather important, but absolutely NOTHING happened after she did it, it just wasted more of my time.<br /><br />And who the hell was that guy with his dog? You see him walking towards the house from the very start of the movie with that evil red-eyed dog, and then he finally gets there and gets killed? What the hell?? Was he the mid-folker? Was his dog possessed? Did someone kill the dog? They never really showed that. Also, any scene involving the Vicar was completely pointless and only served to weakly explain the lame ending. It was like they had all these interesting character ideas and they all went nowhere! The boyfriend, who obviously had some sort of powers but never explains them. The grandmother, who appeared to also have some sort of witch powers, but never used them. The Vicar, who...OK, never mind, there really was no point for his existence at all. And then there was Berenice and her stupid amulet. Could she really do magic, or did she just use it to reflect light and blind people? This was a complete waste of time, and the only reason I give it two stars at all is because a) Berenice is kinda cute, and b) It mentioned pies. Save yourself the money of renting this and dear god don't even think about buying it, unless wasting money is a new fad.
|
negative
|
No, this is nothing about that fairy tale with the pumpkin coach, fairy godmother and the glass slippers, but if I were to elaborate, I would have to spoil it for you, which I won't. But don't let curiosity get the better of you, as this movie is not fantastic. It's one of those movies that start off promisingly, before betraying its audience with cheap scare tactics and an incoherent storyline. And that's real horror.<br /><br />Yoon-hee (To Ji-Won) and Hyun-soo (Shin Se-kyeong) are your ideal mother and daughter. One's a successful plastic surgeon, while the other your dutiful, obedient, and beautiful teenage daughter. Their relationship is like hand in glove, so close you'd think of them more as siblings rather than parent-child. But things start to go wrong (don't they always) when Hyun-soo's friends, whom Yoon-hee has operated on, start to go berserk.<br /><br />Perhaps it's a warning to audiences, and for those Koreans ladies who don't bat an eyelid when going under the knife, if news reports are to be believed. The only truly scary moments are those scenes in plastic surgery, though somehow, I thought Kim Ki-duk's Time actually had more gore when featuring and describing what goes on during the surgery itself.<br /><br />It's a tale of two halves, the fist being an attempt to shock audiences with standard scare tactics, which, I admit, did get to me now and then. However, the second half degenerated the movie into mindless mumbo-jumbo melodramatics, and was quite contrived into its forcing its ideas down your throat. Some things begin not to make sense, and while attempts are always presented to explain, you probably won't buy it, not that horror movies are logical to begin with.<br /><br />The leads are all beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of male presence besides the negligible cop role. But hey, I'm not complaining, though the storyline could have been improved tremendously. I'd recommend you to watch this, only if you're a fan of mediocre Korean horror, on VCD. Watch out for those face off-ish moments!
|
negative
|
This is a great TV movie with a good story and many comic moments thanks to the excellent cast.<br /><br />The only problem this movie has is that it hasn't stood the test of time as well as it might have.<br /><br />Despite this, it's definitely worth viewing, particularly if you are an Alan Alda or Ruth Gordon fan.
|
positive
|
I give this movie a 3 as it is worse than the cult movies that deserve a proper 2. It does not make sense to you? Well, it doesn't have to. This is another vampire movie with a stupid plot, no, let me rephrase, incredibly idiotic plot, where space cowboys (complete with cowboy hats) battle a space race of moron vampires.<br /><br />Does it get any uglier than this? The only good thing in this movie was Natassia Malthe, with her stunning Norwegian beauty. God, I wish Michael Ironside and the DeLuise brothers would stop accepting dumb roles in dumb movies! I mean, at least SeaQuest was nice! I know Mr. Ironside from a lot of movies, he has acted in 164 movies at this date!! It's true that he was rarely in a major role, but still!
|
negative
|
With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.
|
negative
|
This movie was such a blast! It has that feel-good, yet totally in your face attitude that draws me to a movie. It has a good message (party girl decides she needs a real job) yet she doesn't completely lose all sense of fun. I recommend this movie for anyone who needs some humor, but is also a thinker! :)
|
positive
|
Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.
|
negative
|
If you like movies about creepy towns, hotels, houses, states (ala the Eagles "Hotel California"), etc. that possess the people that are "just passing through," read almost any Stephen King novel instead. If you like the setting of "Disappearance" start by reading King's "Desperation" but also check out "The Shining", "Salem's Lot" and "Needful Things."<br /><br />The crow motif, the desert, the family driving in desperation to escape or avoid possession are tired. Why didn't they just make the film from the "Desperation" novel? Maybe they approached King and he nixed? Must be.<br /><br />Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin look happy to be reunited and they have both worn well over the years, but they're still TV and direct-to-DVD caliber actors.
|
negative
|
This proved to be a rare case of a poliziottesco made with British funding; unfortunately, the result is undistinguished (except by its exceeding unpleasantness and borderline-camp approach) despite stars and director. The former is led by a wooden Franco Nero and an ultra-hammy Telly Savalas as a couple of would-be robbers (if anyone is able to believe either actor who generally exude cool as a duo of bumbling crooks, he's more gullible than I am!).<br /><br />Their 'job' goes awry (ending in murder and saddled with cases of cutlery instead of jewels!) however, the mismatched criminals see an opening to their dilemma when they inadvertently 'kidnap' the son of a British diplomat (a miscast Lester, who even gets to kick trigger-happy Savalas where it hurts at one point). Still, they never actually ransom him and their sole intent is to cross the border into France; tagging along with them is Nero's girlfriend (a wasted Ely Galleani): soon enough, though, she's had enough and decides to run away while the others are sleeping; the crazy Savalas notices this and, following the girl, kills her. In the meantime, Nero and Lester have woken up the former thinks his accomplices may have double-crossed him, so he goes on the lam with the boy in tow; after a brief spell at a rich old lady's country estate (which features totally gratuitous rear nudes by both Nero and Lester!), Savalas catches up with them. They continue their trek, where the trio run into a family of German campers: the situation degenerates to the point where Savalas shuts them inside their trailer and tosses the lot into the river though he's badly hurt in the process himself; typically, it all ends with the 'heavies' getting killed just as they're about to reach the border.<br /><br />The film, therefore, contains most of the genre's typical elements sleaze, sadism, violence, chases (the aftermath of the opening robbery when the getaway car causes havoc in the city's narrow back-streets and even disrupts a funeral procession is downright farcical), etc.; one mildly interesting aspect to it is that, by the end, Lester himself is seen to have been definitely (irrevocably?) marked by the experience coming to feel excitement when an act of violence is committed.
|
negative
|
Shameless waste of my time as a viewer. This is one of the worst films I've seen in ages. Please do not rent it as you will regret doing so! Guaranteed! I wonder how Kathleen Turner ended up in this! She is a legitimate actress and people would perhaps be attracted to this film because of her. But it really is better to act as if this title was never made! It should not have come into existence!
|
negative
|
This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.<br /><br />While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.<br /><br />Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.<br /><br />The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows! <br /><br />Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"
|
negative
|
This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an "Igor"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.<br /><br />But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in "Kleinschloss" ("little castle"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.<br /><br />It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures.
|
positive
|
How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.<br /><br />I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of "funny notion" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.<br /><br />The director/producer tried to go "tear jerker" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.<br /><br />Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days.
|
negative
|
The problems with Nikhil Advani's Salaam-e-Ishq are many. A one-line concept that looks good on paper (which also worked in an earlier English film - Love Actually) goes terribly wrong thanks to inept and shallow writing. A well-intentioned idea gets crushed to smithereens under the weight of its own gargantuan ambition. A director so completely besotted by his own much applauded first film goes overboard with the devices that worked in his earlier film (Kal Ho Na Ho) - try counting the number of times the device of split screens is used in this flick. The problem is - what worked fabulously in Kal Ho Na Ho were the emotional excesses of the Karan Johar school of film-making, but here, 'emotion' doesn't quite grace us with its appearance on the screen - no, not even cursorily. The writer/ director gives us 'six relationships with one common problem - love', but where is the intensity, where is the depth, where is the 'emotion'? A 'tribute to love' sans emotion? And one that goes on and on and on...... Nah, it just cannot work! <br /><br />In my opinion, the basic requirement for a portmanteau film like this to work is that not only should each individual story be 'complete', it should - in some way or the other - follow the graph of the traditional three-act structure (screen writing guru, Syd Field's Paradigm). That's the real reason why Salaam-e-Ishq didn't work for me. None of the stories had any depth or a roller-coaster ride of emotional ups and downs one expects in mainstream Hindi cinema. Also, the linkage between some of the stories seemed tenuous and very forced. It's not clear what Salman Khan is doing at Ayesha Takia's wedding. If he was required to be present at the wedding scene for a neat wrap-up, why not conjure a few more coincidences and bring the other two couples also to the wedding? That would be neater.<br /><br />But yes, some of the stories did have a lot of promise. For one, the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story tries to address a very real situation - mid-life crisis, but its journey is so linear that you're left wondering if it was really an issue. Similarly, the problem of commitment in the Akshaye Khanna-Ayesha Takia story is also true to life. If only it was developed a little better. I felt that the more promising stories in this mish-mash were told from the male point of view, which is fine, but it brings down the emotional quotient of these stories because the female characters - Juhee Chawla and Ayesh Takia in particular - have all the depth of a half-filled bath tub. Wasn't this film supposed to be about '12 different lives'? Now the actors. John Abraham still needs to learn acting, while Vidya Balan is dependable and endearing as ever. Anil Kapoor gets a role written just for him but sometimes overplay the boredom of his character. Since she didn't get a meaty character to portray, Juhee Chawla uses her charming smile and natural acting style to cover up for it. Akshaye Khanna is fine despite going a trifle over-the-top in a few scenes. Ayesha Takia has nothing much to do, but she does remind us that she's the same girl who surprised us with her bravura performance in Dor. Govinda tries to make up for that HUGE mistake called Bhagam Bhag, and succeeds to a large extent.<br /><br />That brings me the most irritating track of the film (which unpardonably ends up hogging the maximum screen time) - Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra. The track is irritating mainly because of them. But I must credit them for their consistency. They're consistently BAD all through the film. Priyanka could well be the next queen of hamming - I don't buy the crap that her role (that of an 'item girl') required her to act over-the-top. Somebody should tell her the difference between being flamboyant because the character demands it and downright hamming. If you've seen Rakhi Sawant (who seems to be the inspiration behind this role) in her interviews and Bigg Boss you'll know what I mean. I strongly feel that if Nikhil Advani had taken Rakhi Sawant in this role rather than a bigger star like Priyanka, the story would have worked better. Salman Khan's phony accent is.....well, Shannon Esra's Hindi is less accented than Salman's.<br /><br />To be fair to the director, he does manage to add some good directorial touches to the film. I particularly liked the use of grey as the predominant color in the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story as a metaphor for their boring existence, and the bright colors that come into the story with the arrival of the other woman. But will anyone choose to paint their house in varying, depressing shades of grey? That's acceptable cinematic license I would say. But when the film runs almost for 4 hours, it almost feels like the director is trying too hard to give the audience a glimpse of his 'touch' in an endlessly meandering montage of uninspiring sequences.<br /><br />Maybe Nikhil Advani wants us to sit in the theatre for as long as is humanly possible- pata nahin, kal ho na ho.
|
negative
|
I'm thinking of some things for this movie: First, really is a very bad movie. This is really "Superbad". The film looked very promising in the trailers but fell flat... Maybe the original idea was good, but between a bad script and bad acting the movie became boring and empty. My advise is don't waste 2 hours of your precious time. You have been warned. This is the first movie I rated 1 star at IMDb.com... Second, none of the characters are likable. You really don't care what happened to them... Third, the villain is very easy to identify. The grandson kills his father, sodomizes the friend's son, get the maid pregnant, smothers his grandfather... Like JT says, "If you like evil with no retribution, this is your movie". Nothing more to say...
|
negative
|
Cheers to all the wonderful fans of this film that have not only seen and appreciate it, but (based on the many literate comments) actually GET IT! I for one have always considered Paul Mazursky's "Tempest" a musing on the Shakespeare play of the same name, as has been noted in a few of the other reviews here. On the other hand, if you're looking for a more straightforward adaptation of the play, you should look elsewhere. As an experiment, however, it succeeds just spectacularly. Charming, moving, funny, sad, dramatic ... it's all of that and much more. Cast, locations, script, music are just fantastic. Cassavetes and Rowland were never better. Susan Sarandon's turn more than hinted at the great work to come from her in the future. Molly Ringwald makes her film debut memorable and you just have to love Raul Julia's performance ... he steals the show in several scenes. What's more, the always great Cassavetes was confident and assured enough a performer to have let him! A study on what the thematic elements of Shakespeare's classic might be life if updated into more "modern times," Mazursky's "Tempest" burns brilliantly!
|
positive
|
I really like this film... when I started to watch it I thought I would get bored pretty soon, but it surprised me... I thought it was a great film and have seen it a few times now. The characters are believable and I have to say that I fell in love with Brian Austin Green all over again (the first time being Beverly Hills 90210). I would recommend this film if you are a fan of his, but I do agree with another comment made earlier, that the ending is sort of disappointing. I would have loved it to turn out a little different! Never mind though, good gripping story.
|
positive
|
I found this film to be one of those great heart-warming gems. The story line is tightly woven and the character development throughout fantastic! I am a big fan of non-US films anyway and this is right up there with: "Happenstance," "The Closet" even "King of Hearts." Vlastimil Brodsky as Fanda, is fantastic. It is a love story in the true sense of loving life and the twists and turns it takes to get the viewer to understand/enjoy Fanda's view of life (which nearly costs him<br /><br />more than he is prepared to give) are wonderful. His co-star Stelle Zazvorkova is unforgettable as his fed-up wife. I highly recommend this movie for the whole family--my children loved it.
|
positive
|
I don't see the sense in going through so much trouble to make a movie like this, and then throw the history book out the window. There wasn't a single accurate detail in that movie other than the fact than Richtofen died, which I was grateful for at the end so I didn't have to watch any more. Movies like this are an insult to anyone who knows anything about WWI aerial history.<br /><br />I'll skip the obvious, that they were flying Fokker DVII's in 1916, because the Blue Max did that too, or that 209 squadron was flying SE-5's, and will attack other parts. For one thing, they call the Pfalz D-III an 'old Albatross' at the beginning. For another, they have Voss, Goring, and Wolff all in Jasta Boelcke. The only one who was in that Jasta was Voss, and he joined after Boelcke died. Richtofen wasn't held to blame for Boelcke's death...Erwin Boehme, who collided with Boelcke, had swerved to avoid a British plane that Richtofen was chasing. When Richtofen received his head wound, it was while attacking a FE-2d two-seater, and he did not crash into the trenches and have soldiers fight over him, and NO..Werner Voss did not die that day. He died September 28th in one of the most epic battles in WWI.<br /><br />Manfred was short, not like the actor who towered over everyone else. His brother Lothar was never in Jasta Boelcke either, he joined the squadron when Manfred was in charge of Jasta 11.<br /><br />There's so many other glaring errors in historical fact that I'll let them go except perhaps the worst one, the death scene. In the movie Manfred is out-maneuvered by Brown and then shot down, making a perfect landing. Brown got off one burst at Richtofen while Richtofen was chasing May, and the facts amassed over the years overwhelmingly show that Richtofen was killed by ground fire, not by Brown.<br /><br />The only value in this movie was the chance to see the flying scenes themselves, which were as good as 'The Blue Max', other than that I won't watch it again and I paid $30 for the tape!
|
negative
|
This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5
|
negative
|
I am almost tempted to demand my money back from the video store. This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completely unwatchable. I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thorough waste of celluloid. My vote 1/10 (it would have been zero).
|
negative
|
Between the ages of 30 and 51, when he died of a brain tumour, Zachary Scott made 70 films. He was introduced in 1944 in Jean Negulesco's 'The Mask of Dimitrios', where he played Dimitrios. The next year, 1945, he made three films, of which this is one. He is best remembered by cineastes as the star of Jean Renoir's 'The Southerner', one of the 1945 films, where he had a sympathetic role. However, he often played creepy characters, and in this film he is a sociopathic killer of women for money. So what happens here? He lives in a house with three women, so watch out! Faye Emerson, who also appeared in 'Dimitrios', plays the older of two daughters in the house. She falls in love with Scott and they become secretly engaged. Then her 'cute kid' younger sister (played effectively by Mona Freeman, who resembles Bonita Granville both in looks and in behaviour) returns from boarding school and reveals casually in conversation with Scott that she has inherited a tidy sum, so Scott turns his sights on her instead, with all the torrid jealousies seething in the household which that was bound to arouse. Things get tense, and then they get tenser. Meanwhile, plans for murder are going forward in the mind of the calculating Scott. But it turns out that he is not the only one with such intentions. He is also being searched for as a result of his last kill, with which the film has opened, so that we know his back story. James Wong Howe gives effective noirish cinematography to this tale, which was directed by Frenchman Robert Florey who had moved to Hollywood some time earlier. The film is an effective psychopath-in-the-house mystery which can cause a bit of wear of the edges of some seats, for those of such an inclination.
|
positive
|
Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed<br /><br />adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in<br /><br />college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the<br /><br />Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or<br /><br />interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all<br /><br />game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't<br /><br />open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.
|
negative
|
Steve Carrel Proves himself to be a great leading man in this wonderful, original, raunchy breath of fresh air. I about wet myself at how geniusly hilarious it was.<br /><br />Basically the movie's title says it all: Andy Stitzer is a 40 Year- Old Male who works at an electronics store. He is a bit of a nerd who loves videogames and Comics, and has the biggest collection. His Peers that work in the store with him find out that he's a Virgin during a rather sex dialogue filled poker game, and then Andy has to go through a rather funny as hell Odyessy of rude sexual awakenings, but always screwing up which leads to him not losing his virginity, but he eventually gets lucky in the very end.<br /><br />Leave the little ones at home, But Take the entire family to see This awesome Romantic Adult Comedy. It will have you hooked and cracking up from the very beginning, and by the time it is over, you will be wishing you wore your extra thick absorbent undergarments. Only other thing I can say about it is Too bad Steve Carrel wasn't recognized as a leaving man 20 years ago. He is definitely gonna win best breakthrough male performance in next years MTV movie Awards. You can bet your hard earned dollar on that, people!<br /><br />I Give this one a perfect 10!
|
positive
|
I admit, the first time I watched Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, I didn't think it was very memorable in any regard. But now after viewing it the 7th time, I admit that it has very much grown on me. The characters of Sissy, Ms. Jellybean, and the Countess have become very endearing. And the romance between Sissy and Jellybean seems very sweet. Though the plot is very weak, I think the satirical humor more than makes up for it. Then there's the kick-ass soundtrack which features the tremendously talented K.D. Lang (who reminds me a little of Patsy Cline) at her best. I can't think of any movie that has "grown on me" after an inauspicious first impression, as much as Cowgirls has.
|
positive
|
This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!<br /><br />I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !
|
negative
|
while being one of the "stars" of this film doesn't necessarily give me sage insight, i do know quite a bit of what was first there...and what ended up on the screen. i remember seeing the original cut of "incoming freshman" and being very pleased. it was funny, sexy, raunchy, all the main requirements of a drive-in film. you have to remember this was shot and released before all the rest...animal house, porky's, etc...so in its own way, this flick was truly ahead of its time. for whatever reasons, the film was given to the main distributors who editing out half the original film, and then edited in (should i say "shuffled?") THE most random scenes ever. the fat guy, the people with goat heads....what the heck was all that?! i'm sure it was put in for additional T&A, but it was so slowly paced, it caused anything going on prior to it to grind to a screeching and painful halt. but all in all, it's a fun memory for me...especially in that i'm able to say that the worst movie i've ever seen...i'm in!
|
negative
|
This movie is an incredible piece of work. It explores every nook and cranny of the human mind, focusing on the characters relationships with the people around them. Stellar performances all around. This one had me weeping for about half an hour straight. Spend some real time with this one.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.