review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I thought this movie'd be totally different than just another teen-slasher. Well I was totally wrong. There's a liquid nun coming out of the toilet seat and something really odd. I know that Spanish culture is a bit different and their movies too, but I didn't expect to see a fake Hollywood film. They certainly faked it pretty well though. Why'd they make a movie without any new aspects? This is just plain boring and it'd been done totally without any imagination.<br /><br />I thought that having a nun as the bad guy in the movie'd be something really original. It turned out to be a teen slasher. If this'd been done ten years ago then it'd have been something new.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie for anyone but it certainly has some comedy value! It's like a horror parody in some points.
|
negative
|
I am a fan of Jess Franco's bizarre style, and a lover even of his trashier films, and my personal opinion is that he has, besides several very entertaining movies, also created a few masterpieces, such as the brilliant "Paroxismus" aka "Venus In Furs" of 1969, for example. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the 180+ movies this highly prolific filmmaker has directed in his career, also include a bunch of big time stinkers. "Sadomania" of 1981 certainly is one of these stinkers, just an utterly bad and plot less movie with the ability to bore the hell out of you in spite of constant sleaze and nudity.<br /><br />Sure, the constant nudity will keep you entertained for 20 minutes, but since it keeps going on and on like that one is pretty likely to get bored after a short time. The only thing that really kept me watching this was the intensity of the sleaze which is, generously spoken, slightly amusing.<br /><br />After couple of newlyweds get lost in the desert on some island, they are stopped by a bunch of topless women carrying guns, wardens of a local prison camp. While the husband is banished from the island, the wife is taken to the prison camp, a place of torture and sexual humiliation, reigned by the sadistic nymphomaniac Magda and an extremely perverted governor. The prisoners are, of course, entirely hot chicks, most of them blondes, the wardens are entirely topless women carrying rifles.<br /><br />The plot, if one can call it that, is extremely stupid of course, but who is going to watch this for a good plot anyway. The (only) interesting thing about "Sadomania" is the high level of exploitation, even for a 'Women In Prison' film. There are probably two short scenes in the movie where we see a woman actually wearing a top, the sleaze contains all kinds of sexual perversions from rape to bestiality, and some of the torture scenes are really nasty.<br /><br />It is amazing that a film with this extreme level of sleaze, however, can still be so boring. The sleaze will keep you watching in the beginning, but after the first 45 minutes I actually had a hard time not to fall asleep. It also makes me wonder why, out of all pornstars, Jess Franco chose Ajita Wilson, who was, according to most sources, a transsexual who had been born a man (well, maybe for exactly that reason). If you really want to watch this, make sure you have enough beer at home to sit through it and watch it for the sleaze and exploitation only (and maybe for the slight unintentional fun factor). Don't expect to be highly entertained, however, it is almost unbelievable how a movie with such a high sleaze level can be so boring. I am a Jess Franco fan and I always will be, but "Sadomania" is just bad. 2/10
|
negative
|
**** Possible Spoiler **** <br /><br />If you were making a serious movie involving a powerful, but aging father with three apparently ungrateful daughters, featuring actors of the highest caliber, with great cinematography and a beautiful Midwestern setting, now where would you go with it? Why, you'd fashion a modern tragedy after "King Lear" of course.<br /><br />That's what I was expecting. That certainly wasn't what I got. What I got was 105 minutes of feminist tripe--one long harangue about man's inhumanity to woman. Why, there wasn't a decent male in the entire story.<br /><br />You see early on where this film might be headed, but you can't believe anyone would waste all these fine actors and craftsmen on that trite scenario--you just want them to get on with the King Lear theme. But it never happens; and there's the real tragedy if you ask me.<br /><br />Aside from the panorama of glorious rural heartland, about the only thing worth watching in this film was that wonderful chameleon, British actor Colin Firth, practicing his Midwestern accent. Now there was a treat.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
Like many other people, I've heard about "more" and I wanted to watch it due to the music that was composed by Pink Floyd. I must say that I was truly disappointed, not because of the music but the movie in itself. it's a boring insipid movie that lacks rhythm. Where does this disappointment come from? According to me, from different things. First of all, the movie's subject, the drug links up badly with the idle sunny atmosphere of the movie. This one should have taken place in the sordid areas of Paris and should have gave birth to a dark and helpless climate,for example. Moreover, it's supposed to tell a descent into hell but this descent is softened and barely sketched out. Barbet Schroeder doesn't insist enough on the dramatic side of the story. You could have wished a little more of madness, cutting. On another hand, Schroeder doesn't succeed in gaining the audience's emotion and adherence in front of the two main characters' distress. You watch carelessly their trials with drug. Whereas the two main actors, they're perfectly inexpressive and hardly evolve during the movie, especially Mimsy Farmer. At the end, you only retain the beauty of the mediterraneans landscapes bathed in sunlight. The film created a huge sensation when it was released in 1969. Nowadays, it <br /><br />seems dated. The hippy culture is nothing less than a faraway memory.
|
negative
|
I did not like the idea of the female turtle at all since 1987 we knew the TMNT to be four brothers with their teacher Splinter and their enemies and each one of the four brothers are named after the great artists name like Leonardo , Michelangleo, Raphel and Donatello so Venus here doesn't have any meaning or playing any important part and I believe that the old TMNT series was much more better than that new one which contains Venus As a female turtle will not add any action to the story we like the story of the TMNT we knew in 1987 to have new enemies in every part is a good point to have some action but to have a female turtle is a very weak point to have some action, we wish to see more new of TMNT series but just as the same characters we knew in 1987 without that female turtle.
|
negative
|
after seeing this excellent film over 100 times, i still find new things that blow me away with this movie, great special effects, incredible acting, and a plot full of ingenious twists makes this movie an excellent depiction of capitalism versus communism, and in this ending everyone is happy and all is well. best movie ever!!!
|
positive
|
This film is an excellent example of what an independent film can be. The director does an excellent job of riding the line between emotional and physical violence. But in the end, he remembers what so many indie-films forget - he tells a good story. When watching this film I was reminded of how timid and mundane most big-budget Hollywood films really have become.<br /><br />Especially notable, is an exceptionally strong performance by the film's lead - Jorge Cordova. As an villainous thug (on his way to the top of the crime heap) Cordova plays a conniving, brutal, conceited, devious, and sleazy S.O.B., but he is so likable that he keeps you entertained the whole time. <br /><br />I read somewhere that these guys were part of the New Wave of Latino Filmmakers in Los Angeles - called La Nueva Obra, or something like that. Either way, this film makes you look forward to seeing more of their work.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
If you think it's beautiful to be obsessive about who you are in love with, then I can imagine giving it a good rating... but I cannot imagine that this theme of obsessiveness and having little respect for others (such as the way Paulie treats the teachers who try to help her) is anything you would want to teach your children. Yes, it's also bad the way Victoria treated Paulie, but guess what. That's life. Isn't it a more important lesson to learn how to get past these disappointments and make the best of your life? Or is falling off the roof a better lesson to teach our children? Secondly, when Mary's father didn't show up for the dinner, and Paulie helped Mary release her anger, that Mary even said she wished he were dead... Somehow I don't think this is a good message either that you deal with your disappointments through anger.
|
negative
|
I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.<br /><br />Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.<br /><br />The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.<br /><br />I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts. <br /><br />It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids. <br /><br />Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie.
|
positive
|
After having spent a lot of my youth watching such movies, I found this one very easy to follow in both the unedited and cut versions, (Although the story has much more to hold it together in the unedited version. Unlike Ninja Scroll this movie hit a much more serious note and i think that's where it hit me. The animation while grainy is very original, and I just love the way artists in that year stressed shadows to show different emotions. I think the story is perfect. The beginning of the movie really hits hard and as the movie progresses you get the feeling that you're going along in this adventure with the characters. As they meet, become allies and find out the their greatest strengths, a lot of heart was put into this.
|
positive
|
I can't believe the positive reviews of this movie - I thought it was one of the worst, most poorly executed and poorly acted movies I have ever seen. And the plot was completely ludicrous (sp?). She starts making out with him while he's tied to the chair? puh-lease. The worst part was that it wasn't even bad in a good, laughable way. Just plain terrible - I couldn't figure out why they even bothered to show it on HBO. I thought Belushi was ridiculously silly - very unbelievable as an "eccentric" hit man. idk, I could go on - again, I am shocked by the positive reviews. The only thing that kept me watching it is that it's fascinating to see how a movie can go wrong and what makes it bad. And the ending didn't disappoint in its silliness either! "live by the sword, die by the sword..." ridiculous.
|
negative
|
My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.
|
negative
|
Let me start out by saying i will try not to put too many spoilers in this. Normally I enjoy Robin Williams movies, however this gem was not one of them. It was billed as a suspenseful thriller. The night listener was anything but. To be blunt there were 6 people in the theater opening day, 2 walked out, for good reason. The movie was in my opinion poorly written and directed. The acting was alright but again there wasn't anything to work with. The movie is about A storyteller who reads a good book by a dying kid. However *insert spooky here* no one can verify the kids existence. So Williams goes to Wisconsin to try and find the author, however all he gets is a headache and excuses from the boys caretaker. There thats it, thats all. You wait for about an hour and a half and movie ends. It had as many thrills and chills as a dentist office visit. The homosexual undertones, or overtones had really nothing to do with the story, and the movie had a little profanity but it seemed to be thrown in there for absolutely no reason and made little sense. In conclusion i really can't write a decent review on this film because there was nothing to it, it was as captivating as watching paint dry. I gave it a 2 because the acting for what it was worth was alright and it wasn't directed by Uwe Boll.
|
negative
|
I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.<br /><br />A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.<br /><br />I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries.
|
positive
|
This show will succeed because it appeals to all adults no matter where they are in their relationship. As a man married for 26 years, I empathize with Patrick Warburton's character: he loves his wife, but he assumes she knows that. I also enjoy his monotone delivery; never gets too excited or too low. A nice ensemble of characters. This will be a nice addition to the Monday night line-up.<br /><br />I don't know how David Spade will be in his role. He is best enjoyed in small doses. He also seems a little old to still be trolling for women.<br /><br />I enjoyed the pilot and I look forward to seeing how the series develops.
|
positive
|
Everyone does things that they later regret. Things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. Things that although seem rational at the time, later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity.<br /><br />For some people it is signing the note for the new Hummer, for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker, for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash.<br /><br />For me it was a film.<br /><br />D-War: Dragon Wars In hindsight, I should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. But with my willing suspension of disbelief intact, and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby, I really wanted this film to work. Sadly, by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory, fifteen minutes into the picture, I had the sudden, sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. And worse: I knew just how badly every point would all suck.<br /><br />Let me be perfectly clear here, the English language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is.<br /><br />As for knowing all the twists of movie, I was wrong. In the spirit of the old Godzilla films, whose scales this one is not worthy to fill, it conveniently sprouted extra sub-plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue.<br /><br />It was infested with close calls, miraculous escapes, and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst.<br /><br />This film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers access to the national defense budget. And lots of liquor.<br /><br />Let me try to explain.<br /><br />Imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest-looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade: First take the rasta-talking army of amphibians from Star Wars Episode One and remove their Prozac until they are ready to club Navy Seals.<br /><br />Next, take close approximations of Kira Knightly and Tom Cruise (You can even call him Ethan as a "subtle" nod to the Mission Impossible franchise.) and give them lots of film noir narration, so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading-pool depths of their thoughts.<br /><br />Finally add a raspy-voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a Lord of the Rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras, angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of King Kong, and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day Los Angeles.<br /><br />Now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. When you return, puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi-gelatinous.<br /><br />At several points during this picture, I found myself saying out loud, "Make the bad movie stop," and breaking into tears.<br /><br />To call this a B-movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. After summer school, and a lot of physical therapy, it might possibly pass for a C level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it.<br /><br />In short, if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn, and the need to punish yourself for hideous, unspoken sins against humanity, Dragon Wars might just be the film for you.
|
negative
|
Film makeovers of old TV shows seems to be the norm in Hollywood these days, but this disrespectful, toilet humor, do-you-kiss-your-mother-with-that-mouth foul language, rip-off is a blatant middle finger to all Dukes of Hazzard fans both north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line. From the opening sequence of Bo and Luke Duke making a moonshine run for Uncle Jesse (no shine running in the show because it would put the boys back in jail as a parole violation) to the closing sequence of Uncle Jesse smoking weed with the Governor of Georgia (Uncle Jesse was the moral compass despite his previous moonshining ways) this disappointing waste of film is an open faced insult. I can't tell you how many parents I saw get up and remove their children from the theater within the first 15 minutes of the movie when they realized that they had been horribly deceived. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a family show with basic moral values. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a kid safe, Hemi powered, show of fun that parents didn't have to worry about teaching their kids George Carlin's seven words. I have read reviews stating that the show and the movie are nothing but racist. Those commits might be correct about the movie. Those commits are ABSOLUTELY incorrect about the show. The show, if anything, was about how to get along and be friends with ANYONE. Hollywood has finally come out in the open about their disdain for those of us, Yankee, Rebel, or otherwise, who still believe in honor, loyalty, trust, family, and doing the right thing even if it is not the popular thing. Hollywood has finally brought to light its belief that those of us in the heartland are stupid, uneducated, beer swilling, foul mouthed, trash that will buy any piece of garbage they are willing to sell. Prove the Hollywood Elitist that they are wrong. DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Boycott the sponsors. Fill Warner Bros. email and snail mail boxes with complaints that we don't appreciate them destroying one of the greatest T.V. shows of all time. Save your money and buy the DVD's of the original show, but whatever you do
DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE
|
negative
|
As much as I like Japanese movies this one didn't just cut it... A movie that is supposed to be about rebels and the survival of a royal blood line turned out to be a very slow paced movie with a doubtful plot.<br /><br />The photography is OK, though I've seen much better sword fight scenes in other Japanese movies, the fast cameras and the way they followed the characters didn't convince me at all. The soundtrack is so weak you don't even notice its presence.But worst of all was the way the plot evolved.I have to admit that, at some times, I had a hard time understanding who was who and what was going on...Anyway the platonic love between the main character and another one was completely unnecessary and seemed to come from a Hollywood influence.<br /><br />All in all, if your looking for an action Japanese movie this isn't it. Its very slow, with very few sword fight scenes and very sentimental... in a bad way...
|
negative
|
Well, I had seen "They all laughed" when it came out in<br /><br />Europe around 1982 and had kept a vague but dear souvenir of it. I 've just seen it again on tape, almost twenty years after... Bogdanovich has a true heartfelt tenderness over his characters and a kind sympathy which is difficult not to feel also. Excellent comedians and actors, good lines all over and for everyone and pretty good editing, too. I laughed and smiled all the time. Just as we all do, at times. Go get it.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie as a child and it broke my heart! No other story had such a unfinished ending... I grew up on many great anime movies and this was one of my favourites, because it was so unusual - a story about unfairness, and cruelty, and loneliness, and life, and choices that can't be undone, and the need for others. Chirin is made alone when the Wolf kills his mother, but the Wolf is alone, too, when Chirin follows him into the mountain. The Wolf doesn't kill the lamb, even though each night he says "maybe I'll eat you tomorrow." The tape of it I have is broken and degraded from age and use. I will repair it and watch the movie again someday and cry just as hard as I did as a child. Stories like this, with this depth and feeling, and this intricacy of meaning, are very rare. It is a sad story, but I've never encountered any catharsis more beautifully made. I am glad I have seen this movie, and I'm glad I saw it as a child.
|
positive
|
Jean Rollin artistic nonsense about vampires, aliens and the quest for immortality.<br /><br />The women are beautiful and the photography stunning. The dialog is inane. Its a laughable mess. Great to look at but as any semblance of a horror film or thriller purely awful. I'm trying to figure out if we're suppose to be scared or not. At the same time is it a put on or not? Its an odd mix of art film and horror that never quite meshes and while its nice to look at it never seems to "mean" anything, and its by no means scary even if the occasional shot or sequence creates a moment of frisson Its well made pretentious twaddle. Something to leave on in the background as a living wall paper for those who like naked women.
|
negative
|
I love occult Horror, and the great British Hammer Studios, who delivered one of their greatest films with "The Devil Rides Out" (1968), have proved to be more than capable in this field of Horror. This occult tenth episode of Hammer's short running TV-series "Hammer House of Horror" (1980), "Guardian of the Abyss", is indeed a creepy entry to the series. Director Don Sharp, who had previously enriched the Hammer oeuvre with "The Kiss of the Vampire" (1963) and "Rasputin: The Mad Monk" (1966) and furthermore directed two "Fu Machu" movies starring Christopher Lee, is doubtlessly one of the better-known names among the HHH directors, and he also delivers here. Antiques dealer Michael (Ray Lonnen) stumbles over a mysterious old scrying glass. The scrying glass happens to be the object of desire of a devil-worshiping cult, who want to use it for their satanic rites. When he shelters a beautiful young girl named Allison (Rosalyn Landor), who is to be sacrificed by the cult, Michael gets into deeper trouble with the cult and their sinister leader (John Carson)... While this is not one of my absolute favorite episodes of "Hammer House of Horror" (the best one clearly is the brilliant seventh episode, "The Silent Scream"), it is a very creepy and atmospheric one. The plot has several interesting twists, and stays suspenseful and uncanny throughout the film. Ray Lonnen makes a good lead, young Rosalyin Landor is convincing as the innocent beauty, and John Carson is truly creepy as the leader of the Satanists. Overall, "Guardian of the Abyss" is another interesting and creepy HHH tale, and my fellow Hammer fans should not miss it.
|
positive
|
By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should "stand on their own two feet", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.<br /><br />The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By "noisy" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog ("I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray," etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be "important" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.<br /><br />Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.<br /><br />In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the "Chitlin Circuit"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.<br /><br />3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music.
|
negative
|
Why is this movie not in the 250 best? This movie looks still astoundingly fresh 56 years after its production but it could only have been made at the aftermath of W.W.II because of the perception of the nearness of death. People were more aware that life could be stopped at one unexpected moment. And what after life? I liked the scene at the end with the judgment and all people of all nations gathered. The phlegmatic judge (Abraham Sofaer-a typical British judge-), Doctor Reeves (Roger Livesey) defending Peter Carter (David Niven) and also June (Kim Hunter) against the American prosecutor Abraham Farlan (Raymond Massey I -there is a reason why it is an American-). It is all so imaginative! Michael Powell wrote, directed and produced this astonishing movie which is a real "tour-de-force". The message of the movie is clear: in the universe the law is the most important but on earth nothing goes beyond the love between humans. The way in which this beautiful story is told is far more interesting than any Hollywood-movie could ever make.
|
positive
|
I had a bad feeling ten seconds into the film as a pair of overworked tumbleweeds (probably left over from a bad western) blew across the scene. The bad feeling grew ten seconds later when the obligatory opening stranger-turned-human-sacrifice for no apparent reason lowered his rear view mirror to see a shadow in the back seat. For the next five minutes over the opening credits we are treated to an overhead shot of the car rocking back and forth and only the dramatic made-for-TV-movie music informs us a killing is taking place, not a make-out session. For the next 27 or so hours we are treated to two idiotic psychotics who for some reason seem compelled to drive through the desert Southwest together, going after each other like a demented Abbot & Costello. Even with the "shocking" twists at the end, we are merely left to shake our heads and wonder if the producers and director/writer feel as ashamed and embarrassed as they should for creating this inconsistent, incoherent nonsense.
|
negative
|
While not the first movie I've purchased for myself, this is almost certainly the one I've watched the most. The animation is well-drawn by the experts at Tokyo Movie Shinsa, and the animators frequently made use of clever techniques such as having the sun cause "lens flare", having the camera get soaked (and having the "camera operator's hand" clean the lens!) etc. While the film avoided becoming a an "animator's gadget-fest", the judicious but generous application of such techniques gave the film a much more "realistic" feel than the typical cartoon.<br /><br />The story has many interweaved plots which don't seem to have much to do with each other until everything comes together at the end, in a manner even the writers self-effacingly admit is contrived. Each of the major plot lines has its own musical theme, ranging from "Pop goes the weasel" [Hamton & Plucky], to the love theme from "Romeo and Juliet" [Fifi & Johnny]. The transitions between plotlines are slightly varied, but consistent.<br /><br />Truly a wonderful film; there isn't much original music, though the new lyrics to "Spinning Song" are clever and enjoyable. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
|
positive
|
My comment is limited generally to the first season, 1959-60.<br /><br />This superb series was one of the first to be televised in color, and it was highly influential in persuading Americans that they had to buy a color television set, which was about $800 in 1959, the equivalent of more than $3,000 today. How many of us would pay that much for the privilege of watching a show transmitted by a cathode ray picture tube on a 17-inch screen? I was eleven when the series began, and I watched it from the beginning.<br /><br />Watching it now, 50 years later, several things come to mind. First, many of the story lines involve the Comstock Lode and the heyday of silver mining, which dates to 1859. For 1859, the weapons and clothes are, for the most part, not authentic. (The haircuts are left out of the discussion.) That's basically a nitpick.<br /><br />And, it would have been impossible for Ben to have arrived in the Lake Tahoe area in 1839 and to have amassed a 100-square mile ranch in the next twenty years. Pioneers were still trying to solve the Sierra Nevada problem as late as 1847, and the Gold Rush did not even begin until two years later.<br /><br />Indians are not played by Native American actors. John Ford was using Native American actors in the 1920s. The Bonanza producers could have easily done so thirty years later. That is a major nitpick for me.<br /><br />There are other time-line problems. In Season 1, Mark Twain appears, and he is depicted as a middle-aged man. Mark Twain was 24 years-old in 1859. The stories also vacillate between 1859-1860 (pre-Civil War) and what was more suitable for an 1880 time-frame. There are continuity problems, over and over.<br /><br />It is somewhat off-putting, too, that there is so much killing in the first season. In time, the killing was reduced.<br /><br />Many of the episodes take a socially liberal slant, which would be hard to believe, given the time-line, but give the writers credit for anticipating the seismic shifts in the Nation's attitudes beginning in the 1960s.<br /><br />Having said all that, the acting is good, and I have come to conclude in my latter years that Adam's character was drawn better than any other's. I don't think Pernell Roberts ever got the credit he deserved. Also, Season 1 reinforces the fact that Dan Blocker (Hoss) was a good actor.<br /><br />Many of the stories trace real historical events. The guest stars were interesting.<br /><br />This was great family entertainment, and the series stands up very well by any measure.
|
positive
|
I don't believe this was an acting challenge for Richard Harris. This was an uncomplicated plot, yet interesting. It is a good movie to watch when you don't want to do a lot of thinking, just want to be told a simple story. The Canadian scenery was breathtaking. The beautiful Fall shots alone made the picture worth seeing.
|
positive
|
This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.<br /><br />Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.<br /><br />I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his "episodes," though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his "honour," this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.<br /><br />When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.<br /><br />When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he "accidentally" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.<br /><br />The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these "big" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.<br /><br />Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.<br /><br />Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. "Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself." A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.<br /><br />Finally, to add a bit of "fairness" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.<br /><br />A failure.
|
negative
|
A great gangster flick, with brilliant performances by well-known actors with great action scenes? Well, not this one.<br /><br />It's rather amazing to see such a wide cast of well-known actors, that have many good movies in their filmographies in such a movie, without doubt this may be one of the worst they could possibly appear in.<br /><br />First of all, the plot is as you'd expect it from your average gangster biography, nothing new, nothing fancy in it. The way it is told makes the movie look a LOT longer than it is (when i thought the two hours should be almost over, i was quite surprised that only 45 minutes had passed).<br /><br />The action scenes look a lot like those from 80ies TV series - the A-Team, for example. It's just that in the 80ies (esp. with the A-Team) those scenes were far more sophisticated than those in "El Padrino". It's especially fun to see the guys point their guns in the air and still hit something (not to talk about people that take cover behind car doors which later look like they've been shot through).<br /><br />The acting fits quite nicely to the action. Either you get the same reaction to everything that happens (Dolph Lundgren style), or it's so overacted that you may think it's a parody (but unfortunately it's not).<br /><br />My advise is to stay away from this movie, any other gangster movie is better than this one.
|
negative
|
Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.<br /><br />Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.
|
negative
|
I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport! <br /><br />What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.
|
negative
|
Everything in this film is bad , the story , the acting , the effects but its funny , funny , funny !!!Scott Valentine with the army uniform thats ten sizes too big is so bad with the permanent attempt at a scowl on his face as the leader of a special ops group its hilarious ! The ''terrorists'' are as scary and realistic as the ''raptors'' , this is so phoney and bad at everything it tries you have to laugh .The part where the giant T-REX who somehow snuck on board a ship and then somehow got below is blown up and you see the metal pole sticking up where its head was is the perfect ending .If your into bad films , this is the pot of gold , the mona lisa of b-b-bad !!!
|
negative
|
that Welles said was that he's been in decline his whole career.<br /><br />There was an interesting story here. Unfortunately, Welles seemed completely incapable of telling it. Instead, he was trying to tell a bunch of different stories, about Elmyr, about Clifford Irving, about his pompous view of critics and experts, oh, yeah, and trying to jump start his current girlfriend's career by giving her unneeded screen time. (Oja, honey, when they told you to sleep with the director, they didn't mean one washed up like a whale on a beach!) <br /><br />Welles was probably trying to cash in with a bunch of footage of Clifford Irving as Irving was becoming a household name with his role in the faked auto-biography of Howard Hughes. Unfortunately, it means the subject of his film, Elmyr, didn't get the time he deserved and he was probably the more interesting story.<br /><br />The great tragedy of Orson Welles was that he peaked early, and then spent the rest of his career sputtering, finally doing wine commercials and awful documentaries...
|
negative
|
I found it almost impossible to empathize with Ricci's character in this film. If she was supposed to be a depressive, I think the screenwriter and director neglected to research depressives before making this film because Ricci's character was more a depiction of a self-centered, worthless sh!tbag than a victim and survivor of depression.<br /><br />The forced attempt at introspective narration was as ludicrous as the pained interactions between her and the people around her. <br /><br />Sorry but I couldn't buy it. This is straight to video schlock. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.
|
negative
|
I watched this cooking show for a few times before I wanted to pull my hair out. Just one question.....Who CAN'T cook a slapped together plain meal in 30 minutes when everything you need is at hand, already bagged, sometimes pre-chopped and you have very little else to do except chop a few greens. Also, almost every cooking show on TV is 30 minutes and most of these chefs do all of their prep work (except for Sandra Lee), during their show. Oh and yep....they do full meals too.<br /><br />Love the comment by the guy who hated the "EVOO" comment. Add "DE-LISH" to my list of stupid tag words. <br /><br />Then you have the obvious....a Loud, gregarious woman who is truly her own best audience. She laughs at her own lame comments, mugs too many times for the camera because she wants to convince us that she's as good as the thinks. <br /><br />NO she ain't "the cutest thing." She's a 40-something year old woman who isn't DE-LISH.
|
negative
|
Nazarin is some kind of saint,he wants to live in life exactly how Christ taught man to do.But it's too late:now the Catholic Church is between the hands of a wealthy bourgeoisie,the bishops live in luxury and don't give a damn about the poor and the sick.That's why our hero can't follow the way his hierarchy asks him to follow.So he divests himself of everything,and on his way to purity,he's joined by some kind of Mary Magdelene and a woman who's attracted by him sexually (the scene between this girl and her fiancé is telling).In Spain (it was the late fifties),they thought Nazarin was a Christian movie!Knowing Luis Bunuel,it was downright incongruous:all his work is anticlerical to a fault.Comparing Nazarin and his "holy women" to Jesus is a nonsense.On Nazarin's way,only brambles and couch grass grow.His attempt at helping working men on the road is a failure,he's chased out as a strike-breaker.All his words amount to nothing.At the end of the journey,he's arrested and offered a pineapple by a woman(Bunuelian sexual symbol). Thanks to "Nazarin" ,Bunuel was allowed to return to Spain (where the censors had not got a clue ) and to direct "Viridiana".
|
positive
|
Pink Flamingos is a movie no word can explain. It was just as good I thought. It expands films. Starting with a "multiple" beginning, and ending with a shocking, but clever ending, Pink Flamingos is one of the best films of the year. Don't miss this opportunity to see a great film. Rent it on video or see it at a late midnight showing like I did. But just see it.
|
positive
|
... but you probably have seen it or else you wouldn't be here. It's so obscure that you probably stumbled onto it like I did because this little known gem receives no word-of-mouth.<br /><br />From the very beginning you know how the storyline will shake out but watching as our innocent redheaded nurse puts the pieces of the puzzle together is high quality entertainment. Most horror films bombard viewers with graphic displays of torture but Don't Look in the Basement plays it subtle, which makes for superior suspense. Note to horror filmmakers: some of us do like subtlety! Lovely and homely nurse Charlotte takes a job at a sanitarium but is dismayed when she learns that the head doctor who hired her had a gruesome accident and she is now the subordinate to a mysterious doctor, who we all know isn't a doctor at all. The suspense is built through Charlotte's unraveling of events with assistance from many of the patients, but which of the patients can Charlotte trust? This is a gem and is my absolute favorite TRUE HORROR movie. I love Re-Animator and Evil Dead but they play more for the HORROR-COMEDY crowd.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (Quite tame for horror standards but there is a decent sprinkling of gore throughout the film. The opening scene is classic; no other horror film starts out better, and the end has its fair share of gore as well).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$ (Eager to fall in love Allyson (Betty Chandler) spends a good deal of time naked, attempting to seduce half the men at the sanitarium. Betty Chandler is a knockout and I am shocked that this is her only film credit).<br /><br />STORY: $$$$ (The story is well handled despite the premise getting a lot of mileage in Hollywood. The script has a knack for building suspense and never fails to place poor Charlotte in a precarious situation).<br /><br />ACTING: $$$$ (Betty Chandler does the best job here as Allyson, capturing dementia with naiveté in an ethereal form. The Judge was splendid as well, weighing facts before he came to a verdict while Rosie Holotik as Charlotte gives a genuine performance as you will feel for her character.
|
positive
|
Laughed a lot - because it is so incredibly bad - sorry folks, but definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen... I know it is low budget, but anyway: the actors behave like playing in a soap, the dialogues are absolutely crappy and the last time I have seen such odd pictures was at a trash nite at some youth video festival ten years ago. I really appreciate that people gather together and shoot cheap movies, but at least a certain amount of quality should be accomplished. But at least one good thing: the first three minutes of the movie were quiet interesting and looked okay - and the score was really worth listening to. The DVD cover promised a lot, but that is by far the best this film has to offer...
|
negative
|
"Smithereens" is the kind of worthless flick which just hangs out among the cable channels taking up space like a cheesy dime novel in the public library. A worthless bit of tripe and first effort for mediocre director Seidelman, the film is fraught with bad acting, bad sound, bad camera work, and poor quality in all aspects of the film. Many better films never make it to market and why junk flicks like this one do and never seem to go away is one of life's great mysteries. (D-)
|
negative
|
I love love love this show. Whether you say it's because I'm insane in the brain or not. I think this show is very funny and entertaining although sometimes Bam's uncle Vito scares me.. so all in all I give this show a perfect review. And so I really think if you're into the "omg.. what an idiot " kind of humor, this show is for you. It's really funny to see the look on the prank peoples faces and there are many musical guests who come to Bam's house. Buy this cause it rocks! You should buy it. yes. And Bam's brother is in the band CKY and they are really good and sometimes come on the show.<br /><br />Bottom line is.. please watch the show.
|
positive
|
I grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon.
|
positive
|
Surprisingly well made little movie. Short in length at about 90 minutes. For a low budget movie, very well made. Plot is slow to unravel. Cast is excellent especially Elizabeth Van Meter as the girlfriend with Tourette's Syndrome.
|
positive
|
Besides the fact that this guy is a liar, he is also a total idiot, and a thief in the comedy community. Once when I attempted to watch this excuse for a television show, I believe i actually threw up in my mouth a little. I can't help but feel a little bit dumber every time is see one of his horrid commercials while I am enjoying great comedy central programs like Reno 911 and American body shop. It shows like this that make me worry about the continual existence of mankind. It's hard to believe that even Joe Rogan can make someone look like an moron. Please begin praying now that comedy central will realize their mistake and end this show as soon as possible. Haven't we suffered enough?
|
negative
|
Have you ever had a cool image in your mind that you thought it would be nice to be in a movie: Like seeing a detective peeking through the cracks of a broken fence of some abandoned house? Or seeing a woman walking down a street looking cold and intense and awfully alert? Yeah. Imagine stretching that image to a whole movie, you pretty much got the idea of Broken, though there's no detectives in this movie, I'm just using it as a visual example. But, the intense looking woman is here and she filled pretty much 99% of the screen time. I got nothing to complain about that woman, she's a perfect choice for this role.<br /><br />I consider myself a very open minded individual who can find enjoyment out of all kinds of artistic expressions and I can truly enjoy some really moody stuff. It would be really cool if I can frame one of the scene from this movie and hang it on the wall. Let's be honest here, the acting is superb. Some of the expressions on the actors face are what keep me watching.<br /><br />Now onto the problem of this movie. Beyond the mood, there's not much anything else here. The director basically took an obsession of an idea and ran it far beyond what it was worth. I don't consider it to be a spoiler if I say the obsession is "mirror". Let's face it, this singular idea is all over the bloody place and that's all the director got to work with. Granted, there are a few twist and turn here and there. If you paid any attention, nothing is going to surprise you in the end, obvious plot holes aside.<br /><br />Now, I'm not picking bones with this style of art since I enjoyed them most of the time. I still believe that we should judge an art base on the medium it uses to express whatever the artists want to express. Movie is not a piece of music, or a picture, or a painting, or even a poem, and certainly not just a cool image in your mind. It's all that plus a good story and character development. I consider the Lynch style of movie making cheating. It is irresponsible and cheap and a waste of the medium. We gave movies 2 hours running film time for a good reason. Therefore, we should judge it differently than judging a single frame of imagery such as a photograph or a painting.<br /><br />This movie is not completely Lynch style, thank goodness. It has a linear development and eventually came to a conclusion. It does not have much story or character development. It presented itself rather seriously with characters composed of common folks, thus distance itself from other fantasy stuff at least from the surface. It does not offer any explanation of the fantasy element nor did it ever attempt to build a coherent world around it. The oddity came from nowhere and seems rather isolated and accidental. Maybe the coherency remains in director's head but from what I can see he did not put much effort into realizing it on the screen.<br /><br />Where did he put his effort in then? It seems that he spent a lot of effort in building the mood and enhancing it with the music. The music often built up tension which eventually turn into a tease. Only in the later part of the movie the scare and tension materialized.<br /><br />In the end, I felt like: OK, I know what you are trying to say here but is that the point you are trying to make by spending two hours building up all these tension? It is rather irrelevant with who the characters are and what kind of life they have. And we are given very little about who the characters are. All we have is this circumstance that just took placed. Disappointing but I guess the director did not have much material to work with and it shows.
|
negative
|
At first I didn't like the movie cause of it being a Nazi swastika drama.But after buying it and seeing it, it wasn't that bad. I heard so many complaints about the numbers being short and Ilse Werner not singing. Now I understand. The radio show was a super propaganda radio program. Ilse , Johanne and Zara plus Rudy Shruki and band like Kurt Widman and his Orchestra and Fud Cantics ex cetera never appeared in the radio show cause the singers and the bands were of the pop jazz and swing categories. The Club Foot had that regulated that for touring occupied areas for the soldiers to short wave radios for the soldiers also night clubs and hotels,in Berlin and Hamburg, and record sales only. This is why Ilse wasn't allowed to sing in this picture. This would be made up by medium budget musical ,Were making music, 1942, in which she would demonstrate her whistling.But this is an excellent example propaganda.Inge and her aunt Eichhorn,played by Ida Wust, goes to the 1936 Olympics. The aunt forgets her tickets so Inge has to wait till her aunt comes back with the tickets. She meets Carle Radditz, who plays Herbert, who has an extra ticket. She goes with him and it's love at first sight. they plan to marry but the Spanish war get in the way so he has to go on an assignment against the right side.Carl Raddatz as so many people complained about him was really handsome and not plain. When he did Opfergang and they put a mustache on him plus his own suntan that made him plain looking.You see the Nazi soldiers acting normal,like a scene in which a ex butcher and his troops are in France and they steal pigs from a farm and they are about to make lunch until their leader suggest to save the pigs. This reflect Adolphs animal rights extremism. The character was a butcher now soldier . This was a subtle put down against meat eating.Late on in world war 11, Herbert is flying in a German airplane. We shoot one of the pilots so Herbert takes over. We shoot his plane. They crash. Unfortunately for us they survive.Another seen the Nazis soldiers go in a bomb Catholic church ,now it's putting the catholics down, and Hubert's best friend Helmet,played by Joachim Brennecke starts to play the organ, Beethtoven, .More bombs come in from us. The church is bomb more the soldier continues to stay and play the organ he's being told to leave. We end up injuring him. Propaganda message? The catholic church organ cause him to become addicted to it.It injured him. See? By this time Inge is with her either mother or grandma, played Hedwig Bleibteu, the same German Grandame actress who played Maria Holst's Aunt in Weiner Blut.Well ,later it comes to the short view of the radio show. This was not intended to be a musical revue, such as Kora Terry released that same year were as well As Rosen in Tirol, The music as well as their side of the war was so supposed to be only the back drop. It was mainly a war romantic movie.It's easy to take a pot shot at those soldier in the movie but in real life many of those soldiers were being forced to fight the Nazi cause, cause of the job and the monthly pay that they would receive. After the war many of them who survive would regret it. This is a good swastika classic. The only problem is that today you have Neo Nazi and Nazi skin heads, who watched the same movies to reflect their Hitler worship and their. They have disturbing websites who exploit these film classics to raise money for their insanity . Be careful most of the time it's the direct hate only classics. If their scenario looks like they are glorifying it ,then its a Nazi website skip it .Go to IHF or German wartime films dot com, Amazon dot Dee or German video dot net. They are legitimate. 01/23/10 Mada a mistake it wasn't Herbert's friend that got killed at the church . It was Malte Yager's character's friend Schartzscop.
|
positive
|
I have not seen and heard the original version.<br /><br />I am no Russian, but I am learning right now.<br /><br />I also have no preferences for Russia, Bulgaia, the US etc.<br /><br />But what I have to mention is:<br /><br />In the German synchronisation in the whole film all Russians speak with Russian accent. Americans talk "Hochdeutsch" (without accent)! I have never heard such a stupidity! Besides, this is boring.<br /><br />I hope the original is better.<br /><br />The rest is a simple thriller, not really good ideas. Like a cheap version of a James Bond film.
|
negative
|
Yesterday I saw the movie Flyboys and my girlfriend told me it was the worst movie she's ever seen... Since I thought it was pretty awful as well it got me thinking - which film was the worst film I had ever seen and this was the only film that came to mind.<br /><br />Unfortunately it was a couple of years since I've seen it but I remember the horribly miscast Dean Cain as cocky military man (pretty boy Cain doesn't do cocky very well). The strange deal with the CGI-helicopter when it would probably be cheaper to rent a chopper than to hire some CGI-guys to make it, but my guess is that they found the chopper as a free sample for some CGI program or the producer's son liked to play with his new computer. And how did it look?? Awful. And when the dragon charges through the corridors of the complex then reuse the same shots over and over - looks VERY cheap.<br /><br />Avoid this movie - it is truly awful...
|
negative
|
This movie could be likened to "comfort food" for the soul. Anyone who has ever tried and tried to save a relationship could relate to this movie. So many parts of it are so hilarious and so many parts are so heartbreakingly true. It's not perfect in its production or even its dialog, but the story is unique which is saying a lot for modern "romantic" comedies. Luke Wilson is bland at best, but Heather Graham does an exceptional job in my opinion. Give it a try - despite the trite looking DVD cover.The character of Joline brings a lot of issues up in our culture of self-service. She asks us if commitment is really for the other person or ourselves. Truly, it is ourselves. Following through on promises (anywhere from marriage to an errand for a friend) is a great feeling. Anymore, our word is nothing but a shapeshifting puff of smoke. Joline is like a wake-up call. We must be conscious of our words and commitments, they mean more than we think. At the same time, we must not commit to someone who is incapable of doing the same.
|
positive
|
Lillian Hellman's play, adapted by Dashiell Hammett with help from Hellman, becomes a curious project to come out of gritty Warner Bros. Paul Lukas, reprising his Broadway role and winning the Best Actor Oscar, plays an anti-Nazi German underground leader fighting the Fascists, dragging his American wife and three children all over Europe before finding refuge in the States (via the Mexico border). They settle in Washington with the wife's wealthy mother and brother, though a boarder residing in the manor is immediately suspicious of the newcomers and spends an awful lot of time down at the German Embassy playing poker. It seems to take forever for this drama to find its focus, and when we realize what the heart of the material is (the wise, honest, direct refugees teaching the clueless, head-in-the-sand Americans how the world has suddenly changed), it seems a little patronizing--the viewer is quite literally put in the relatives' place, being lectured to. Lukas has several speeches in the third-act which undoubtedly won him the Academy Award, yet for the much of the picture he seems to do little but enter and exit, enter and exit. As his spouse, Bette Davis enunciates like nobody else and works her wide eyes to good advantage, but the role doesn't allow her much color. Their children (all with divergent accents!) are alternately humorous and annoying, and Geraldine Fitzgerald has a nothing role as a put-upon wife (and the disgruntled texture she brings to the part seems entirely wrong). The intent here was to tastefully, tactfully show us just because a (WWII-era) man may be German, that doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer. We get that in the first few minutes; the rest of this tasteful, tactful movie is made up of exposition, defensive confrontation and, ultimately, compassion. It should be a heady mix, but instead it's rather dry-eyed and inert. ** from ****
|
negative
|
Wow! the French are really getting the hang of it. If we look at their first Asterix movie we see a good story with nice actors (especially thanks to Gerard Depardeu)but very lame special effect. In a fantasy story like Asterix Special Effects are really important. Well.. they did it right this time! It looks terrific. I personaly think Mission Cleopatra is the best Asterix story ever written. In the movie there's not one moment you're bored. Go and watch this! One thing! they didnt go exactly by the script which I think is a little bit pittyful. For example, In the comic Obelix breaks the nose of the Sphinx, immediatly all the little storekeepers start breaking of the nose of their miniature Sphinx. (really funny to see)..Well they didnt put it in the movie, instead they burried the nose under the Sphinx. Asterix: "They will never look for it here" (guess again). Was funny but not as good as the original. Another thing i disliked about the movie was their choice for music. It maked the film to childies. But never the less... It's a must C!<br /><br />Grz Da Jean Holland
|
positive
|
I caught this at a screening at the Sundance Film Festival and was in Awe over the absolute power this film has. It is an examination of the psychological effects on our brave soldiers who join the military with hopes that they will protect and serve our country with honor as well as be taken care of by our government for it. The film details the psychological changes that takes place in boot camp as the soldiers are turned into "killers for their country" and put into the war and the after effects once they return home. It also portrays the effect that killing has on the human psyche. It pays homage to the Soldiers and never ever criticizes the soldiers unlike other films, instead criticizes a system that is not prepared to and does not take care of all the physical and psychological needs of the returned Vets.<br /><br />This film is powerful, moving, emotional and thought provoking. It stands as a call to arms to support our troops not only by buying stickers and going to parades but by actually listening to them, and helping to support a change in the way their health and well being is taken care of after the killing ends.<br /><br />The best film of the Festival so far, ****/****
|
positive
|
I think that people are under estimating this incredible film. People are seeing it as a typical horror movie that is set out to scare us and prevent us from getting some sleep. Which if it was trying to do then it would deservedly get a 1/10 but i viewed this film with a few friends and we found it very entertaining and though it was a good movie after all it does have Stephanie beaton. This is the reason why i think that it deserves the 10/10 for the pure entertainment of the film.<br /><br />The general view on this movie is that it has bad acting, a simple script that a 10 year old could produce and that it cant be taken seriously and people are rating it low because of this. But i see this as a thoroughly entertaining masterpiece...that has a hilariously funny script which is made even more entertaining by the actors and although not very serious it is very entertaining.
|
positive
|
ABC has done more for this show by allowing television veterans James Garner and David Spade to join the cast of this show. At first, the show was watchable and even predictable with John Ritter and Katey Sagal. John's loss shocked the world. Katey and the three kids are really a solid professional cast. The hour lesson after John's death in real-life struck home to me. I lost my father at 17 years old and could sympathize and understand their pain and agony. ABC should be proud to maintain this show and even preserve this as John's final wish. This show has matured and developed because of such impossible circumstances. They should be rewarded with Emmys.
|
positive
|
Personally, I regard "The Egyptian" in an extremely favourable light.<br /><br />It was introduced to me by a well-known Australian movie commenter & critic named Bill who was renowned for his insight & broad vision of people & places & particularly of films. This movie fitted the Bill perfectly & I came to appreciate his commentary & enthusiasm for this movie that emerged all the more as I watched it, as I was literally drawn into it, minute by minute, beyond his introductory comments, on my initial viewing many years ago.<br /><br />To me, it was propelled, layer upon layer, within half an hour, into an intriguing & fascinating production! Yes, I am aware of its flaws! But it was so enticing
the young man of idealism learning from & inspired by his father
the peasant treated like rubbish in his suffering
the opportunistic friend however flawed but nonetheless loved by his friend, the central character Sinute
and to be sure, a flawed hero too, like so many across humanity of all societies & across all time
but lovable & worthy of love too! Yes, I believe in a Christian God, but too, I acknowledge the rights & respect that should be due ANY human being of good heart, who would not or will not disrespect the rights of his fellowman without just cause. As such, I endorse this film & its presentation of a man of good heart & conviction in his belief in the sun-god he was devoted to. Such people will always be welcome in my world vision, and hopefully, in many more beyond.<br /><br />So too, the drama in the ensuing movie I have watched often as surely as it has touched my heart & soul, as surely as it seems to have infuriated critics in its era. It is captivating, watching the struggles & grief & loves of Sinute, the physician! When I watch it again, I am always reminded of my friend in heart Bill, the film critic, who dared to oppose ALL the critics long ago who rubbished it. He added criticism of too many critics
that they make statues to honour stars, on the screen or in history, but they do not make statues to honour critics! And beyond all this, I am reminded with each viewing of a SUPERB & TOUCHING spectacle, of a beautiful & well-presented drama, that was not just relevant to the 1950s or some bygone era. It was meant for YOU & ME, across time & place, to every man & woman & child & to their personal aspirations for love & freedom & overcoming obstacles to misunderstanding & gross injustice & tragedy appealing to those of simple faith of many religions, that it seems too many regard as cause for war! Take a night off from invitations or unjust violence, from bigotry & judgemental attacks on others injustly executed & consider the merits of this offering. Not to the sun god, or to power that proves time & again to be so transcient .. let this OUTSTANDING movie wash over you, like waves onto a beach, like the passing hands of time
like life was meant to be. And maybe, you will find yourself carried into its world of possibilities! Lost offerings no more! 9.9 out of 10!
|
positive
|
I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys
|
negative
|
An absolute steaming pile of cow dung. It's mind-blowing to me that this film was even made. Hip-Hop and old westerns just don't seem to mix. What target audience were these people thinking of when planning this trainwreck.<br /><br />Not only is the concept and plot a joke, but the acting is atrocious and the fact that some decent actors were even in this nightmare of a film makes their entire careers a laughing stock. The chick from clueless should never be forgiven and she is stripped of any remaining dignity she had. After reading the first ten pages of dialogue she should have been asking which one of her friends was playing this sick joke. After some research, I actually found a list of some other actors who passed on this film: Jada Pinkett-Smith, Denzel Washington, Brandy, Monique, Kim Kardasian, Jenna Jameson, Oprah, and finally Marge Simpson.<br /><br />Simply put, I would rather stare at a blank TV than watch this movie again.
|
negative
|
While this movie won't go down in the annals of great cinema, it is a fun way to spend an hour and a half with the family. The film is finally being released in video where it should have debuted in the first place.<br /><br />The film is about an eclectic group of friends who gather for dinners which they have named, "The Hungry Bachelors Club". Jorja Fox plays a woman who serves as a surrogate in order to get a down payment for the restaurant that she wants to open. Bill Nunn plays a Cadillac-loving mystery man who becomes her lover. Fox gives an understated and touching performance and Nunn is reliably talented as always. Micheal des Barres is a hoot as an over the top attorney. The ensemble casts - made up of familiar faces - works nicely together to bring this wacky group of characters to life. This is a good rental and one of the few you can watch with the whole family.
|
positive
|
Disney, the film name that once stood for all things innocent and suitable for all ages, has finally started to realise that to survive it needs to become more diverse. Such diversity has been very apparent in the last couple of years. Films like "Tarzan" and "The Emperor's New Groove" have made an attempt to move away from the traditional song-driven routine of Disney's past and into new, uncharted territory. "Atlantis" is the boldest step yet, but we have to remember: This is STILL Disney. The first ever serious film to come out of Disney's animation studio is a major achievement for them - in fact it's so serious it makes it into PG territory. Perhaps why a lot of families were scared off from seeing it this past summer.<br /><br />But despite the more mature subject matter, this is still a film that Disney wanted to draw in the families with, not just mature audiences, so the plot had to be kept simple enough for children to understand, but interesting enough to take it away from the realms of "The Little Mermaid" et al.<br /><br />So what we get is actually a potentially detailed plot, unfortunately suffering the blow of being condensed into a 96-minute movie. Ultimately, this is an action film about Atlantis, not about the exposition preceding it, so we are whisked through the first half hour with as many sequences bombarding the screen as is possible without losing coherency. Suspend your disbelief of how the characters get from point A to point B so quickly, you're unlikely to find an animated film that detailed coming out of Hollywood! If you want epic levels of detail in the plot, turn to James Cameron's "Titanic". Both films feature a boat in some manner.<br /><br />And let's talk about love, shall we? Yes, as with a lot of films, the lead male (one Milo Thatch, a bumbling archaeologist) and lead female (Kida, the clichéd Atlantian princess) are set to fall in love with each other. But what I found was not as clichéd as I was expecting. By film's end, for once, the characters touching/feeling/kissing sequence was far more subdued. There's various points in the film where the attraction grows, but it's just not in the ballpark of, say, "The Little Mermaid" (A good thing).<br /><br />You may have grasped that this is a rather clichéd film. Correct. You have your leading hero and heroine, backed up by more than half a dozen crew members who go on the expedition, all being given their moments during the film. Numerous other characters appear, take up the few minutes of screentime, then disappear. It doesn't take a genius to do the maths a 96-minute film with a focus on action and visuals, and with a considerable cast, has very little time to expand the characters to any major extent. So what does it rely on? Clichés, and lots of them. Every character emulates something that has been done a thousand times before. You have the bumbling scientist, the attractive princess, the square-jawed colonel, the rich eccentric, the maniacal sleazebag, the Russian femme fatale need I go on?<br /><br />I don't know why this got to anyone I found the tongue-in-cheek nature of this film quite amusing. Alright, this is meant to be a serious flick, but do you really expect Disney to give up every single trait of their history? At least the writers have tried to come up with consistently witty dialogue, and sometimes it even is a little inspired.<br /><br />But in the end it's those big stunning visuals that put the icing on this cake. The CGI animation is truly amazing in places, and doesn't dwarf the characters, which was a flaw that let the recent "Titan A.E." down. Speaking of characters, Disney hired an outside comics industry artist to create the designs, bringing an anime style to the film. Infact the visual presentation of the film as a whole owes a lot to anime, much more so than any previous Disney outing. This resulted in a conflict with fans of the Japanese anime, "Nadia", for the film's overall similarities with said cartoon series. Having not seen this anime, I can't comment.<br /><br />With picture, there is sound. Gary Rydstrom heads up the sound team, and what a soundtrack! From the opening shot the sound stage is alive and is a treat. James Newton Howard treats us to a dynamic musical score, which compliments the film in every way, never sounding out of place and always helping to build the tension or subdue it.<br /><br />Perhaps I missed the point of what the creators intended. To me, the film conveys that it's an adventure thrill ride, albeit with a more serious tone than any Disney film before it. If you don't like the clichéd tongue-in-cheek attitude, then perhaps the effort that has been poured into the visuals will delight. Heck, at least the mythology is far more correct than can be said about other Disney efforts (*cough*Hercules*cough*).<br /><br />This is a positive, 10 out of 10 review, from someone who was blown away by this film. I always suspend my disbelief with any animated film after all, the laws of the real world are more than frequently broken in the cartoon medium. So sit back, enjoy the ride, and perhaps everyone can find something to enjoy about this film.
|
positive
|
I'll say one thing for Herman, USA: it will probably always play well to Minnesota audiences. I can't imagine that there's another place in the world where a reference to the fast life of Bemidji or a line like "I knew there was something wrong with Iowa guys" would bring down the house. I actually quite enjoyed the first hour or so. Basically, a bunch of lonely country boys take out a personals ad and find their town beset with willing female suitors (is suitors a gender-specific word?). It ain't progressive, to be sure, but it's sorta charming in its own right. Pity that the filmmakers felt the need to tack on a contrived subplot about a conniving golddigger and her violent husband. Overall it's just too cloying for its own good, but you've got to give some props to a film with the guts to give a guy with Kevin Chamberlin's build a nude love scene. I will always applaud the depiction of people who don't meet the usual standards of beauty as sexual, caring human beings, but that's not enough to redeem Herman, USA. To paraphrase Jello Biafra, it's nostalgia for an age that never existed.
|
negative
|
When I went to the cinema, I expected not much. I knew nothing about this movie but it was the only movie I could see, 'cause I was in a small town then. So I saw this movie and I was fascinated! "La stelle che non c'è" is a trip through the new industrial China and it shows it honestly! You see most of the time the ugly places of China, and you see what really happens with this new industrializing. The main characters are sad but hopefully people. He's the naive Italian guy who can't believe what he see's. She's a translator from china who's missing her son. Sometimes sad, sometimes funny but every time poetic! A wonderful movie with wonderful actors! So only one star is missing!
|
positive
|
Barman directed Any Way the Wind Blows as he would sing a dEUS song. Anarchy rules over a logical and common strain of thoughts. The story behind this movie just goes any which way the wind blows. And that can truly be refreshing to watch, if you are prepared and willing that is. Viewers who state that there is nothing to keep the story-lines together are right. Who the hell is that Windman anyway? Still, I really enjoyed this movie. Antwerp is a beautiful, bustling, happening place and Any Way captures that feeling. It also captures the silliness, the racism, the bureaucracy, the addictions and the violence that survives undetected in a seemingly friendly city. The movie is entertaining, funny and a little shallow. Barman's screen debut will not make as heavy an impact as his music debut. In that light some might be disappointed. But then again, 'Worst Case Scenario' would be a subtle subtitle for Any Way the Wind Blows.
|
positive
|
Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.<br /><br />If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.<br /><br />Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.<br /><br />This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.<br /><br />On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey).
|
positive
|
"Father is still away on business" was headline of an review after "Promise Me This" premiere in Cannes. I do understand why many thinks the same but unique expression of Kusturica is still present in his new movie and is something why critics can't touch him. I had two hours of pure energy without rest. Even when Kusturica is suffering of lack of concentration or fear of empty space he is still unique and unspoiled. Surprisingly good performance of Stribor Kusturica. Much More close-ups and less landscapes then in "Life Is A Miracle". Marija Petronijevic has femme fatal world class potential, please don't spoil it. Surely, I recommend to everyone to see this film.
|
positive
|
If you've read the original novel, as I did, you will probably hate this thing.<br /><br />The film version of _Absolute Beginners_ is a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronisms attempting to create a "period piece" set in the late 1950s and failing to re-create or even pay homage to that period -- the US monstrosity of _Dirty Dancing_ does similar to 1963, except that film proved financially successful despite having equally amateurish screen writing. In addition to suffering from "looking too 1980s", the characters have been changed, re-arranged, and downplayed to the point that the only characteristics they have in common with those of the novel are the slightest superficial looks and, of course, their names: Suze is transformed from the narrator's flighty ex-girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plans to marry a closeted old queen for money (at her own admittance in the first few pages) into a hapless and naive "Eve"-archetype seduced by fame and glamour, exploited and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her boss, who surprisingly wasn't given a Van Dyke and pointy hairstyle. She and the narrator, re-named "Colin" (after the book's author, Colin MacInnes) for the film, are also in a relationship.<br /><br />Big Jill's character, a lesbian seemingly butch yet "fop like" in her mid-20s who acts as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble-headed lesbians, and one of the narrator's closest friends, dispensing frank wisdom to the narrator, is reduced to a sort of "named extra" with only a few throw-away lines, and tonnes of comical outfits.<br /><br />The Fabulous Hoplite, a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel, is also reduced to the point of being pointless in the film, camped-up and all but ignored.<br /><br />The narrator's father in the novel is a sort of sad minor character but in the film, he's played to come off as optimistic and oddly spirited despite the squalid neighbourhood, and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator's mum seems, for all practical purposes, ignored.<br /><br />In its favour, the music (for what it is) is well-composed, and you have to give the production and writing crews credit for actually taking a line from the book ("...some days, they'll write musicals about the 1950s...") as their inspiration to write a musical, but in the world of bad camped-up musicals, this is among the most poorly executed in the bunch. Unlike _Shock Treatment_ or _Starstruck_ crucial plot elements are treated as afterthoughts. Unlike _The Apple_, there is a choppy and uneven flow between musical numbers and spoken dialogue.<br /><br />You really can't blame it's "too 1980s" feel on the fact that it was created in the 1980s. The film version of _Annie_ released in 1981, pays a wonderfully well-executed tribute to the look and feel of New York City in the 1930s, and _Napolean Dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite being made on a low budget in 2003 (though it's not explicitly set in the 1980s, those who lived through the decade cannot deny that the film "feels very 1980s"). Obviously, it was _possible_ to make something good out of this, especially considering the iconic status that the source novel has in the UK, but it fails most apparently in the look and feel, and also in its treatment of the source material, which is downright disrespectful.<br /><br />Perhaps if you haven't read and have no intentions of reading the novel, you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism giving a shameful parody of late-1950s Soho London's modernist jazz set. I can definitely see what the writing team were attempting, but they definitely could have done better. With Boy George as a household name and mixed-race musicians and bands on the charts in 1986 UK, they definitely did _not_ need to bowdlerise the characters in the ways that they ended up doing. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that the writers wound up doing what both the book and film criticised harshly -- it ended up having a bunch of adults cranking out crap and treating its targeted teen-aged audience like two-bit idiots to make a quick buck off of.
|
negative
|
Agreed this movie is well shot,but it just makes no sense and no use as to how they made 2 hours seem like 3 just over a small love story,<br /><br />this could have been an episode of the bold and the beautiful or the o.c,in short please don't watch this movie because there is a song every 5 minutes just to wake you up from you're sleep,i gave this movie 1/10 cause that was the lowest,and no this is not based completely on a true story,more than half of it is made up.I repeat the direction of photography is 7 or 8 out of 10,but the movie is just a little too much,the actor's nasal voice just makes me want to go blow my nose.Unless you are a real him mesh fan this movie is a huge no-no.
|
negative
|
This film is about the life of Queen Victoria during her youth and her first few years as the monarch of Great Britain.<br /><br />"The Young Victoria" has amazing production. Every scene is designed and decorated to immaculate detail. The extravagant costumes, lavish locations and beautifully landscaped gardens all make "The Young Victoria" very impressive. I was the most amazed by the thoughtful cinematography. How every person is placed in relation to the background or foreground is well thought out, every scene is well composed. The scene that strikes me the most was when Victoria talks to Melbourne. Melbourne was positioned in the middle of the door frame from Victoria's angle, while from Melbourne's angle Victoria was situated between the space where Melbourne held his arm on his hips.<br /><br />Story wise, it is far too compressed to be followed and understood by a person without historical knowledge of Queen Victoria. Many events are rushed through or not even explained. I expected a grand scene of the coronation, and disappointingly it only lasted for a few seconds.<br /><br />Overall, "The Young Victoria" is a good film, and it would have been even better if it was longer, so that events could be properly explained without rush.
|
positive
|
*** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh) picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect.<br /><br />Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine (Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie steps across the street with his well-dressed "friend" Louie.<br /><br />It's an exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and exploited that knowledge to the utmost.<br /><br />Set side by side with Billy Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more insight into Frankie's internal struggle.<br /><br />*** Spoiler *** One of the problems I have with this film is the clichéd reliance on "quitting cold turkey." I realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of 'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy.
|
positive
|
The movie begins with much voice-over, a bad sign. Then it just slides downhill with silly and intelligence-insulting scenes involving trappers and Indians. But, it reaches new and impressive lows when all the merry mountain men square dance with each other in a high alpine meadow. Meanwhile, the happy-go-lucky Indians sit around watching them. It's a better scene than the dancing cowboys in "Blazing Saddles". There is a minor flaw in this comparison; "Across the Wide Missouri" is not a comedy.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
"Creepshow 2" is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.<br /><br />As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much. <br /><br />For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall. <br /><br />One would think that "Creepshow 2" would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br />Released by New World Pictures
|
negative
|
Much in the same way Frank Miller and his Sin City comics used black and white to express itself (and its film noir influences), so does Christian Volckman with Renaissance.<br /><br />It is the year 2054, in Paris. In the tradition of science fiction, the future is a bright, sparkling multi-teared jewel. This is a jewel in a setting of misery, inequity and darkness; bright and beautiful on top with a dark underbelly beneath. One of these "bright" people at the top, a research scientist from a very large and influential global company (Avalon), is kidnapped. The well known and efficient, Captain Karas (voiced by the new James Bond himself - Daniel Craig), is assigned the task to find her.<br /><br />The plot and layout is not overly original. It is heavily influenced by film noir, Gibson's Neuromancer and other detective stories, along with movies like Blade Runner, Sin City, Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Minority Report. There is the main plot, surrounded by other possible sub-plots that all connect at the end. It is not hard to figure it all out.<br /><br />The movie's strength and originality is in its intense visual presentation. Paris is an intricate array of levels and sub-levels. At its base is the more primitive industrial infrastructure. As the city rises, so does its architectural complexity and luminescence. Yet in this structure, the top does not equate with elevation of human ideals and behavior. Paris has been intricately animated and laid out in brilliant black and white. The movie is closer in spirit with Sin City (the comics) then Sin City the movie was with its source material. This is done all the more easy, because it is still remaining in relatively the same medium; animation. Much in the same way as a Scanner Darkly pushed the visual aspects of story telling, so does this. The light and dark, black and white creates an atmosphere of contrasts, as well as visual ambiguity. Right and wrong, black and white can lose all meaning at the same time it is right in front of us. The movie proves how black and white can be both ambiguous and obvious at the same time.<br /><br />In keeping with the spirit of the movie, I can be both critic and fan. I can love and loath in the same light. It is definitely an experience I recommend for lovers of the visual arts. So pour another Black and Tan, enter the void and enjoy the ride.
|
positive
|
I was looking for a cute, simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake.<br /><br />I can't write a single good thing about it. First, the script is stupid and not funny at all, relying on tired, recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. In my book, that's not funny, that's pathetic.<br /><br />Low budget 'effects' (if I can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. In many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money.<br /><br />Acting... I feel sorry for the actors. Are Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards that desperate for some money that they've agreed to take part in this? (looking at their recent filmography, it would appear so.) Despite the outfits, Pamela is showing her age and as a whole, they don't even come across as sexy, let alone funny.<br /><br />This movie is not even in the so-bad-it-is-funny category. It's just bad, as if everybody involved was sick of it.<br /><br />Avoid.
|
negative
|
Just got back from the European Premiere of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.<br /><br />All I can say is that if you are a gamer (CRPG, RPG or LARP), then this movie is for you. And if you're not a gamer? Well, it's still a great deal of fun.<br /><br />The acting is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but in the whole element of the movie it adds to the charm. The humour is everywhere, along with some very nice touches (the tribute to Gary Gygax is especially well done, if you can spot it). The cast are very down to earth in their appearance, befitting the fact that they are ordinary people enjoying an ordinary hobby.<br /><br />The quality of the movie's sound and vision are adequate, but again, it all just adds to the atmosphere that helps to define this movie as being the Dungeons and Dragons movie, written and performed by gamers for gamers.<br /><br />Not afraid to use terminology specific to one system, they still manage to allow product placement to be a part of the movie, but in a very understandable and utterly fair manner. It also touches on some of the perceived prejudices that some gamers can have about other gamers and deals with that quite well.<br /><br />All in all the movie is very much driven by an well-thought-out equal balance of character, plot and entertainment (the Bard is amazingly good value-for-money).<br /><br />In the end it does make scoring this movie quite hard, so I have given it 2 scores.<br /><br />Score (for non-RP'ers): 7/10 (A few moments could go way over your head, but the main sections of the movie just work so hard and achieve so much more.)<br /><br />Score (for RP'ers): 10/10 (Everything fits together, in the perfect quantities, and with the perfect charm and sentiment)
|
positive
|
"Children of wax" also shown as "Killing grounds" is an interesting mixture of genres. Some might think the purity of the genre can be only for good but to me the eclectic symbioses is very entertaining. It is also in it's story the mixture of thriller and the popular action as well as the combination of the historic masterpiece and the ethnic plea for tolerance. This film is built with the starry presence of my favorite actor the perfect Armand Assante but it is also marked by the acting of a shooting star Hal Ozan .We have recently seen him in the TV series on HBO called "Sex" . "Children of wax" is entertainment for the audience but the same time it has an everlasting moral for the ethnic tolerance. This is a wise way to seminate welfare. Discussion on the contemporary troubles of our days can be made with attractive means in this is very positive side of the film "Children of wax".
|
positive
|
This is just a joke of a movie,they lost me already at the opening scene (Spoilerwarning) dangerous creature kills other creature in his cage,this is watched by a scientist that works there on a monitor and guess what she does,well lets go in to the cage to check the stuff out,omg how dumb do those writers think human beings are come on thats the same like jumping in a fish tank with a great white shark because it ate your goldfish...Pretty useless and even more dumber.And i will not even talk about the cast because they aren't worth the effort. why they didn't fired the guy that wrote that immediately is a mystery to me.....And this kinda dumbness continues the entire movie. Only good thing where the cgi that is better then average for these kinda low-budget movies.<br /><br />If these kinda things don't bother you go see it,but be warned if your IQ is above 60 you will probably hate it.
|
negative
|
This great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.<br /><br />Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.<br /><br />By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.<br /><br />These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war.
|
positive
|
This timeless proverb reverberates in this movie and in my heart. So many years have I waited to see this eternal story! I was not ready, perhaps. It is possible that my sensibilities would not have appreciated its power. So I now gratefully welcome it into my soul with gladness.<br /><br />My respect and admiration for PAUL MUNI has been long. His is now a legendary luminescence. But now I have finally discovered the priceless gifts of LUISE RAINER's splendid talents. Oh, how many faces can speak as did hers? Some have said that it was wrought from her silent years, and this well might have been but her speech, is eloquent enough when it is given a chance. She amply deserved her Oscar.<br /><br />This movie is in an epic in the most classical proportions. All parts equal, necessary and perfect. Naysayers may walk away if they wish, but they would be shunning a storytelling which stays with one a lifetime.<br /><br />THE GOOD EARTH enriches one in ways that one does not expect. But all will not come from it with the joy that I did. But I can only hope that this film will be remembered for many years.<br /><br />Do not prod me with mere technicalities regarding the race of the principal players. These are expectations of modern times when we are obsessed with utter perfection. But I dare a million score of newer films to tell PEARL BUCK's story with such poignancy, power, conviction and grace.<br /><br />If any modern artist would dare to re-film this masterpiece, I warn them that they will never come close to the aromatic fragrance which still emanates from the core of this telling. Time will not diminish this effort nor will progress improve upon its greatness.
|
positive
|
Fans of Gerry Anderson's productions will recognise several actors and vehicles from UFO (which was made after Doppelgänger) - as well as sound effects from various Anderson series. Barry Gray's excellent music (mostly unique to this film) adds to the feeling of familiarity. For these reasons alone, I think any Gerry Anderson fan would find Doppelgänger worth getting.<br /><br />Judged simply as a film, it has to be said that Doppelgänger is flawed. It is known that there were major problems during production, and I suspect this is why there is a time-consuming plot thread that ends abruptly and appears to have no relevance to the rest of the story. Presumably time/budget constraints prevented the relevance from emerging!<br /><br />Distractingly, the special effects range from outstandingly good - better than any 1960s film that I know of - to disappointingly bad. <br /><br />Nevertheless, even with these flaws, Doppelgänger's main story is well told and keeps the viewer (or, at least, this viewer) engaged throughout. The ending is perhaps not what one might expect from Anderson, yet at the same time it is typical of Anderson, and it is certainly appropriate. To find out what I mean you'll have to watch it for yourself. :)
|
positive
|
Anatomie isn't very unique in horror genre, in fact it isn't even scary at all. It reminds me of its American cousins, horror slashers. It's just a copy of any other horror slasher and as a German movie it's just too American with nothing to add to it.<br /><br />Actually Anatomie is too predictable and boring, its plot is not intact and consistent. It's got stupid scenes to it which don't even fit into a horror movie genre. Amusing sex scenes with pop music and topless women in underwear. Why do they need to have it all in just one movie? They should have made a cheap German adult movie instead.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie to anyone because it's just too boring.
|
negative
|
This was my very first "Bollywood" movie and I found it in the same way many other recent viewers did -- through "Ghost World". Having done a little bit of reading up on the film industry of Bollywood this week, I understand somewhat why there are seemingly unrelated musical numbers and romance and comedy in a horror film. But "Something for everyone" doesn't always add up to a cohesive product.<br /><br />The ultra-groovy musical dance number "Jaan Pehechaan Ho" has captivated the world in a way it probably could not have done in 1965. It's all over the internet now, with many folks scrambling for a good English translation. Laxmi Chhaya does an amazing job dancing take after take, making it all look fresh, new and fun even when any normal person would be exhausted! She rules! <br /><br />On the beach with Miss Kitty is a light-weight fun and pretty tune in total contrast to the horror plot. Still, I find myself singing it in Hindi a week later. I found a rough translation:<br /><br />if you want to live in this life then listen to what I say leave your sorrows behind and join the party take my advice<br /><br />those who want to live live with laughter and singing let your hair down and relax people of this world what do you know? come to me and I'll explain<br /><br />whoever there is who will see me will stop worrying in this world fish swim freely here and there<br /><br />My second favorite number in the film is The Butler's Dream where Mehmood is entranced by Miss Kitty's dancing. The electric tiki-like idols are just wonderfully tacky as is the entire set of this number. Online, I'd seen it described as what would happen if "Liberace threw up"!! Way fun.<br /><br />Gumnaam is not a good movie as a whole. That's why I gave it a rating of 3. It's actually a real stinker of a film with some fun, kitschy musical numbers that have nothing really to do with the murder plot.
|
negative
|
Young spinster, who doesn't associate with women her own age and is eyed by gentleman from the retirement set, invites an apparently mute young man into her apartment on a rainy day. Nervous and overly-polite to hide her own sexual insecurities, she is most pleased when the boy makes himself to home in her guest bedroom...but not so happy when he begins sneaking out the window at night. Sandy Dennis is not a hapless actress, but why she was attracted to these sad-sack roles I guess we'll never know. Based on a book by Richard Miles, and about as far removed from a commercial drama as one could get, this lurid material not only attracted Dennis but also director Robert Altman (whose work is static, at best). The narrative seems almost a sex-reversal of "The Collector", a tag which may have sold the film-rights but which doesn't turn out to be a good idea cinematically. Even the film's best sequence (Dennis shopping for a prostitute to satisfy her prisoner) doesn't quite come off, with Sandy acting both ill and indignant (whose idea was this plan?). Michael Burns is quite good as the kid who uses this frumpy, pasty-sick woman just for her comfy digs, but he's handled too bashfully by Altman, with lots of strategically-placed towels and flesh-colored undies (Altman clearly wasn't ready for a mature picture with adult themes at this point). Sandy Dennis has a handful of very good scenes; she doesn't chatter away mindlessly here, she thinks before she speaks and she's alarmingly careful in her actions. Unfortunately, the role itself is a bummer, with an apparent slide into mental deterioration which seems to happen off-screen. As such, the abrupt finale is maddening, and the overall results tepid. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
When i finally had the opportunity to watch Zombie 3(Zombie Flesheaters 2 in Europe)on an import Region 2 Japanese dvd,i was blown away by just how entertaining this zombie epic is.The transfer is just about immaculate,as good as it's ever going to look unless Anchor Bay gets a hold of it.The gore truly stands out like it should and you can really appreciate the excellent makeup and gore fx.The sound is also terrific.It's only 2 channel dolby but if you have a receiver with Dolby Prologic 2,you can really appreciate the cheesy music(actually a very good score),and the effective although cheap sound effects.It never sounded so good,and the excellent transfer adds to the overall enjoyment.<br /><br />I never realized just how much blood flows in this film,it's extremely brutal with exploding head shots,exploding puss filled mega pimples,a cleaver to a zombies throat,a woman's burned off extremities(how come it did'nt burn the guy also),intestinal munching,zombie babies and so much more i lost track.<br /><br />This is no doubt for hardcore Zombie action fans,especially of the Italian kind.There is some excellent set pieces and cinematography to be found,i think people don't give it enough credit,if you see a clean print,and not some horrendous pirate copy,it's a whole other experience entirely.<br /><br />This film never lets up for a second,and i realize it's inconsistent plotwise,the dubbing is horrible,the acting is stiff,and it's sense of irreverence is celebrated in grand fashion,but that's part of it's charm.<br /><br />To me this is one of the best horror films ever made,you can't make a film this bad,so good,on purpose.It's accidental genius of the highest order.If they played it for laughs it would have been a disaster,but they played it straight as an arrow and the result is a terrific cult classic that thumbs it's nose at any and all traditional moviemaking standards.<br /><br />Tons of action sequences,exotic locales,excellent set design,good,sometimes great cinematography,wonderfully cheesy acting,and inconsistent but still interesting plot,great makeup effects,beautiful women who can kick butt,excellent music,and sometimes hilarious,sometimes creepy,but always entertaining zombies.How can you go wrong with this film,it has it all,a cult classic that stands the test of time.
|
negative
|
When DEATHTRAP was first released, the poster--reproduced on the cover of this DVD--offered a graphic akin to a Rubik's Cube. It is an appropriate image: originally written for the stage by Ira Levin, who authored such memorable works as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE STEPFORD WIVES, the play was one of Broadway's most famous twisters, and under Sidney Lumet's direction it translates to the screen extremely well.<br /><br />DEATHTRAP is one of those films that it is very difficult to discuss, for to do so in any detail gives away the very plot for which it is famous. But the opening premise is extremely clever: Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is the famous author of mystery plays, but these days he seems to have lost his touch. After a particularly brutal opening night, an old student named Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) sends him a script for a play he has written. It is called "Deathtrap," and Sidney recognizes it as a surefire hit. Just the sort of hit that would revive his career... indeed, a hit to die for. And when Clifford visits to discuss the play, events suddenly begin to twist in the most unexpected manner possible.<br /><br />Like Anthony Shaffer's equally twisty SLEUTH, DEATHTRAP is really a story more at home on the stage than the screen--to reach full power it needs the immediacy that a live performance offers. Still, under the expert guidance of director Sidney Lumet, it makes a more-than-respectable showing on the screen. Much of this is due to the cast, which is remarkably fine. Michael Caine gives a truly brilliant performance, Dyan Cannon is funny and endearing as Sidney's relentlessly anxious wife, and Christopher Reeve gives what might be the single finest performance in his regrettably short acting career. If you can't see it in a first-rate theatrical production, this will more than do until one comes along.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
positive
|
I watched this movie on HBO and I had a good time.<br /><br />The director has done a great work. I found myself totally absorbed into this movie once it started. Norman Reedus's performance is cool. I expect more chilling movies from him.<br /><br />I was so absorbed that on occasions I wanted to grab gun from Norman and shoot that snake girl. Hehe. I like the movies when innocent looking girls play tricks with men really cunningly. The ending was what I wanted :)) <br /><br />This movie is filled with twists of moments. You expect this but something else happens. <br /><br />In the beginning, those massive images cut scenes were really painful to eyes.<br /><br />Although it was not shown when Norman Reedus changed currency notes? Or is it me standing by fridge. :)
|
positive
|
The Hookers was to me a great everyday people story, Like someone you might have known. Just trying to make it, my big shot is right around the corner. Then Life's little temptations creep in, the spoiler, stumbled again. How much, can your love take, and give, to the guy who's really not so bad, after all, just Human. I liked it, I was also a paid extra in the movie. Played the drums in the bar shots, with the band, did several walking shots, my green 66' corvette was in the motel party shots. Wonderful cast and crew, first rate people, down to earth movie. I had lunch with James Coburn, on Mother's Day, what a wonderful man, just like I've known him for years, I'll never forget him. My father spent the day with Slim Pickens, and swapped horse stories, Slim also was really down to earth, love those guys, we really miss them. Real people making movies about real people, Thanks Levy, Gardner, and Laven.
|
positive
|
The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.<br /><br />Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.<br /><br />This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.
|
negative
|
i saw this with my with my kids they love it but i don't she did not get run overfed by a reindeer in the song, but what the heck in this crappy movie she got hit by the sleigh, it's like what the heck why why, when my kids heard the sinked they thought it was good but we they watched this they were like this "daddy why did Granny" thats how my kids say grandma, any way my kids said this "daddy why did grandma get hit by a sleigh" i told them that the movie was crappy they agreed, it's sad why would any one name there dog "Doofas" that's just dumb & when every one dressed in black that looked so so i mean Daphne looked like a dang emo goth girl every one looked like Goths & in the song they found grandma on the ground i think she died in the song, but in this weird crappy movie she was gone i think they should take this show off OK every one would love this i give this a 1 out of 10
|
negative
|
ORCA is not exactly bad, but it's not really Richard Harris's finest hour either. As a demented, Ahab-like fisherman, Harris gets into a game of death with a vengeful killer whale after killing the whale's "wife" and unborn child. Charlotte Rampling plays a whale expert who gets involved with Harris. She yells at him a lot about how important it is to leave nature alone. He doesn't listen and somehow ends up in the arctic battling the revenge crazed whale. There are no special effects to speak of except for what looks like a round mirror for a whale's eye --- there are endless shots of Harris reflected in the eye so the audience understands that the whale knows who he is. Bo Derek, as one of Harris's crew has a particularly unpleasant run in with the Orca and most of the supporting cast, including Robert Carridine, Will Sampson and Keenan Wynn don't fare very well either.
|
negative
|
I first saw this film about 11 years ago when my former college Accounting professor recommended it to me. I was amazed that a movie from 1968 could so coherently and hilariously portray computer crime. Maggie Smith is delightful and Ustinov plays the "retro hacker" perfectly. "O Nolo Mio"!!!!!
|
positive
|
I felt duty bound to watch the 1983 Timothy Dalton / Zelah Clarke adaptation of "Jane Eyre," because I'd just written an article about the 2006 BBC "Jane Eyre" for TheScreamOnline.<br /><br />So, I approached watching this the way I'd approach doing homework.<br /><br />I was irritated at first. The lighting in this version is bad. Everyone / everything is washed out in a bright white klieg light that, in some scenes, casts shadows on the wall behind the characters.<br /><br />And the sound is poorly recorded. I felt like I was listening to a high school play.<br /><br />And the pancake make-up is way too heavy.<br /><br />And the sets don't fully convey the Gothic mood of the novel. They are too fussy, too Martha Stewart. I just can't see Bronte's Rochester abiding such Martha Stewart domestic arrangements. Orson Welles' Rochester lived in cave-like gloom, very appropriate to the novel's Gothic mood.<br /><br />And yet ... with all those objections ... not only is this the best "Jane Eyre" I've seen, it may be the best adaptation of any novel I've ever seen.<br /><br />This "Jane Eyre," in spite of its technical flaws, brought the feeling back to me of reading "Jane Eyre" for the first time.<br /><br />The critics of this production say it is too close to the book. For me, someone who valued the book and didn't need it to be any less "wordy" or any less "Christian" or any more sexed up, this version's faithfulness to the novel Bronte actually wrote is its finest asset.<br /><br />Bronte wrote a darn good book. There's a reason it has lasted 150 years plus, while other, slicker, sexier and easier texts, have disappeared.<br /><br />As a long time "Jane Eyre" fan, I was prejudiced against Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Rochester is, famously, not handsome; Jane and Rochester are literature's famous ugly couple. And Timothy Dalton is nothing if not stunningly handsome.<br /><br />But Dalton gives a mesmerizing performance as Rochester. He just blew me away. I've never seen anything like his utter devotion to the role, the text, the dialogue, and Rochester's love for Jane. Dalton brings the page's Rochester to quivering life on screen.<br /><br />Rochester is meant to be a bit scary. Dalton is scary. Welles got the scary streak down, too, for example, when he shouts "Enough!" after Fontaine plays a short piano piece. But Dalton is scary more than once, here. You really can't tell if he's going to hurt Jane, or himself, in his desperation.<br /><br />Rochester's imperiousness, his humor, his rage, his vulnerability: Dalton conveys all, sometimes seconds apart. It's stunning.<br /><br />And here's the key thing -- the actor performing Rochester has to convey that he has spent over a decade of his life in utter despair, lonely, living with an ugly, life-destroying secret.<br /><br />No other actor I've seen attempt this part conveys that black hole of despair as Timothy Dalton does. Current fan favorite Toby Stephens doesn't even try. Dalton hits it out of the park. If I saw Timothy Dalton performing Rochester in a singles bar, i would say, "That guy is trouble. Don't even look at him." He's that radioactive with tamped down agony.<br /><br />Zelah Clarke is not only, overall, the best Jane I've seen, she's one of the very few Janes whom producers were willing to cast as the book casts Jane. No, folks who know "Jane Eyre" only from the 2006 version, Bronte did *not* describe a statuesque, robust Jane with finely arched eyebrows and pouty lips. Rather, Charlotte Bronte's Jane is, indeed, poor, plain, obscure, and little, and NOT pretty.<br /><br />Zelah has a small mouth, close-set eyes, and a bit of a nose. She's truly "little." She is no fashion model. And she is the best Jane, the truest to the book.<br /><br />Some described her a cold or boring. No, she's true to the book. Bronte's Jane is not a red hot mama, she's a sheltered, deprived teen whose inner passions come out only at key moments, as Zelah's do here. The book's Jane is someone you have to watch slowly, carefully, patiently, observantly, if you want to truly plumb her depths. You have to watch Zelah, here, to get to know who she really is.<br /><br />I would have liked to have seen more fire in Zelah in one key scene, but that's one scene out of five hours in which she is, otherwise, very good.<br /><br />In spite of its closeness to the text, this version, like every other version I've seen, shys away from fully explicating the overtly Christian themes in "Jane Eyre." Christianity is not incidental subtext in "Jane Eyre," it is central.<br /><br />Helen Burns instructs Jane in Christianity, thus giving her a subversive, counter cultural way to read, and live, her apparently doomed, pinched life. It is Christianity, and a Christian God, who convinces poor, plain, obscure Jane of her equal worth, her need to live up to her ideals, and her rejection of a key marriage proposal. That isn't made fully clear here.<br /><br />In any case, Charlotte Bronte wrote an excellent, complex, rich novel, and this adaptation of it, of all the ones I've seen, mines and honors the novel best of any adaptation I've seen, and that says a lot.<br /><br />Other versions, that don't fully honor the book, end up being a chore to watch in many places. If you don't care about what Charlotte Bronte has to say about child abuse, or the hypocrisy of a culture built on looks and money, your adaptation of much of the book will be something people fast forward through to get to the kissing scenes between Jane and Rochester.<br /><br />This version, like Bronte's novel, realizes that everything Bronte wrote -- about Jane's experiences at Lowood, and her relationship to St. John -- are part of what makes Jane's relationship to Rochester as explosive and unforgettable as it is.
|
positive
|
History teacher Mrs Tingle seems to have it in for student Leigh Ann Watson, who has her heart on achieving a writing school scholarship. She receives another low grade from Tingle, which doesn't help. When one of her classmates Luke steals the paper of the final history exams and pops it in her bag, Mrs. Tingle finds it sticking out. She threatens the three that she will go to the principal about it, but he's not available. So before she reports it the next morning. Leigh, her friend Jo Lynn and Scott head to her place that night and try to convince her not tell the principal. However due to Tingle's stubbornness, that find themselves reverting to drastic measures to stop this getting out.<br /><br />Wasn't fan of it when I first saw it, and after another viewing, I'm still not one. Writer Kevin Williamson was on a roll after penning the successful contemporary teen horror films; 'Scream (1996)', 'I Know What You did Last Summer (1997)', 'Scream 2 (1997)' and 'The Faculty (1998)'. He was riding the success (also not to forget the TV show 'Dawson's Creek), but this project would be the final bump. The difference there, compared with this entry was other then writing the screenplay, he was also making his debut in directing. The strange thing though, was that I found his direction to be competently done, but material he stormed up to flavourless and tired. It seemed to get caught in playing both a black comedy and straight-out thriller, without making it gel. The script is cluttered with quick-wit, on-going gags, trivial stretches and gimmicky references towards other films, but the problem is that it's too watered-down with so many contrived developments and sappy moral currents disrupting the flow. The fractured script had to be more strong and potent, since it's a small-scale production that feels like you're watching a stage show because of its mostly confined sets. It tries to play mind games with the characters, but these moments are there to only serve the story's poor progression into a puddle of stupidity and senselessness. The film's ending takes the cake. Williamson's polished direction is sound, but more so in a pedestrian way and therefore it lacks suspense and the pacing even with its taut surroundings can really plod on. You eventually feel it after the halfway mark, and it shows up how minor the story is. The performances are tolerable enough, although if it weren't for Helen Mirren's classy, icy portrayal of manipulative prowess as Mrs. Tingle and a buoyant Marisa Coughlan, we would have been stuck watching a vapid goody-to-shoes Katie Holmes. Barry Watson is modest in his slacker part and Molly Ringwald has a lesser role. The soundtrack packs enough energy, but I found it terribly overwrought and shapeless in its choices.<br /><br />Watchable, but mechanical all round.
|
negative
|
Being a genre film fan, a child of the 80's AND a fan of hard rock music...this movie holds a special place in my heart. It has everything you could want in a supernatural movie: action, great special effects (for 1986) and a guitar wailing glam- rock soundtrack. It certainly was THE movie for all the heavy metal fans at the time. I didn't see this at the cinema because it was never released theatrically over here...but it's popularity on video during the mid to late eighties secured it's cult status and eventually led to a (sadly, mediocre) DVD release in 2002. If you're not a fan of creepy movies or rock music then this probably isn't your cup of tea...but, trust me, there are worse films of this type out there...and, despite average acting and some outrageously ridiculous situations, Trick or Treat is most definitely a wailing riff above the usual horror fare. You'll never look at your stereo the same way again. Or should I say MP3 player?<br /><br />TRICK OR TREAT TRIVIA- Marc Price (Eddie) played geeky Skippy Handelman on the popular long running comedy sitcom 'Family Ties.' After a string of direct to video flops including, 'Little Devils''Killer Tomatoes eat France' and 'The Rescue' he gave up on acting to pursue a career in stand-up comedy. Recently, he has been considering a TV comeback.<br /><br />Glen Morgan (Roger) is now a major Hollywood producer/ screenwriter. He has written and produced several major films and TV series, including: 'Space: Above and Beyond''The X-Files''Final Destination''Jet Li's The One''Willard' and most recently 'Final Destination 3'.<br /><br />Tony Fields (Sammi) started his performing career as a dancer on the TV series 'Solid Gold'. He appeared in several low budget films and TV shows before landing his breakout role as the devilish Sammi Curr in 'Trick or Treat'. Sadly, Tony passed away on February 27th 1995 of AIDS related cancer.<br /><br />Doug Savant (Tim) is probably best remembered for his pioneering role of homosexual twentysomething Matt Fielding on the popular sitcom 'Melrose Place'. Since then he has had a long and varied acting career, appearing in such films and TV series as: 'The One''Godzilla''CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' and the short lived Joss Whedon sci-fi series 'Firefly'. Currently he can be seen as Tom Scavo on the smash hit series 'Desperate Housewives'.
|
positive
|
'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.<br /><br />My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.<br /><br />'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.<br /><br />The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird. <br /><br />Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.<br /><br />A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own.
|
negative
|
All my friends and various other coworkers think this show is soooo great. First I hate this show!!!!!!! I think I might be the only female alive!!! I only watched it because my best friend adores it and fancies herself to be the Charlotte character!<br /><br />First the whole plot (If you can call it that) is about four women Superslut Samantha (Kim Cattrall)who most likely has every STD available and mossy,brown and green genitals considering she is tri sexual( she'll try anything).<br /><br />Samantha is not like most 40 something women even in NY, but than the show would not have some kind of entertainment since Samantha (along with some good NY scenery) is the only reason to watch and those are not reason enough. <br /><br />Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is a well dressed upper class NY idiot who still believes the Pince Charming myth! However sweet and pretty she is do not let that fool you, she spreads quite often.<br /><br />Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) now this woman is stereotypical angry, butch feminist. I think in one episode she is thought to be a lesbian, but apparently is not...What a shame she's almost interesting.<br /><br />Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) the most annoying character. I swear I thought I was watching Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider's more manly looking, cross dressing, sissy boy, brother! This is a girl looking for can't live without you love....Heard of a puppy?<br /><br />This show is stupid and I love making fun of it because I hear about how it is some kind of new awakening for women. That is just sad if your looking to watch slutty, pathetic, addictive people in way too expensive clothes drinking cosmopolitans and sounding like an annoying 15 yr old on cocaine than there is a show for you............just use protection.
|
negative
|
This intensely involving 2007 character-driven suspense drama is like a big, juicy piece of Shakespearean-level steak from a master filmmaker who knows how to draw out uncommonly ferocious, to-the-edge performances from his actors. Consider for starters - Henry Fonda's lone dissenting juror in "Twelve Angry Men", Katharine Hepburn's delusional Mary Tyrone in "Long Day's Journey Into Night", Rod Steiger's conflicted concentration camp survivor in "The Pawnbroker", William Holden's wintry lion in "Network", and Paul Newman's alcoholic lawyer in "The Verdict". The list encompasses some of the finest screen work of the past half-century, and you can safely add Philip Seymour Hoffman's desperately controlling Andy Hanson to the ranks. At 83, director Sidney Lumet shows no signs of octogenarian fatigue, and in fact, he revels in the melodramatic turns of first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson's thickly plotted script.<br /><br />The scale of the story is deceptively small as it focuses on the moral compromises that unravel in a family where two brothers have become desperate for immediate cash. Woody Allen followed a similar fraternal dynamic in his last film, the oddly pinched "Cassandra's Dream", but Lumet is neither pinched nor cautious in his fierce approach to this inescapable tale of ambiguity and deception. The plot revolves around a crime that was meant to be victimless. Embezzling funds from his real estate company's payroll to keep his neglected wife Gina happy and to satisfy an expensive drug habit, smooth-talking Andy is about to be exposed in an IRS audit. Meanwhile, his younger brother Hank is a mass of post-divorce, codependent insecurities falling way behind in his alimony and child support payments.<br /><br />Andy concocts a supposedly foolproof plan to rob their parents' suburban jewelry store while neither of them is supposed to be there. The goal was for the brothers to collect the haul, and the parents to claim the insurance. Murphy's Law intervenes in every possible way starting with Andy pressuring Hank to do the job himself. After some brotherly cajoling, Hank agrees to it, but too scared to do it alone, he recruits a reckless, gun-toting busboy to handle the robbery. By fate, the heist occurs on the one day that Andy and Hank's mother is opening the shop, and things quickly spiral out of control from there. Although the back-and-forth storytelling technique is not new (for example, Alejandro González Iñárritu's "21 Grams"), Masterson's approach works effectively in delineating certain events from multiple perspectives so that you understand how each character is led to the repercussions of the unfortunate event.<br /><br />The acting is pitch-perfect starting with Hoffman's riveting performance as Andy, a Machiavellian reptile whose cool exterior and innate amorality mask layers of resentment toward his family. I thought he was great in Tamara Jenkins' "The Savages", but he is even better here. Lumet even draws a solid performance from the usually insufferable Ethan Hawke as Hank, imbuing him with the emasculated weakness that informs his every ill-planned move. As their embattled father, Albert Finney acts with his typical late-career bluster, but he provides the necessary foundation for the Oedipal-level complexities. Marisa Tomei is a smart choice to play Gina, as the actress economically keys in on the responsive, watchful nature of a small but pivotal role. The estimable theater veteran Rosemary Harris (now better known as Peter Parker's aunt in the "Spider-Man" trilogy) has precious little time as the mother, as does Amy Ryan as Hank's bitter ex-wife.<br /><br />There are scenes that border on excessive, especially as the situation becomes increasingly desperate for the brothers, but the principals inject such energetic brio to them that the flourishes become forgivable. After the disappointment of the cartoonish "Find Me Guilty", it is refreshing to see Lumet in peak form here. The 2008 DVD offers terrifically informative commentary from Lumet, Hoffman and Hawke, all of whom converse with ease and insight throughout. Along with the original theatrical trailer, there is also a better-than-average 24-minute featurette, "Directed by Sidney Lumet: How the Devil Was Made", which features on-set footage and snippets of interviews with Lumet, two of the producers and the principal actors.
|
positive
|
It seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes!
|
negative
|
Words cannot express how poor this film is.<br /><br />There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.<br /><br />With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.<br /><br />It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.<br /><br />Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead!
|
negative
|
...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.<br /><br />I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.<br /><br />I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.<br /><br />I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.<br /><br />I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.<br /><br />When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.
|
negative
|
My roommate had bought this documentary and invited me to watch it with her. She's from China and only heard so much about 9/11 and wanted to know the cold hard truth and she wanted me to tell her more after the documentary. I felt awful watching this documentary, it was like reliving the nightmare and it still brings tears to my eyes.<br /><br />But I'm extremely grateful that I watched this documentary, because on the day of September 11th, I'm sure we all remember where we were and what we were doing when we heard, all of us could only think certain questions: "Why?", "How?", "What's going on?", "Oh, my God!". Almost all the Americans were grateful for the brave firemen and policemen that risked their lives to save others. But I don't think we thought about what they were really going though. This wasn't actually supposed to be a documentary about 9/11, the cameraman was just filming a typical day on the job and they just happened to be a couple blocks away from the World Trade Centers and got everything, outside and in, on tape.<br /><br />On Sep. 11th, I thought to myself "It's OK, the policemen and firemen will get the people out that survived". To be honest, I thought it was an accident, I was in my junior year of high school and getting changed from gym and getting ready to go to my science class. Someone came into the locker room shouting "Some building just got bombed in New York!", we all got dressed quickly and ran to our classrooms as we watched the first tower burning on TV. Not only 15 seconds later live on TV does the second plane crash into the other World Trade Center and we knew this was no accident. A few minutes later, we heard about the Pentagon and that there was a plane headed for Chicago but was shot down. So many thoughts ran through our heads and I kept on thinking "What are the firemen and policemen going to do?". But it's procedure to them I thought, they'll know what to do.<br /><br />The first tower collapsed, we knew it, so many lives are now gone, the second tower crashed, things would never be the same. Those firemen in this documentary showed courage, confusion, and strength, the real raw human emotions. They didn't know what to do, they were just as scarred as those other people who were in the towers. They heard the bodies collapsing on the ground from people jumping out the windows. And here I was in a classroom just crying seeing all that was going on on TV. I was amazed with this film and just wanted to go to New York and tell them how grateful all the Americans were for their help. I know they feel like they were just doing their job, but they did more, they were hero's. Every day after Sep. 11th for 3 weeks they kept on digging knowing that there were no survivors, but they kept on hoping and praying. May God bless their kind and brave hearts.<br /><br />As for my roommate she was crying and admitted this was her first time crying at these attacks. She got to see the truth of what had happened that tragic day. She asked "Why?". I didn't know what to say, it breaks my heart that people can be that evil. "It sounds clique', but it was a normal day for everyone" one of the firemen said in the documentary. No one expected this to happen. Not like that, those people in the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon or the planes that were hijacked, they were just doing their job, happen to be there, or even just was there for a second passing by. They were not just murdered, they were slaughtered, and those hijackers did it with a song in their heart. Then seeing in the middle east all the people celebrating, why do people do this? They celebrated death and the lose of: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Why? <br /><br />So, thanks to those people for making this documentary. You truly think about the firemen, policemen, and the troops in Iraq and it keeps your hope up that there are good people in this world. Thank you to all those people, you are our heroes.<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.