review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.<br /><br />I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).<br /><br />This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.<br /><br />I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.<br /><br />Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...
|
negative
|
not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long, but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies.
|
positive
|
De Grot is a very good film. The great plot comes from the novel by Tim Krabbé, who also adapted this story for the screen. Some really top-class acting, not only by Van Huêt, but especially by Marcel Hensema, who mostly did TV-work prior to his performance of Axel van de Graaf. The film seems to kick of as a thriller, and sets an excellent mood. Then we start to learn about Egon Wagter and Axel van de Graaf, and the story is revealed bit by bit in a very compelling flash-back structure, which adds to the more romantic aspect and the character-driven drama of the movie. In the end this all culminates into an emotional ending, that will grab audiences by their throats. Make sure you know as little as possible about the plot when you are going to see this movie. A must-see, especially if you liked 'Spoorloos' (The Vanishing's original screen adaptation).
|
positive
|
The fact that I did not like the music is a very personal opinion, the historical innacuracies are not. I do realize that it is an opera and not a documentary, but some important aspects are missing, especiallly if other people comment falsely because of it.<br /><br />Abbu Abas was the mastermind of this operation, which was staged and reorganized due to discovery on board the shiph, in order to free 50 terrorists from Israeli prisons, one of which was Samir Kuntar, a heinous terrorist whose story you can find by searching for "klinghoffer samir kuntar" on google. Abbu Abbas was responsible for many other terrorist operations, even if he never set foot on the Achile Lauro. Ben Laden never set foot on the planes that hit the WTC, did he?<br /><br />*** possible spoilers ***<br /><br />The movie almost excuses the terrorists' actions and reactions because of horrors they might have lived, always accentuating and exaggerating how much the Israeli's have done to hurt them. However, they never portray the hurt that the Palestinians have ever caused to the Israelis. The movie uses (quite horrid!!!) images from the Sabra and Chatila horror, and nothing is said, understating the general belief that it was Israel who was responsible, without ever mentioning that it was a Syrian-les Lebanese army who conducted the massacre.<br /><br />The acting was generally very bad, but I guess that's what can be expected from opera singers?<br /><br />On another note I am shocked at how a person can excuse terrorists killing a hostage because the hostage tried to stir the 400 innocent hostages against the armed terrorists, and add that the person should not be considered sympathetic because he is a supporter of zionism. Imagine how unsympathetic his wife was, spitting on the terrorists who shot her husband and threw his body into the sea. I hope no one in the world is as cruel as she is(wink wink)
|
negative
|
CUJO is a movie adaptation of a novel of the same name written by Stephen King.<br /><br />I've never read the novel but just scanning the comments page has given me some insight. I noticed a reference to the change in the ending.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is as follows - a St. Bernard dog gets bitten by a rabid bat and goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />The plot sounds quite worn now, having been done in various movies. However it might have been something new when King wrote the novel. Or perhaps King's novel put a twist on the story that was never shown in the movie.<br /><br />Anyway, the first 40 minutes of this movie have nothing at all worth mentioning other than the dog being bitten. Nothing else happens - nothing scary, nothing funny, nothing to add depth to the characters and nothing interesting in any other respect. I found this section difficult to sit through and was constantly shouting at the TV, "come on, get started!". The events that I was seeing on the screen were reminiscent of a TV movie of the drama genre or an extended episode of a TV soap opera. Unfortunately, there was only one family in the movie given any focus so it couldn't even work on a soap opera level. The dog was the best character in the movie, but it didn't get enough screen time in this section. There was nothing to indicate why this dog would go on a killing spree later.<br /><br />After the 40 minute mark point, something finally happened. The dog suddenly transformed from a lovable pet into a vicious killing machine. It began attacking some people. There was also an interesting cat-and-mouse chase when two characters became trapped in a car, unable to leave because the dog would attack them. Even in this overly long second half, the suspense would build up well before dying again. It was just a stop-go situation repeated over and over again until the movie reached its conclusion.<br /><br />Without giving the ending away, I can tell you it was very formulaic and unworthy of a Stephen King story.<br /><br />The suspense scenes when they are on the screen are exciting to watch. Some great camera angles add menace to the dog's vicious nature when he attacks people. This is particularly important because as others have mentioned a St. Bernard dog is nowhere near as scary as, say, a Rottweiler. Unfortunately, the movie fails to utilise suspenseful music to support the images on the screen. The music is far too melodramatic rather than suspenseful. This may fit a TV movie but it looks incredibly out of place in what should be a dark-toned movie presenting a living nightmare to the viewer.<br /><br />This brings me on to a wider problem with this movie - the photography. The camera-work and especially the choice of colours make this seem like a very cheap TV movie one would expect to see as the daytime movie on Channel 5 here in the UK where I am writing this comment from.<br /><br />The top two actors deliver good acting performances that help to breathe life into the movie's dull segments. Dee Wallace and Danny Pintauro should be given credit for doing a great job with the poor material they are given. I could forgive a few brief moments of overacting by paying closer attention to the dialogue, which could not have allowed any other interpretation in my opinion. I won't pass judgement on the other actors because they are given virtually nothing to do.<br /><br />As someone who is a fan of SALEM'S LOT and STEPHEN KING'S IT, both movie adaptations of famous Stephen King novels, I had high expectations for this movie. But it turned out to be a massive disappointment.<br /><br />Overall, I do not recommend fans of Stephen King or horror movies in general to watch CUJO. This is one of those moments where I have to recommend the book rather than the movie. Hopefully it brings the story to life in a way that the movie failed to do.
|
negative
|
'Renaissance (2006)' was created over a period of six years, co-funded by France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom at a cost of around 14 million. The final result is a staggering accomplishment of comic-book style animation, aesthetically similar to what Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller achieved with 'Sin City (2005),' but this film employed motion capture with live-actors to translate their faces and movements into an entirely animated format. Presented in stark black-and-white, the film looks as though it has been hoisted from the very pages of the graphic novel on which it was based, and the futuristic city of Paris looms ominously above us. Directed by French filmmaker Christian Volckman, in his feature-length debut, 'Renaissance' draws significantly from other films in the science-fiction genre, and the tech-noir storyline isn't something we haven't seen before, but, from a technical standpoint, it is faultless.<br /><br />The year is 2054. The city of Paris is a crumbling metropolis filled with dark alleys and deserted footpaths, the recent installation of modern technology merely offering a thin mask to the pitiable degradation of the darkened buildings. The city's largest corporation, Avalon, achieved wealth through offering citizens the promise of beauty and youth, and the company's research department is continually striving to invent greater means of eliminating the aging process. Ilona Tasuiev (voiced by Romola Garai in the English-language version, which I watched) , a brilliant young scientist, is mysteriously kidnapped on her return from work, and so it falls to legendary detective Barthélémy Karas (Daniel Craig) to uncover her current whereabouts. Possibly holding the key to the woman's disappearance is Bislane (Catherine McCormack), Ilona's hardened elder sister, whose trustworthiness is in question, and Jonas Muller (Ian Holm), the dedicated medical doctor who adored Ilona as his own daughter.<br /><br />The eerie, dimly-lit city of Paris is reminiscent of Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner (1982),' and some of the technology looks as though it might have been borrowed from Tom Cruise in 'Minority Report (2002)' {which was, coincidentally, also set in the year 2054}. However, despite this familiarity, Volckman has created an exciting world for his characters to inhabit. Blending classic film-noir and science-fiction, the result is an eye-catching collage of harsh lighting and dark shadows, which, I should warn, occasionally becomes difficult on the viewer's eyes. The dialogue is a little banal at times, and the story, though engaging, doesn't offer anything strikingly original {except for the ending, which I thought was a bold twist on the usual formula}, but 'Renaissance' is intended to work best as a visual treat, and that it succeeds in this regard cannot be denied.
|
positive
|
I stumbled across this movie late at night on TV. My brother and I could not stop laughing at how God awful this movie is. The crappy sound effects whenever White Ninja or Black Ninja punch, kick, or use a weapon is hilarious. This movie is almost on the same level as the Evil Dead series, but you can only watch this movie once because of shear crappiness. I'm not sure if the director meant for it to be so crappy on purpose because he knew idiots like me would buy it.
|
negative
|
there is no suspense in this serial! When one episode ends the acting is so shoddy, the effects are so poor and the script is so awful that the last thing on your mind is how Batman and Robin will save the day. No, in fact, the last thing on your mind is watching the next episode! This show is so boring that I can't see how it ever got made, let alone released on DVD! Obviously the effects are not up to par with contemporary Batman films, but even the script is awful. An incoherent babbling mess about some evil professor and a ray gun or something like that, I am not quite sure, because it is too awful to follow. Watch the 60s version, or the 90's versions, or even Batman Begins, just anything over this version!
|
negative
|
I saw this movie in the Rotterdam Film Festival and I was pleasantly surprised. The photography is just so stylish and beautiful, and the story it's just not your average mafia movie, actually that storyline is pretty much in the background. It's more the personal journey of a middle age man that is trapped in an existence he was forced to live. The actor, Toni Servillo, is superb, he excels this "quiet man". The girl, Olivia Magnani, is the grand-daughter of Italian actress Anna Magnani and lives up to the family surname.<br /><br />If you're expecting your typical Italian movie where everybody is screaming to each other in big families, this is NOT your movie. There are not you're average clichés and it's definitively worth seeing this one.
|
positive
|
I watched this movie on video the other night and found myself dozing off throughout this uninspired snoozefest. First of all, one of my biggest pet peeves is when movies like this are characterized as horror movies. It is a THRILLER! get it right!It has no monsters or anything supernatural. It is simply a movie about a twisted serial killer (Actually there is a very small body count so it is more of a serial torturer movie and it did a good job of torturing me.) The basic premise of a man luring teenagers to his house of horrors through online chat rooms could have made for a great movie but we only see him lure one pair of teen girls through the internet at the very beginning of the film. One of these girls turns out to be a local detective's daughter and he gets emotionally involved in the case. The film quickly changes from a potentially intelligent sado-masochistic thriller to a boring old cat and mouse game between the incredibly dull detective and the psychopathic Captain Howdy/Carleton Hendricks played adequately by writer/producer/Twisted Sister frontman, Dee Snider. The occasional attempts at meaningful poetic one-liners about the positive effects of pain and the like from Snider are laughable. If he is attempting to get people to subscribe to these opinions through this film, he fails miserably and (unintentionally) makes light of them. The directing by John Pieplow (whose only previous directing effort was Jurassic Women, which I will let the title speak for itself) was uninspired and there was something wrong with the editing which resulted in the film being disjointed with a few scenes completely unrelated to the plot, unless the screenplay is at fault (which is quite possible.) This film a completely unsuccessful attempt at a thriller trying to pass of as a horror movie that's only achievement was making me squirm at the sight of a few graphic bodily piercings. If you see it at your video store don't waste your money but if you need something to laugh at one night and Strangeland is on cable, you might as well watch. 3 out of 10
|
negative
|
Michelle Pfeiffer stars as a mob widow who seeks a normal life but has her hands full with the new boss and an undercover agent. A lighthearted Demme film with some good laughs and Pfeiffer in a comical role that she has fun with..on a scale of one to ten..8
|
positive
|
"The Evil That Men Do" begins with a truly repellent torture scene, followed, a little later, by graphic verbal descriptions of equally repellent torture methods that the sadistic, heartless villain likes to use. But despite the use of such strictly-for-shock effects, the filmmakers can't really cover up the fact that this is just a dull, low-grade Bronson vehicle. Bronson himself is solid here, but he should have chosen a better script.
|
negative
|
Is this movie as bad as some claim? In my opinion, yes it is. I wasn't going to comment, noting that quite a few comments have already been made, ranging from 'awful' to -not nearly so bad...'. However, I can't resist.<br /><br />What do you make of a movie that has, on the DVD cover. the phrase "the real story of "Ma BArker and her boys...", and the standard "any similarity to actual persons..." disclaimer in the credits? I'm not naive, but in this case, it's a pretty relevant observation regarding this movie.<br /><br />Several comments knock the performances. They are pretty awful, Roberts, Russell, Milano and Stallone have something like 315 movies and TV shows listed between them. They can act, or at least perform.<br /><br />However...the dialog is not to my taste, and quite unintentionally funny at times. The story arcs didn't seem to be anything but the barest minimum required to string specific scenes of violence and melodrama together.<br /><br />Direction and screen writing has to be faulted: Amyrillis giggles after seeing Ma Barker's violent temper and finishes with "Take The Girl!"?????. What ever you think of Alyssa's acting abilities...some screenwriter wrote that line or reaction, and/or some director shot it, and said, 'OK, that's good enough, no need to retake that, that's credible...' One footnote: I did pick up my copy for $1.99 or $2.99 in a grocery story discount bin; the running time is shown as 91 mins, and I note that the running time is listed on IMDb as 95 mins. I don't know what 4 minutes I'm missing, but I acknowledge that if those 4 minutes were of the right sort of person in the right sort of situation, my rating might soar to 3 or 4 out of 10. As I saw it, 1 / 10 is what I must vote.
|
negative
|
Great drama with all the areas covered EXCEPT for screenlay which was too slow and should have shown more relevant scenes like Pitt's character interviewing the President,or Pitt getting murdered instead of just having it described to us.Scenes like those would have kept the audience awake.Cutting away some useless minutes could have made more room for more heartpounding scenes like those.The dragging of the film kept this one from all time greatness although to see Pitt here makes the film so worth watching.Also,big fans of fising,early 20th century styles and Montana will really like this as well........
|
positive
|
Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.<br /><br />My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.<br /><br />After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.<br /><br />So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.
|
negative
|
There are some great philosophical questions. What is the purpose of life? What happens when we die? And WHY DO THEY MAKE MOVIES THIS BAD??? The premise is absurd. Thre acting is one dimensional. The special effects are overdone. And the movie is one unending gun battle among some of the lousiest shots Hollywood ever produced. But then, if they had been good shots, everybody would have been dead in the first five minutes and there would be no movie. Too bad it didn't happen that way. Tempted to turn it off several times, I stuck with it to see just how bad it could get. Glad I did because (SPOILER?) the last line is the crowning stupidity of the whole dopey, dismal scenario.It is not even worthy of second feature status at a third rate drive-in in off season. Apart from the general awfulness of the film, I worry deeply about its impact on young audiences. The Americans crank out crap like this and then wonder why events like Columbine happen. This is truly banal cinema on a Brobdingnagian scale!
|
negative
|
Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).
|
positive
|
"Queen of the Damned" is one of the best vampire movies I had ever seen! The movie had suspense, action, and gore. The combination of the fierce demanding attitude of the Queen and the rock mood of our star, very well acted by Stuart Townsend, makes a wonderfully done movie that only this combination can create. I'm always the one to give advice to my friends and family members on which movies are worthy of renting and when they ask me if "Queen of the Damned" is worthy, I tell them it's worthy of buying. This movie is most for sure a must-have in all horror movie lovers' homes!
|
positive
|
I have never seen the first Killjoy film, and I have also never heard a good thing said about it. So I see Killjoy 2 in the local Blockbusters and pick it up and look at the back. Starring Trent Haaga and Debbie Rochon it boasts. Now being the massive Troma fan that I am there is no way I'm not going to rent this film out, how can it possibly be bad with these two in it? Oh how wrong I was. Even Trent and Debbie cant save this excuse of a film from being as bad as it truly is. Trent quite frankly stinks as Killjoy although this probably is more the fault of the writers giving him some of the worst one-liners in the history of film. Debbie does put a solid performance in but it isn't enough. The kills are terrible as are the gore effects. For example check out when the guy is supposedly impaled on something or other. And just to top it all off the ending is just amongst the worst I have ever seen in movie history. The film doesn't even work on a so bad it's good level. Avoid like the clap.<br /><br />2/10
|
negative
|
This movie appears to have designed as a Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers film--the plot outline, dance numbers, zippy music and the entire formula is there...except for Ginger! Whether it REALLY was originally intended as a re-pairing of the team is uncertain but it sure has the look of one of these films. Instead of the usual sidekicks for Fred (such as Eric Blore or Edward Everett Horton), Burns and Allen are used--probably since despite being known as a comedy team, they COULD sing and dance quite well. This actually shocked me, but the team were a welcome addition and some of the traditional Fred and Ginger numbers were done with either Fred and Gracie or these two along with George. Only once, at the very end, does Ms. Fontaine dance with Fred but it's very brief and with a distant camera shot.<br /><br />And speaking of Burns and Allen, I think I owe it to the team to talk about them in the film. I have never been a fan of their show or their movies. In general, I find Gracie's idiot act very annoying and I have given some poor reviews to their movie shorts and full-length films. However, in this film I must admit that they were great--not only dancing competently but I actually thought they were funny and filled the hole left by Edward Everett Horton very nicely. They were on top of their game and the writers did a wonderful job in this department.<br /><br />Now as for the rest of the film, it's all a lot of fun and is entertaining. The problem for me, though, was that Joan Fontaine was not a particularly good choice for the movie--not just because she was acting outside her range (after all, she wasn't a singer or dancer), but because she had the screen presence of a ball of lint. Because of this, the usual balance and great boy-girl dialog was lacking. There was also a very charming performance by Harry Watson as a devilish little boy who did everything he could do to play cupid--all because he wanted to win a bet! And finally, I loved the Fun House and Tunnel of Love sequence--it is too hard to describe but is so much fun to watch! Overall, I did like the film quite a bit--it had a lot of charm and excellent writing. Unfortunately, it also featured a bland performance by Ms. Fontaine that knocks off a point--bringing my score for this film to 7.
|
positive
|
I loved "Flash Gordon" as a child and watching the series again on DVD brings back such fond memories. Each 15-minute episode features the adventures of our hero Flash, the lovely Dale Arden, and intrepid Dr. Zarkov on the planet Mongo, with Flash escaping death at every turn: The Shark Men nearly drown him, he faces the Fire Monster in the Tunnel of Terror, and he's in mortal peril in the Static Room! <br /><br />The characters are still fun: Buster Crabbe is every bit the blonde dreamboat hero and Jean Rogers is a delicate and beautiful Dale Arden. Princess Aura still plots to steal Flash for herself, King Vultan of the Hawk Men still has his booming laugh and angel wings, and Ming the Merciless, Emperor of the Universe, is still giving everyone the evil eye and the creeps.<br /><br />This serial probably wouldn't interest children today with its hokey effects - oh, that spaceship! - but it's a fun bit of nostalgia for those who liked it the first time around. The actors play it straight and don't play down to kids. I appreciate that young viewers were expected to read the chapter synopses which had pretty big words in them.<br /><br />I'm glad this came out on DVD. It's a lot of fun to revisit this classic sci-fi serial.
|
positive
|
Anyone who appreciates fine acting and ringing dialogue will love<br /><br />this film. Taken from Ronald 'Taking Sides' Harwood, it's a funny<br /><br />and ultimately excoriating analysis of a relationship between two<br /><br />very 'actorly' types. Albert Finney is sublime as the despotic<br /><br />Shakespearean actor who barely notices the world war raging<br /><br />around him, so intent is he on the crumbling fortunes of his theatre<br /><br />company and his own psychological and emotional breakdown.<br /><br />Tom Courtenay is matchless as Norman, the 'Dresser' of the title,<br /><br />whose apparent devotion turns out to be anything but selfless.<br /><br />Really a must see.
|
positive
|
This movie obviously had good intentions. At the end there is a dedication to someone named Kellie who, as a viewer, I can only assume found herself in a situation similar to the one the movie depicts. Perhaps she made the "wrong" choice. That dedication is the ONLY redeeming quality of Love & Suicide.<br /><br />The movie becomes unbearable from the opening sequence. Once the viewer is already that irritated only about five minutes into the film, it's pretty much going to be downhill after that...which it was. I know the film was low budget and the camera shots were actually pretty good...unfortunately, everything else was horrid. The acting, the plot, the sound quality, the picture quality...the acting. I'm sorry but the acting is horrible. Beyond horrible. It's as if the actors are trying to act like people acting. That's the only way I can think to describe it. As I watched, I actually pictured the script with the stage direction in my mind. None of the movements were natural and none of the characters' reactions to one another fit. In short: the timing is WAY off. The timing of the entire film is way off. I'm no director so I know the limits of my knowledge but I really feel there had to be SOME way to convey the passing of time...until they explained about graduation not being too far away I was under the impression that the first portion of the movie had taken place over the span of a week...a month at most.<br /><br />All that being said, it's really a shame. This movie truly could have been powerful with a little tweaking. All the moments in the film in which we are supposed to feel something are obvious but only because the set-up is obvious (which is a bad thing). The moving scenes totally fell flat. For instance, when Kaye's brother takes his hat of his head and puts it on hers, we should feel the understanding he has for her, the innocence and protectiveness of the love of her brother...somehow it just doesn't come off that way. There are so many more scenes like this (for example: ALL of the fight scenes) and all they do is take away from the movie. All these things put together, Love & Suicide comes off as one long, cheesy, low-budget commercial.
|
negative
|
Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.<br /><br />It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.<br /><br />He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.<br /><br />2/10 Major disappointment.
|
negative
|
A quiet, sweet and beutifully nostalgic movie on how it is to be confronted with old friends and surroundings from your youth with all that memories and the problems and sorrows of the present with you. A movie that makes you feel good. All the ingredients are here: old jelousy, rivalry, friendship and loyalty. Mischief, nightly fridge-raids and all the other fun stuff that we all remember from our summer camps. All the characters get the opportunity for a week to experience this again as the old camp-leader now is retiring and want to meet the children from the golden years of the camp. All of them are now in their thirties and in the middle of their careers.
|
positive
|
Norris plays a Chicago cop who stumbles upon a devil's apprentice? who wants to, well, create Armegeddon. He eventually kills the creature by, get this, throwing a solid gold 24 inch spike, not very sharp, about twenty feet, hard enough to penetrate the chest. Unlikely? So is the rest of the movie. Much of it consists of CN and his sidekick driving cars and talking nonsense. The Israeli (or Arab) kid is there ostensibly to humanize CN. OK. Doesn't work, makes no sense, and advances the plot, so-called, not one bit. Also, no cops ever every get invited out of the country to be interviewed by other cops. It is ridiculous as a premise. The whole thing is bad. Unfortunately, it's not so bad as to be entertainingly bad or campy. Just plain bad. But--one can see how Norris was trying to find his way to the successful Walker: Texas Ranger series.
|
negative
|
Do not watch this movie, go see something else ... I was very disappointed, I cannot rate this movie any better than 3. The acting was quite good and I really liked William Dafoe as the villain, but I cannot see why this movie made it to the big screen. The story was old and has been shown in 100+ other movies and 1000+ TV series/movies. The main problem was basically: Nothing is happening. Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your "Clearing" movie. The only 2 reasons I did not rate this a 1 was a) Dafoe and b) the "plan-B-ending". There are not many endings you can give a kidnapper movie ... 75% of these kind end with ending A, 20% end ending B and 1% ends with something unforeseeable. Boring, boring, boring.
|
negative
|
this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".
|
negative
|
I was invited to an early screening of the movie about four months before it was released. I had to watch the film and later fill out a packet on my thoughts. It was THE hardest thing to sit through on earth. The show just crawls by, and you quickly begin wishing you were dead. The thing is, there are two types of Mormon films. The good ones with actual good stories, and the crappy ones that just plain stink. Saints and Soldiers, now there is a good movie. But, with these wannabe-comedies, the writers and the actors just try too hard. Basically, they try to be funny when they are not. No wonder why there is such a small target audience for these films; they're filled with 'inside jokes' that aren't funny to begin with, and they just try to poke fun at average things. It's the story that makes the movie, and the stories for these movies are just weak. I bet you can guess what my packet looked like when I was told to fill it out after the movie. ;)
|
negative
|
Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.<br /><br />We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.<br /><br />soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.<br /><br />Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.<br /><br />firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.<br /><br />furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.<br /><br />The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.<br /><br />enjoy.
|
positive
|
I was in 6th grade and this movie aired on PBS during a series called 'Wonderworks.' I distinctly remember sitting on a couch watching the movie with tears running down my face at the end. In the film Jesse, the main character, forms an unusual friendship with a girl named Leslie. Due to a very simple, but careless mistake one of the pair dies. At the time, I found the story very powerful, because the fatal mistake is exactly the type of mistake a kid would make and so any kid watching the film will find it very easy to identify with and feel the emotional weight of the tragedy that ensues.<br /><br />Last year, I finally tracked down a VHS copy of the show. I probably should have stuck with my memories. Watching the show as an adult I was absolutely shocked by what a horribly made film this was. My girlfriend had a similar memory of the movie as well, and she too was pretty sad about how bad the movie was compared to her memories. <br /><br />Many adults probably have a good memory of watching this movie when they were kids. I strongly advise that these people leave their memories intact, and avoid seeing this film as an adult.
|
negative
|
Despite of the success in comedy or drama, the Turkish directors are failure in horror-thriller. "Okul-D@bbe" are good examples for the awful horror Turkish films.<br /><br />But if you watch "Gen" you will understand that it is a strike. The atmosphere of the movie is impressive and dark. Also the special features are colorful and not cheap. The soundtracks fit the movie, but the script is not totally perfect and the theme of the movie is ordinary.<br /><br />As a result "Gen" does not add any difference to horror movies, but it does not disappoint thriller fans. In this respect it is a success for Yesilcam and Turkey. (7/10)
|
positive
|
The Theory Of Flight is an engaging character study of an artist (Branagh) yearning to break free of boredom and mediocrity, and a terminally ill patient (Bonham-Carter) in the last stages of ASL, confined to a wheelchair, who desires to make love to a man before dying.<br /><br />Helena Bonham-Carter exudes wit, defiance, and independence as an ASL patient who is virtually dependent upon people around her to take care of her.<br /><br />Kenneth Branagh, sentenced through community service to take part in caring for her, complements Helena's charm with woeful melancholy, creating a sentimental, compelling love story in which two people try to help each other find the road to happiness, before time runs out.
|
positive
|
I watched this on tv in 1989 and regretted not taping it. I was very intriguing and suspenseful. It is amazing as the events unfold and this man's past catches up with him.<br /><br />The acting is first rate and the story is exactly what the title claims... "twist of fate"... but no one could run away from a life that this man had at the beginning of the movie.
|
positive
|
Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.<br /><br />Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting.
|
negative
|
Addle-brained stupidity that the cartoon "Bullwinkle" made fun of a quarter-century beforehand, NO DEAD HEROES proves that you can rip off a good movie (THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE) without copying a single sliver of quality from the object of your plunder. The acting barely registers on the cable-access TV scale, the plot is less nuanced than an old "Sgt. Rock" comic, and only Boris J. Badanov-style "bad guy" mustaches are missing from the Commies. This movie achieves the unusual feat of being too bad, too stupid to be enjoyed by anyone with opposable thumbs.
|
negative
|
One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."<br /><br />Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.<br /><br />Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.
|
negative
|
Director F.W. Murnau wisely stuck with the silent film medium he knew so well to cover this story of native islander life in the South Seas. The documentary style works very well for the first half of the movie. The landscapes are beautiful, and the daily life activities of the islanders are interesting to watch. The film loses momentum, though, when it begins to concentrate more on the narrative story of two doomed lovers. The storyline just never gets that interesting, despite being handled well by Murnau. Won an Academy Award for best cinematography, although the award probably should have been for best scenery. You can't really credit the DP for getting to shoot in such a beautiful location.
|
negative
|
Tenacious D: in The Pick of Destiny tells the fictional tale of the formation of the band Tenacious D and their quest to find the Pick of Destiny, a guitar pick with supernatural powers made from the tooth of Satan himself (played by Dave Grohl). JB (Jack Black) and KG (Kyle Gass), joined together by fate, must travel to the Rock N' Roll Museum and steal the Pick of Destiny to become the greatest band on earth. The movie is hilarious and delivers non-stop laughs. Jack Black and Kyle Gass work perfectly together, having been real life friends and co-workers for over 20 years. The film is in part, a musical. All (or most) of the music was written and performed by The D. All of the songs are new material and many of them are classic. The soundtrack is definitely worth checking out. This film will be mostly appreciated by fans of Tenacious D, but if you are not a fan of The D, I still think you will enjoy the movie. If you are a fan of the D, then you must see this movie. The acting isn't as bad as you may think, and the laughs and crudeness never stop coming. I highly recommend this movie to anyone looking to get their socks rocked off and laugh as hard as they have laughed in a long time. Look out for cameos by Dave Grohl, Ronnie James Dio, Meatloaf, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, Tim Robbins, John C. Reilly, and Neil Hamburger. Also, stay tuned for an extra scene after the credits.
|
positive
|
One cannot help but admire Mike Judge for his hands on "I've experienced that" approach. With "Office Space", almost anyone working a job could associate with the characters. "Idiocracy" has exactly the same feel to it. One can easily appreciate the 505 years later experience of our heroes, because again, the director has tried to put things on a very human level. Somewhat similar to Woody Allen's "Sleeper", this movie is very funny. Do not miss the deleted scenes as the "Museum Of Fart" is a classic. Imaginative comedy is a rarity, and "Idiocracy" is wildly imaginative, extremely funny, and a solid 8.0 movie experience. - MERK
|
positive
|
I realize that alot of people hate this movie, but i must admit that it is one of my favorites. I happen to like it better then its predeccesor and happy to like it better than alot of movies.<br /><br />First off, I think that people never give the story any credit, much like Back to the Future, Time Travel is hard to write, and in this movie they included Time Travel and a Spiritual Journey.<br /><br />I also feel that Keanu and Alex were on there best performances in this movie, they looked cooler, acted cooler, and said cooler things.<br /><br />The set design of this movie is awsome as well, The sets are quite detailed and massive at times and it can be hard to believe that these sets were made for a movie about two teenage buds who can hardly spell...but isnt that the genius of the whole franchise, making these two idiots bigger than life characters that are responsible for the entire utopian future of earth.<br /><br />The costume design was awsome as well. Bill and Ted actually look cool in Bogus Journey, where as in Excellent Adventure they look rather like, well as they would put it, FAGS!!!<br /><br />Even the music in this movie is awsome, the score especially. There so much i could say about this film, cause i love it. But this is one of those movies i grew up watching and everytime i did i liked it more, so i can understand why people hate or just think its Bogus compared to Excellent adventure (which i also love by the way).<br /><br />GET DOWN WITH YOUR BAD SELF!!!!
|
positive
|
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />With the exception of THE TERMINATOR and TOTAL RECALL I don`t think Arnie`s action/adventure movies are up to much . They`re better than his comedies for sure but that`s hardly saying much . The problem I have with his all action blockbusters is that they`re overblown and lacking in any sort of morality <br /><br />Morality ? I mentioned in my review of TERMINATOR 2 the scene where good guy Terminator blows the kneecaps off the SWAT team . Are we to think that because the hero maims people doing their job instead of killing them we will admire him in someway ? This is the problem with ERASER , when James Cann`s character is revealed as a traitor within the US Marshal department Arnie`s character John Kruger goes on the run with a witness he`s protecting but in several later sequences Kruger kills a fairly large amount of marshals working with the villain . Are we take it they were all traitors too ? Surely many of them were honest men who were trying to stop Kruger because the bad guy told them Kruger was the traitor ? It`s a rather uneasy thought that Kruger killed several people who were trying to genuinely up hold the law <br /><br />Despite costing one hundred million dollars the special effects aren`t all that impressive . Look at the scene where Kruger lets go of the jet wing and scrambles to put on a parachute . It`s obvious as the action intercuts that it`s a stuntman who`s doing the free fall sequence while Arnie is in a studio in front of a blue screen . ERASER is also a film that has unnecessary CGI featuring killer alligators , not only unnecessary CGI but unconvincing CGI too . There`s also a few plot holes like in the opening scene involving a couple of witness protection people that the mob has caught up with . Kruger opens a car trunk and pulls out a couple of bodies and starts a fire thereby throwing the mob of the scent . Kruger is next seen rearranging the dental records via computer of the couple he`s saved . It would be logical to do this but would ALL the couples dental records be kept on computer ? Most importantly of all are we to believe the US Marshal department keep a freezer full of bodies for such events ?<br /><br />So they`re you go , a typical Arnie thriller long on unlikely set pieces and short on intelligence and it`s interesting to note that ERASER didn`t make much of a profit at the box office as the production costs almost outweighed a potential audience figure . After ERASER Arnie didn`t do much more business at the box office save for TERMINATOR 3 : RISE OF THE MACHINES which was an event movie and it`ll be interesting to see if he`ll be remembered as a politician rather than a movie star
|
negative
|
this show is one of the worst shows of ALL TIME! absolutely no original jokes and they're always a year late. like in 2009 they will finally say something about Michael Vick's dogfights. all of the cast members are people who wanted to be on S.N.L but had to go to the lowest of the low, mad TV.its an hour of mad magazine jokes witch aren't funny to begin with, told by terrible John Stewart wanna bees. so if you have any problem tell me id love to hear the opinion of the 3 people who watch this show. family guy put it well "Osama bin Ladin was hiding in the one place no one would look, the cast of mad TV. There is a reason why no one watches the show.
|
negative
|
Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his "approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.<br /><br />So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.<br /><br />I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.<br /><br />Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.<br /><br />Spare yourself the agony.
|
negative
|
Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so overdone it's laughable. While most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives a horribly skewed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is a disgrace. Two Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie.
|
negative
|
Produced by Nott Entertainment, this movie is "nott" very good at all. I sat through the first 15 minutes of the film before judging that the acting is bad, the casting is bad and camera work is bad. As I hear that there is a download of this film floating around on the internet, it is "nott" even worth the bandwidth.<br /><br />Up until the time I wrote this review, the average vote for this movie was an 8.5, which prompted me to view it and there was an average high majority of 10's for it, obviously voted on by liars and shills. This movie is "nott" for everyone. Or parents, if you want to punish your kids with this awful film, have them sit through this one for Halloween.
|
negative
|
This film is an interesting take on the killer scarecrow genre - amazingly it manages to rise to become greater than the sum of its parts. Average montage scenes, 30-somethings playing teenagers, and some excellent facial expressions combine to become one of the "new-wave" of modern classics. As a viewer, I came away from the film with the same sense of "shock and awe" as when I first saw The Godfather in 1969. Tiffany Gardner's startling portrayal of the morally bankrupt Judy was deserving of her Grammy nomination, which was well documentedly stolen by Ricky Martin and restless hips. Unfortunately, the none of the sequels could live up to the expectation of the original (unlike the Godfather series which got better with each installment, and should culminate in 2012 with Godfather 4: Eat My Rage.
|
positive
|
This was a sad waste of two such promising actors. Chris Klein's character was unlikable from the start and never made an improvement. What did she see in him?? He was rarely kind, never thankful for what he does have...and a coward. Pass this one by on the shelves. You'll be glad you did.
|
negative
|
In 1978 a phenomenon began. The release of John Carpenter's "Halloween" got people queueing around the block to witness the evil that is Michael Meyers. The critics loved it, the world loved it, it was imitated, and has gone down as one of the greatest movies in cinematic history.<br /><br />plot: 15 years after a murder took place, four friends (all females) are babysitting(and having it on with their boyfriends) on Halloween night. After escaping from a hospital the night before, Michael myers Returns to his home town to stalk these people. He murders 3 of them silently and subtlety. He does not speak. He walks slowly. He hides....<br /><br />Only one of the friends escapes, after being saved by Doctor Loomis (Michael's pursuer and doctor) <br /><br />There is one reason why Halloween works so well. Simplicity. We don't know where Michael is, we don't know why he kills, and he frightens us. They're the only reasons why we are afraid.<br /><br />John carpenter wrote the movie, and directed. He builds unbearable tension throughout the story, and scares to such a degree, that sometimes we cannot watch. And the climax is truly startling.<br /><br />As horror, this is essential. It is terrifying and well acted. It is also mysterious. Michael is a force, not a human. A force that cannot be denied.<br /><br />The sequels focused too much around Michael and his "history". This movie focuses on the fear of the unknown. Perhaps that's why this thing is a masterpiece.
|
positive
|
If there's anything worse than this movie I don't want to see it. I remember so many amazing things--a nun dropped out of a coffin to make a raft for a little blond boy; the little blond boy himself adored as a god; lots of stock footage of Peru as an ideal vacation spot. Shining Path and Alberto Fujimori should blast away any notion that Peru is a vacation paradise. The whole thing is so awful that Plan 9 or even Robot Monster is an aesthetic treat by comparison. This film should be bombed and strafed and bombed again.
|
negative
|
It is noteworthy that mine is only the third review of this film, whereas `Patton- Lust for Glory', producer Frank McCarthy's earlier biography of a controversial American general from the Second World War, has to date attracted nearly a hundred comments. Like a previous reviewer, I am intrigued by why one film should have received so much more attention than the other.<br /><br />One difference between the two films is that `Patton' is more focused, concentrating on a relatively short period at and immediately after the end of the Second World War, whereas `MacArthur' covers not only this war but also its subject's role in the Korean war, as well as his period as American governor of occupied Japan during the interlude.<br /><br />The main difference, however, lies in the way the two leaders are played. Gregory Peck dominates this film even more than George C. Scott dominated `Patton'. Whereas Scott had another major star, Karl Malden, playing opposite him as General Bradley, none of the other actors in `MacArthur' are household names, at least for their film work. Scott, of course, portrayed Patton as aggressive and fiery-tempered, a man who at times was at war with the rest of the human race, not just with the enemy. I suspect that in real life General MacArthur was as volcanic an individual as Patton, but that is not how he appears in this film. Peck's MacArthur is of a more reflective, thoughtful bent, comparable to the liberal intellectuals he played in some of his other films. At times, he even seems to be a man of the political left. Much of his speech on the occasion of the Japanese surrender in 1945 could have been written by a paid-up member of CND, and his policies for reforming Japanese society during the American occupation have a semi-socialist air to them. In an attempt to show something of MacArthur's gift for inspiring leadership, Peck makes him a fine speaker, but his speeches always seem to owe more to the studied tricks of the practised rhetorician than to any fire in the heart. It is as if Atticus Finch from `To Kill a Mockingbird' had put on a general's uniform.<br /><br />Whereas Scott attempted a `warts and all' portrait of Patton, the criticism has been made that `MacArthur' attempts to gloss over some of its subject's less attractive qualities. I think that this criticism is a fair one, particularly as far as the Korean War is concerned. The film gives the impression that MacArthur was a brilliant general who dared stand up to interfering, militarily ignorant politicians who did not know how to fight the war and was sacked for his pains when victory was within his grasp. Many historians, of course, feel that Truman was forced to sack MacArthur because the latter's conduct was becoming a risk to world peace, and had no choice but to accept a stalemate because Stalin would not have allowed his Chinese allies to be humiliated. Even during the Korean scenes, Peck's MacArthur comes across as more idealistic than his real-life original probably was; we see little of his rashness and naivety about political matters. (Truman 's remark `he knows as much about politics as a pig knows about Sunday' was said about Eisenhower, but it could equally well have been applied to MacArthur's approach to international diplomacy). Perhaps the film's attempt to paint out some of MacArthur's warts reflects the period in which it was made. The late seventies, after the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, was a difficult time for America, and a public looking for reassurance might have welcomed a reassuringly heroic depiction of a military figure from the previous generation. Another criticism I would make of the film is that it falls between two stools. If it was intended to be a full biography of MacArthur, something should have been shown of his early life, which is not covered at all. (The first we see of the general is when he is leading the American resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines). One theme that runs throughout the film is the influence of General MacArthur's father, himself a military hero. I would have liked to see what sort of man Arthur MacArthur was, and just why his son considered him to be such a hero and role model. Another interesting way of making the film would have been to concentrate on Korea and on MacArthur's clash with Truman, with equal prominence given to the two men and with actors of similar stature playing them. The way in which the film actually was made seemed to me to be less interesting than either of these alternative approaches.<br /><br />It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that I disliked the film altogether. Although I may not have agreed with Peck's interpretation of the main role, there is no denying that he played it with his normal professionalism and seriousness. The film as a whole is a good example of a solid, workmanlike biopic, thoughtful and informative. It is a good film, but one that could have been a better one. 7/10.<br /><br />On a pedantic note, the map which MacArthur is shown using during the Korean War shows the DMZ, the boundary between the two Korean states that did not come into existence until after the war. (The pre-war boundary was the 38th parallel). Also, I think that MacArthur was referring to the `tocsin' of war. War may be toxic, but it is difficult to listen with thirsty ear for a toxin.
|
positive
|
Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.<br /><br />The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.<br /><br />British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp
|
negative
|
Unbelievably bad acting, a no good, unclear story and flashy images and slow-motions where they are needed the least: Adrenaline is everything a movie should not be.<br /><br />Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn't attended her English classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of 'thrill-seeking'. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff and annoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there's Dracko (Rivas). He kinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Then there's Freya's dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in the end, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.<br /><br />One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, the viewer really don't care as nobody of the cast is either likable or believable, and the story doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />Why was this even made? 2/10.
|
negative
|
All right, let's be realistic about this. Nobody goes into a movie produced by WWE Films (whose owner has challenged God to a wrestling match), directed by a former porn director (the man gave the world the Between the Cheeks trilogy), starring a wrestler named Kane, and expects a little slice of art on a golden platter. If you do then you probably need to find something other than watching movies to occupy your time.<br /><br />So what exactly are we to expect from a movie like this? Well, here's what I was looking forward to:<br /><br />1) Bad acting. 2) A fairly non-existent, clichéd storyline. 3) Kane walking around with a scrunched, sour face that indicates his nostrils just found the potato salad he misplaced a month ago. 4) Tons and tons of gore. <br /><br />Well, if you're hungry for some "so bad it's funny" entertainment then this might satisfy your appetite because it delivers on all counts.<br /><br />Obviously, movies like this are best seen for free, but if you do choose to sacrifice box office bucks then have some fun and make a game out of it. The filmmakers are nice enough to introduce us to each of the annoying delinquents by flashing their names and legal offenses on the screen. This makes it easier for you to write down which ones you want to see killed and in what order. You and your friends can see whose predictions are most accurate.<br /><br />I also suggest that you and your pals write down every single moment of stupidity and inanity that you can find. Tally them up at the end and see who comes up with the most. I think my grand total was 107; can you beat that? I personally want to know how after 35 years and a fire does this abandoned hotel still have electricity, running water, and a working elevator?<br /><br />I know, I know, the filmmakers are assuming that if you pay to see this then you obviously don't put much thought into what you spend your money on and therefore likely won't put much thought into how silly the movie is, but that doesn't mean we can't point it out and laugh at it.<br /><br />I also like how the city wants to turn this huge hotel (which would be condemned and recommended for demolition by any sensible inspector) into a homeless shelter and they think the best way to get it cleaned up is to give eight punks a few mops and brooms. Uh-huh.<br /><br />I think you pretty much know what to expect, but I feel the need to provide you with a couple of warnings. First, if you hate crowd interaction no matter the movie then you might want to stay away. The people in the audience acted like they were at an actual wrestling show. Shouts of "Kill him, Kane!" and "I hope you die first!" and "Chokeslam!" echoed through the theater, showcasing what I hope is NOT the best of what America has to offer. I usually don't appreciate such audience interaction, but for a cheesefest like this I thought the commentary added to the entertainment value. However, I can see how others could be annoyed by it.<br /><br />Second, and this shouldn't even warrant explanation, the film doesn't shy away from the gore. If watching a big ugly dude rip eyeballs right out of their sockets doesn't scream "fun night at the movies!" for ya then you know good and well to save your dough.<br /><br />I must say that I was a little surprised by the extreme lack of dialogue on Kane's part. I wasn't expecting him to put on an acting clinic, but I was hoping he'd have some cute little catchphrase like "Say goodnight" (his character's last name is "Goodnight") right before he killed a victim. Instead he uttered four words in the entire film - "Nooooooo!" and "I see it." But hey, he delivered them flawlessly!<br /><br />If I were a bad guy in a movie then my catchphrase would be something like "Place your BETTS!" or "All BETTS are off!" <br /><br />It'd rule and you know it. We need a new genre term for bad horror films like See No Evil that induce so much unintentional laughter that you almost have to label them comedic. Feel free to send me your suggestions. For now we'll just call 'em HOR-larious!
|
negative
|
When voting I was going to give a 2 but when seeing that 1 meant awful it hit the nail on the head.The portrayal of native americans as blood thirsty savages is deeply disturbing to me.This is the third film I've seen of D.w. griffiths where races of men are stereotyped in ugly ways.The man isn't able to tell his side of the story so I'm going to try and keep away from attacking Mr. griffith personally.In my opinion the three films probably influenced the thinking of millions of people and their children's children.Films like this probably made for many of the resentments that are still with us..Some may say the camera work was great,the action a first for it's time.The positives are far outweighed by the negatives,it's like someone taking $10 from you and giving a dime back to make up for it.
|
negative
|
And that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.<br /><br />Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.<br /><br />Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.<br /><br />I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.<br /><br />A "real" movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.<br /><br />A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in it.
|
negative
|
It is hard to put the devastating beauty of Traffik to words, partly because I am still grasping to comprehend it myself, several hours after my second viewing. First, it must be said that Traffik contains some of the most incomparably and unforgettably haunting scenes I have seen in a film or television production. The acting is excellent, particularly that of Bill Paterson as a British minister grappling with his heroin-addicted daughter and an aid deal to Pakistan that hinges on drug issues. Another plot line describes these drug issues at a ground level in Pakistan, and revolves around a struggling opium poppy farmer and his interaction with a successful heroin smuggler. The third main storyline involves the prosecution of a Hamburg drug importer, and the conflicting efforts of his wife and two German detectives while he is under trial. It is a profound accomplishment that the interaction between these stories feels natural, transcending the forced plot entanglement often found in Hollywood movies. It is an even greater accomplishment that a work spread over three countries and half a dozen main characters can be so focused and enthralling, without having to oversimplify. It is devastating--bleak and brutal but never apathetic. In short, Traffik is a rare work of film that handles challenging subjects with unmatched compassion and clarity.
|
positive
|
A group of teenagers discover a bootleg video game, but once they start playing it, they each start dying just like they do in the video game. As they become addicted to the game, they need to find a way to beat the game's central villain, The Blood Countess, before she kills them all.<br /><br />The premise does sound a little stupid and familiar but this film could have still been mildly entertaining. However, this "horror" movie is not scary at all. It's actually more of a comedy than anything else. The film takes itself way too seriously and the movie is not a lot of fun to watch. Sure, there is the occasional laugh but for the most part, the film is very dull. PG-13 horror films can still be good like The Ring or Cry Wolf. The Ring and Stay Alive aren't really the same type of horror film though. Stay Alive is more of a slasher movie and since its rated PG-13, the death scenes are very tame. It should have been the movie's main sell and since it had an interesting concept the deaths could have been really good. Unfortunately, the studio wanted a bigger audience and the film had to be altered.<br /><br />The acting is a complete joke and most of the cast give awful performances. Jon Foster is not a very good leading man. He lacks charisma to really engage the audience or for the audience to care about him. His character isn't unlikable just very bland. Samaire Armstrong actually gives an okay performance though a little too bland to truly stick out. Frankie Muniz probably gives the best performance in Stay Alive. That's an honor on the level of being the best player on the Houston Texans. Sophia Bush is absolutely terrible as October. Her performance feels so rushed and so fake. The most annoying character in the movie is Phineas played by Jimmi Simpson. His character is so unlikable you will be rooting for him to die.<br /><br />In fact, most of the characters are pretty unlikable so that makes it even harder to become interested in the film. It's just hard to feel sorry for some of these annoying kids and it's a lot more fun to watch if you want the characters to actually survive. The only real good thing about the movie is the atmosphere. It's a little old but it still kind of works. The film is also really short so it's not too much of a pain to sit through. I wouldn't really blame the cast though because they were working with an inexperience director and writer. The direction is not very good and the screenplay isn't much better. Stay Alive is actually not the worst horror film of 2006. That honor would go to When a Stranger Calls. Stay Alive is still a missed opportunity though. In the end, this cheesy and lame horror film is better left on the shelf. Rating 4/10.
|
negative
|
The production values in this video are so poor that it is unwatchable. The performance took second place to the overwhelmingly creative hijinks of the studio wanks, with about thirty special effects per minute. It is filmed through a cloud of smoke, only one or two seconds duration per shot and frequently, background spotlights shine directly into the camera. The lighting was terrible for filming. There is constant zooming in and out with a total lack of visual continuity. There may have been some good dancing available to the live audience but the video viewers will never know.
|
negative
|
Team Spirit is maybe made by the best intentions, but it misses the warmth of "All Stars" (1997) by Jean van de Velde. Most scenes are identic, just not that funny and not that well done. The actors repeat the same lines as in "All Stars" but without much feeling.
|
negative
|
Firstly let me say that I didn't like the fact that The Rock won the title that is so gay. Next I feel Regal should have got back his European title, Jeff Hardy is a crappy champ. Rob Van Dam had the Intercontinental title too long already Brock should have won it. I am pleased with Storm and Christian being tag champs, best match was the Booker T and Big Show match in my opinion.
|
positive
|
The famous international conductor Daniel Daréus (Michael Nyqvist) has a heart attack with his stressed busy professional life and interrupts his successful career with an early retirement. He decides to return to his hometown in the north of Sweden, from where his mother left when he was a seven year-old sensitive boy bullied by Conny and other school mates, to live a low-paced life. He buys an old school and is invited to participate in the church choir by the local Shepherd Stig (Niklas Falk), but the reluctant and shy Daniel refuses in the principle. However, he gets involved with the community and feels attracted by Lena (Frida Hallgren), a local woman with a past with the local doctor. His music opens the hearts of the members of the choir, affecting their daily life: the slow Tore (André Sjöberg) has the chance to participate in the choir; Inger (Ingela Olsson), the wife of Stig, releases her repressed sexuality; Gabriella (Helen Sjöholm) takes an attitude against her abusive and violent husband; the gossiper and frustrated Siv (Ilva Lööf) opens her heart against Lena; the fat Holmfrid (Mikael Rahm) cries enough against the jokes of the businessman Arne (Lennart Jähkel); even Daniel starts loving people and Lena as the love of his life. When they are invited to participate in an important contest in Vienna, Daniel finds his music opening the heart of people making his dream come true.<br /><br />"Så Som I Himmelen" is a touching and sensitive movie, with a very beautiful story. It is impressive how director Kay Pollak and the screenplay writers have been able to develop a great number of characters in 132 minutes running time. The performances are top-notch, supported by magnificent music score and at least two awesome moments: when Gabrielle sings her song in the concert, and certainly the last concert in Vienna with the audience, jury and everybody participating in the melody, and Daniel making his dream come true. Like in "Teorema", the stranger changes the lives, not of only a family, but of a conservative community. Further, like many European movies, the open conclusion indicates that Daniel actually died, at least in my interpretation, reaching peace with the success of his music. My eyes became wet in these two scenes. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Vida no Paraíso" ("The Life In the Paradise")
|
positive
|
My skateboarding career ended in 1974 when my two-by-four skateboard with steel roller-skate wheels hit a rock and I tumbled, for days it seemed, down the sidewalk outside my parent's house in Boston. By the time the cast came off my arm, summer was gone.<br /><br />But I have always admired the X-games types and surfers especially. I think I spent the first month after I moved to Southern California on the beaches and piers watching the surfers, bemoaning that fact that I had missed my calling. It's the sort of thing you should learn young, before the horrible senses of self-preservation and self-awareness burrow in. Or else at best, you'll be so worried about not getting hurt or laughed at, you'll wind up looking like a trained bear.<br /><br />I always admired how a good surfer seems to not care about anything but that moment, that wave, that experience. At one with the forces of nature. A good surfer makes it look like there is nothing else but that wave right there, and the way you interact with it. There's a lot of Zen in it to me.<br /><br />This documentary outlines how a few young folks took the surfing concepts and extended them to skateboarding. Ramps, downgrades, low sweeping curves while interacting with the cement waves beneath their feet. In their day and time, this was all new. radical. Prior to the Zephyr Skate team the idea apparently was to go as fast as you could in a straight line on a skateboard, hence my long "Evel Knievel at Caesers Palace" like tumble down the front walk.<br /><br />This film is a look back through time, to an America before EVERYTHING was labeled, tagged, marketed, and jam-forced down our throats as "Extreme". (Seriously, what's so "extreme" about an "Extreme value meal" at Taco Bell? Other than the fact that it is an extreme hazard to your colon...) <br /><br />Watch this film and watch the birth of 'extreme sports'. Before there was an X-games, before Boom-boom Huck-Jam, before Crusty Demons, before the ASA...there were these young street urchins who created 'extreme sports' without really trying. They were just doing it for the purity, the pure pleasure, of skateboarding in the sun with friends. <br /><br />I hope they get a cut of the 'extreme' money out there. Goodness knows they don't get the credit they deserve. Maybe this film can correct that.<br /><br />Excellent film with a great soundtrack, a portrait of a Southern California, indeed an America, that no longer exists.<br /><br />I don't care for Sean Penn but he does a decent job narrating.
|
positive
|
A very good story for a film which if done properly would be quite interesting, but where the hell is the ending to this film?<br /><br />In fact, what is the point of it?<br /><br />The scenes zip through so quick that you felt you were not part of the film emotionally, and the feeling of being detached from understanding the storyline.<br /><br />The performances of the cast are questionable, if not believable.<br /><br />Did I miss the conclusion somewhere in the film? I guess we have to wait for the sequel.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.<br /><br />Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).<br /><br />In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.<br /><br />Stars: **** (excellent)
|
positive
|
Peter Ustinov plays an embezzler who is just getting out of prison when the film begins. As soon as he walks out the gates, he immediately begins working on a scheme to once again make a bundle by stealing, though this time he has his sights set pretty high. This is actually one of the weak points about the film, as he apparently knows nothing about computers (few did back in 1968) but manages to become a computer genius literally overnight! Yeah, right. Anyway, he comes up with a scheme to impersonate a computer expert and obtain a job with a large American corporation so he can eventually embezzle a ton of cash. Considering his knowledge of computers is rudimentary, it's amazing how he puts into effect a brilliant plan AND manages to infiltrate the computer system and its defenses. But, it's a movie after all, so I was able to suspend disbelief. By the end of the film, he and his new wife (Maggie Smith) are able to run away with a million pounds.<br /><br />At the very end, though, it gets very, very confusing and Smith announces she's managed to actually accumulate more than two million by shrewd investing in the companies that Ustinov started (though she didn't realize they were all dummy companies). This should mean that eventually these stocks she bought were worthless. What they seem to imply (and I could be guessing wrong here) is that Ustinov and his new partners quickly cashed in the stocks before this became known and the stocks would thereby then become worthless. Either way, the film seems to post on a magical ending whereby no one is hurt and everyone is happy--and this just didn't make much sense. It's a shame, really, as the acting and most of the writing was great. Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith were just wonderful.<br /><br />If I seem to have interpreted the end, let me know, as the film seemed very vague in details at the end.
|
positive
|
Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.<br /><br />I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?<br /><br />I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.<br /><br />FART JOKES.
|
negative
|
At the time, "My Left Foot" was the little movie that could. It was hugely popular, and everyone applauded the fact that such a small, independent film could make it all the way to the Oscars.<br /><br />Since then, movies like "My Left Foot" are a dime a dozen, so it might be hard in retrospect to understand what all the fuss was about. It's certainly a well made and competent film, but it's clear that the bulk of its success rests on the shoulders of Daniel Day-Lewis, who immerses himself in the role of Cristy Brown, a man living with cerebral palsy. Day-Lewis pulls off the same bit of stunt acting that had won Dustin Hoffman an Oscar the year before for playing a man with autism in "Rain Man," and the Academy followed suit by giving Day-Lewis the same honor.<br /><br />The only thing really separating this film from a big budget Hollywood production is just that -- its budget. In every other way it's just as formulaic as any standard product. That's not to say it isn't a good movie, but it's not a masterpiece.<br /><br />Grade: A-
|
positive
|
This is my first comment! This is a fantastic movie! I watched it all by luck one night on TV. At first 5 minutes i thought it was a B movie, but afterward i understood what an amazing product this was.<br /><br />I suggested to some friends to see the movie, only to tell me that it was a bad B movie. How wrong. Superficial critiques.<br /><br />I think that the movie is almost a product of genius! The well known director made an excellent job here and it is a shame to tell that he was out of the game all this time.
|
positive
|
To be as honest as I possibly can, The Devil's Plaything (or Veil of Blood or Vampire Ecstasy or The Curse of the Black Sisters or
) is a complete bore. The movie has a good premise behind it the resurrection of a long dead vampire through the body of a descendant through the aid and assistance of a group of women dressed in black but the execution is horrible. There are great, long moments of screen time when literally nothing happens. Characters just stand around with nothing to do. There's no mystery, no suspense, and no plot points to care about. The acting is simply abysmal. Most of the acting involves a group of below average looking women dancing naked while staring at the camera. They do this repeatedly. And what little plot there is seems to be designed to get more of these less than attractive women naked so they can join in the dancing. While it's not as bad or pointless as the dancing or the plot in something like Orgy of the Dead, it comes close.
|
negative
|
Marked for Death (1990) spends more time on action sequences, than it does with focusing on its characters. After his first two impressive efforts, Above the Law (1988) and Hard to Kill (1989), this third Steven Seagal picture makes the idea clear: anyone who opposes him is meant to look like a fool; the bad guys are just there to make him look good.<br /><br />Seagal had been steadily building an audience that seemed a bit larger than those that follow the kick-'em-up antics of Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />In Marked for Death, Seagal tosses aside any pretense at style and heads full throttle into exploitation. This film contains loads of graphic violence, gore and nudity that seem to be there for no reason other than to please rowdy moviegoers, who are unable to distinguish between action pictures that tell a story and those that simply pour on the thrills without rhyme or reason. And he deserves some real blame for this lapse in taste as a producer of "Marked for Death."<br /><br />Seagal plays John Hatcher, a retired DEA agent who comes home to Chicago, where his family is being attacked by a Jamaican street gang, who attack his sister's house, and the film proves that it isn't squeamish when Hatcher's niece (Danielle Harris) is shot in the crossfire. Hatcher gets mad, and he decides to team up with his old friend, Max (Keith David), a school gym teacher, and Charles (Tom Wright), a Jamaican cop.<br /><br />Naturally, Hatcher declares war on the chief bad guy, a dread-locked Jamaican voodoo priest called Screwface (Basil Wallace), a nickname that apparently means "outrageous overacting." <br /><br />And it is almost unbelievable in the way Seagal picks off various members of the gang: he gouges one guy's eyeball, he breaks a guy's back, and he breaks numerous arms and limbs.<br /><br />All logic for this movie is thrown out the window- -through the glass, that is. Why aren't Hatcher and friends indicted for all the property damage they cause or the body count that piles up? And how did they get their cache of automatic weapons from Illinois to Jamaica by plane without being detected? <br /><br />Seagal has a Clint Eastwood stoicism about him that fans once seemed to enjoy, and despite the three different characters he's played in as many films, each dresses in Oriental black bathrobes, and wears a ponytail. One of the problems that I have with some of Seagal's movies is that the main characters never seem to be in serious jeopardy, and because he's the star, of course, no one can lay a glove on him, except for the bad guy.<br /><br />Seagal's heroes are all interchangeable, as are most of the plot lines and action sequences. Regardless of whether he's masquerading as a ship's cook, a fire fighter, or an L.A. cop wearing love beads, Seagal is always Seagal, which is exactly what his fans want. In fact, the sameness of these films is such that, if I wanted to, I could take an old review, change the names, and have a reasonably accurate take on the new movie. Not that I'd ever really do that...
|
negative
|
I knew full well when I rented this DVD that it could very well be one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. But to say that it was one of the worst movies I've ever viewed would be putting it lightly. I'm wondering if there isn't some legal action that can be taken against the individuals that allowed this film to produced. I mean, the financing had to come from somewhere, someone had to put up money for this to be produced!!??<br /><br />I'd pinpoint several production values that led to the failure of this film, but this film violated every production standard in the universe. I couldn't make it thru the entire movie, as I started getting dizzy the from horrendous filming techniques. I also can't tell you how many scenes I just ended zoning off during because of the inexplicably horrific dialog.<br /><br />I feel like I've been permanently scarred for life. If you viewed this movie before getting this warning, you should think about starting a support group with me for the poor people who did view this monstrosity.
|
negative
|
The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.
|
negative
|
This derivative erotic thriller remains watchable most of the way, mainly because a viewer is casually curious about how it will turn out, and because the director, Peter Hall, manages to stage a pretty hot (and quite bold) sex scene. But the finale, though unexpected, is preposterous, and the whole plotting (complete with childhood traumas and multiple-personality disorders) reveals itself to be unbearably cliched, especially as far as motivation is concerned. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. "Dance 10 Looks 3" is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.<br /><br />Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon.
|
negative
|
Absolutely the very first film that scared me to death. I happened catch it when my older brother(r.i.p.) was watching it. It was on a black and white TV and not really a good picture but it got me interested. Shortly after, my folks bought a color set and, as luck would have it, The Million Dollar Movie was showing it one Sunday.<br /><br />I had forgotten most of the plot, but it did not take long to catch up...and I got so scared I had a hard time sleeping that night! I mean sure it was just a movie but it involved a creature that not only came from space, but you could not hear it, or see it...and once it got hold of you it was too late. Even now, after all this time it still sends a shiver up my spine. A true classic, and even better a classic that I have seen scare the pants off a new generation!<br /><br />Long live The Blob!
|
positive
|
This is a FUNNY film. It has all the usual Disney components (music, great range of characters, story, appeal), entwined with superb animation and the excellent voice talents of less well known actors as those in say "Antz" and "Price of Egypt".<br /><br />The characters work really well, and have a strong appeal, and the humour is aimed at a wide level which overcomes generational barriers. The movie is also presented in superb cinemascope format, which adds to the cinema experience.<br /><br />Call me crazy, but I have seen the film three times, and I intend on taking more friends to see it this weekend. Many skeptics have seen this film on my recommendation and not been disappointed. I work in a multiplex, and I can honestly say that no-one has ever walked out of this movie without a sense of satisfaction.<br /><br />See it, and don't be put off because it is animated. You are sure to enjoy this movie, and make sure you stay for the end credits! The bloopers and out-takes at the end are the funniest part of the film, which is packed with laughs throughout.
|
positive
|
I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.<br /><br />Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.<br /><br />And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.
|
negative
|
RENDITION is a film not to miss with solid writing from Kelley Sane and with the direction of Gavin Hood that takes us on a story which is a ride through a man's journey through hell. Once again, Meryl Streep in a convincing role of the CIA today and great performances from a cast of superlative actors in Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhall and Alan Arkin, along with actors of Middle Eastern descent who add to the reality of the story.<br /><br />In RENDITION you see how "terrorism can breed terrorism" and as the film progresses tying the story to what is playing out in the Middle East is reality brought to the screen. The external shots add to the intensity of the story and Peter Sarsgaard does a brilliant job of playing an Assistant in the "ass kissing" way of how American politics are conducted. Too bad there has not been a larger audience for this film, as along with THE VALLEY OF ELAH and LIONS FOR LAMBS, RENDITION plays an important role in showing an audience how the fight for and the protection of democracy can go seriously astray.
|
positive
|
I have spent the last 5 years in the entertainment business and most recently find myself working for the company that made this movie, which is a REAL pity, because I like these folks, I just can't believe ANYONE could possibly make anything as bad as this?!!!! This was crap from every possible angle. From camera work to dialogue to acting to costumes and production design was one of the worst films I have ever seen! The actors in this film looked like they had been taken straight off of a porn that was being shot in the San Fernando Valley and put on a set with an even less talented crew.<br /><br />I just can't get over the fact that I am sitting on some of the best material I have ever read and contacts within the industry that could help me make my dream a reality and have hit every roadblock possible? Yet the folks behind this spectacle of a film have no problems putting it together and in fact, sleep well after it is released.<br /><br />Life, what a trip!
|
negative
|
Wow, what a waste of acting talent. My husband and I sat there, both thinking, this has to get better, these actresses are too good to have wasted their time on this crap. Unattractive characters, hackneyed script, and listless pacing make for a long two hours. I actually couldn't hack it and left to do the grocery shopping (cat litter being more appealing than this film). The husband stayed and confirmed that it didn't get better--by the time Buddy is killed, you were wishing they all would get hit by a car and end their miserable lives. It would be infinitely more entertaining. Beautiful scenery and costumes can't keep this one alive.
|
negative
|
Worth the entertainment value of a rental, especially if you like action movies. This one features the usual car chases, fights with the great Van Damme kick style, shooting battles with the 40 shell load shotgun, and even terrorist style bombs. All of this is entertaining and competently handled but there is nothing that really blows you away if you've seen your share before.<br /><br />The plot is made interesting by the inclusion of a rabbit, which is clever but hardly profound. Many of the characters are heavily stereotyped -- the angry veterans, the terrified illegal aliens, the crooked cops, the indifferent feds, the bitchy tough lady station head, the crooked politician, the fat federale who looks like he was typecast as the Mexican in a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. All passably acted but again nothing special.<br /><br />I thought the main villains were pretty well done and fairly well acted. By the end of the movie you certainly knew who the good guys were and weren't. There was an emotional lift as the really bad ones got their just deserts. Very simplistic, but then you weren't expecting Hamlet, right? The only thing I found really annoying was the constant cuts to VDs daughter during the last fight scene.<br /><br />Not bad. Not good. Passable 4.
|
negative
|
Christophe Lambert once said he was still making movies only to make good and easy money. When I see his latest releases, I can believe that.<br /><br />Beowulf is, all in all, in the "good" part of the crap movies : there are some good thrill scenes, indeed. The actors themselves aren't too bad. But the plot is silly, the "Mortal Kombat"-like music has nothing to do here, the ending is really s****y...<br /><br />Really, the only good thing about it is that me and my friends could laugh about how uninteresting it was. I even wish I wasted my money on something else.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
To remake "Lost Horizon", as a musical, the need for a Rodgers & Hammerstein or Lerner & Lowe type musical composition was needed. Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the wrong choice. Having said that, my favorite thing about "Lost Horizon", is its score. It's just that the score doesn't fit the piece. The cast, is made-up of mostly non-musical talents (Ullman, Finch and Hussey, were all dubbed, and still don't sound all that great).<br /><br />Frankly, the novella, on which this, and the earlier non-musical film versions were based, is mediocre, at best. While the possibilities for a truly good, cinematic musical version exist, they are not realized here. The film succeeds at being a good, rainy-day vehicle, to pass the time. Otherwise, you are better off, buying the CD of its soundtrack. Only recommended as a curiosity piece, due to the film's awful reputation. I've seen much better; but I've seen MUCH worse.
|
negative
|
i saw this film by accident and this movie was an accident...well it must of been. blonde women being stalked,the villain appearing then disappearing getting from one place to another in minute's then disappearing and reappearing,hiding.he was'nt even a super hero so i don't know how he did it.he could'nt frighten a cat and that's not hard to do.<br /><br />the old "mirror in the bathroom"is just not scary anymore in fact it stopped being scary years ago. you had the cop on the trail of the villain,another cliché(played by idris elba with a very convincing American accent,he's from London) the director did'nt have a clue and has made a film full of cliché's and make's "scary move"which was a COMEDY look scary. pathetic!
|
negative
|
Like most sports movies, it's not surprising that people who know something about the sport can find flaws in it. As a soccer referee, I have yet to see a movie or TV show get it right when depicting a match. "Forever" has good actors, but I found Sean Astin to be a bit young to be an administrator in a juvenile jail. I was very thankful that the plot did not involve the lead character turning his fellow inmates into rugby players and taking on Flagstaff as well as Highland. Which gets to credulity: a police squad car just happens to pull up at precisely the time the Flagstaff baddies are hazing Rick Penning. Even though rugby is not a sanctioned high school sport nationally, the team is a school-based club sport -- much like rodeo. That said, I find it hard to believe that high school officials would allow students to play with open wounds: That just isn't done in this day of AIDS and Hepatitis. I don't care what the tradition and macho image is. Despite that, it was a cool movie in that teens were expected to act like adults (and sometimes actually did). Sadly, far too many coaches are like Flagstaff's -- or worse.
|
positive
|
The Violent Men is a good western. Perhaps the story is not an original one -big ranch owner dedicated to run out small competitors out of a valley he needs for his increasing cattle- but the film has many ingredients that raises its level and makes it worth seeing.<br /><br />The cast is a highlight. There's the reliable Glenn Ford (John Parrish) as a former army officer and now one of the small ranchers, who tries to stay out of troubles until he is pushed to hard. Edward Robinson (Lew Wilkinson) is as good as always as the crippled big man and Barbara Stanwyck (Martha) plays his treacherous wife in one of her usual mean woman roles she deals with easily (others were in "Double Indemnity" and "Blowing Wild). Brian Keith (Cole) does it perfectly as Robinson's gunman brother, an ambitious man trying to take over his brother's big ranch no matter what. Regular 50's westerns villain Richard Jaeckel (Wade Mattlock) is there too and ends as usual (no surprise there). Dianne Foster (Judith Wilkinson) plays Robinson's daughter who does not approve his father, mother and uncle's way of handling things with their neighbors.<br /><br />Rudolph Mate brings a standard but acceptable direction, perhaps helped by beautiful and wide open scenery and a fine and appropriate music score helps too.<br /><br />The inevitable final showdown between Ford and Keith is one of the best in western movies. Each man in his own dueling style (notice Ford's shooting with his straight arm and aiming at its target in the military way) settle their differences then and once and for all.<br /><br />This is for sure one of Glenn Ford's best western appearances, second only to the classic "3:10 to Yuma" he made two years later. It's probably the cast that puts the film as an "A" rate and, as for me, it enters the top 10 list of the genre.
|
positive
|
do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.<br /><br />with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like?
|
positive
|
I must say one big reason why I thought the AristoCats was so great is because I love cats!!!!I love cats,which probably gave this film a big score from me,but not only that,it was definitely a good movie as well,and I love where they make the setting of the film take place.This is one of my favorite animal films,although it's animated,and I really love how the actors\actresses didn't sound so unprofessional behind the animals' voice's.To me this film seems like a classic,but I guess to IMDb it's not,because it has,yes I THINK too low of a rating.You take a peek at all the other "ORIGINAL" Disney films and they have a much higher rating than this,but nonetheless AristoCats is one of the best animation movies there is and I could enjoy it over and over again!!
|
positive
|
This movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.
|
negative
|
This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clichés than should be possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant.<br /><br />As I was driving home from the theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, "I've seen that a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!" But the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were still in Indiana.<br /><br />Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit and elan.
|
positive
|
This movie was o.k. but it could have been much better. There are some spooky moments but there aren't enough of them to make me ever want to see this movie again. There are some scenes you could fast forward through & not miss anything. The biggest flaw is that it is so predictable, & that is the reason why I rated it so low. It's watchable but don't expect anything great.
|
negative
|
I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.
|
negative
|
For persons of a certain age, W.W. II was the defining time of their lives, and whatever followed could never compare. As the movie opens, a recently widowed but still lively woman (Judi Dench) hears a street musician gamely attempting to play the classic song, "Stardust."<br /><br />This recalls her memories of when she played in an almost all-girl band that entertained between bomb raids during the War. The drummer, Patrick (Ian Holm), happily avoided the draft and enjoyed the ladies.<br /><br />Patrick and Dench's character meet and decide to reunite the band, which takes them on a series of mini-adventures. Despite ups and downs, the band does reunite and makes a successful reappearance.<br /><br />The movie is exquisitely written and understated, with superb performances from all involved. The characters are well-developed and all people who have not quit living, despite their years. And there's all that glorious old swing music!<br /><br />This isn't the pontification of Steven Spielberg, but a serious movie nevertheless. The War affected everyone and that lesson is not forgotten in a movie that isn't afraid to entertain as it teaches.
|
positive
|
This 1-hour 30-minute inside joke is best understood by Catholics, the number one religion of self-medicating comedians the world over. That isn't to say it can't stand on its own which it does, that the film isn't without its flaws, which its got. Technical issues, mostly: Belief that in 1998 digital was the answer when in fact it was in its infancy - a Beta of a Beta if you will, and re-mastering will never improve it. For the love of God, Hal...please get yourself a Red One. Or three.<br /><br />If you like Hartley films of course, you'll like it. I liked it, because I liked Grim/Fool, and there were added benefits of retrospect: I couldn't help noticing a disturbing self-prophecy, an airliner soaring overhead, used as a harbinger of Armageddon in this 1998 movie. It was as if Cheney had gotten the whole idea from Hal. It's true - Hartley moves his players round into the camera like it's the House of Commons, just one piece of the gimmickry that needs a rest. After all, we're already paying attention to the actors, and the writing is alive. Not great writing, but...fervent. Can I use the word fervent? Purposeful, intelligent, not condescending.<br /><br />Absolutely love PJ Harvey in this, course I'd love her anywhere. Oddly, if Helen Mirren needs a younger self, she should look Harvey up and bring a bottle of blond.
|
positive
|
This 1959 soap opera film takes us into the lives and loves of three young women in the publishing world as secretaries. This follows the same idea as THREE COINS IN A FOUNTAIN a few years before. This takes place in New York while COINS takes place in Rome, Italy. Our three beauties are Hope Lange, in her first starring role, Suzy Parker and Diane Baker. Lange does well and holds her own opposite some strong veterans in the business, namely Joan Crawford. Suzy plays an obsessive woman who has a hard time losing her beau. Hard to believe that anyone could reject this beauty for any reason, but Louis Jourdan, her heart throb, does just this. Sort of takes you back to Paul Neuman rejecting the gorgeous Elizabth Taylor in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, doesn't it? Diane Baker, the third damsel in distress, meets and dates Robert Evans, before he became the producer, and husband to Ali MacGraw, he is known for. Hope's boyfriend from home, played by newcomer Brett Halsey, is promising to marry her. She also meets Stephen Boyd, a fellow worker, who has interests in our Hope. All three ladies have their drama ahead of them. Crawford almost steals the film. Her presence and her usual strong bitchy self is fun to watch. Veteran actor Brian Aherne plays one of the bosses with a yen for pinching our leading ladies' back side. He's delightfully charming. Also in the cast is Martha Hyer, wasted in a thankless role never really explored. Too bad as I like this actress who never seems to get that one role to distinguish her abilities. She has a crush on a married man in the office played by Donald Harron, whom I had the pleasure to work with in a couple of Shakespeare plays in NYC. He is a distinguished actor that is wasted in this film also.<br /><br />All in all it's great fun, in Technicolor and cinemascope, directed by Jean Negulesco.
|
positive
|
"Death Bed:The Bed That Eats" is a supremely bizarre horror film that truly has to be seen to be believed.There is an ancient four-poster bed that just loves to eat humans and it does so anytime it can lure anyone to lie upon it.There is also a long-dead artist,imprisoned behind one of his paintings,who provides a voice-over narration.George Barry's the first and only one film offers some truly surreal moments such as the bed absorbing its victims in a mysterious sea of yellow foam and liquid.The atmosphere is dreamy and there is only a little bit of gore,unfortunately the premise is rather silly and the acting is amateurish.Still as fan of unusual cinema I enjoyed this low-budget oddity.Give it a chance.8 out of 10.
|
positive
|
This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...<br /><br />The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.<br /><br />Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.<br /><br />Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.<br /><br />this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen.
|
negative
|
Bridges of madison county is a better made version of this story. I felt the ending of this movie was not handled sensitively as they did in the original English movie. This movie is very indianised, if you are a very sensitive person who cries in a movie when hero dies in the end you'll love this movie, On the other hand if you are a fighter in life and think crying is for wimps you may not like the ending.But on the whole it's pretty good subject is well handled for indian conditions. Tabu was good as a caring wife and mother. Everybody acted well.
|
negative
|
Hundstage is an intentionally ugly and unnerving study of life in a particularly dreary suburb of Vienna. It comes from former documentary director Ulrich Seidl who adopts a very documentary-like approach to the material. However, the film veers away from normal types and presents us with characters that are best described as "extremes" some are extremely lonely; some extremely violent; some extremely weird; some extremely devious; some extremely frustrated and misunderstood; and so on. The film combines several near plot less episodes which intertwine from time to time, each following the characters over a couple of days during a sweltering Viennese summer. Very few viewers will come away from the film feeling entertained the intention is to point up the many things that are wrong with people, the many ills that plague our society in general. It is a thought-provoking film and its conclusions are pretty damning on the whole.<br /><br />A fussy old widower fantasises about his elderly cleaning lady and wants her to perform a striptease for him while wearing his deceased wife's clothes. A nightclub dancer contends with the perpetually jealous and violent behaviour of her boy-racer boyfriend. A couple grieving over their dead daughter can no longer communicate with each other and seek solace by having sex with other people. An abusive man mistreats his woman but she forgives him time and again. A security salesman desperately tries to find the culprit behind some vandalism on a work site but ends up picking on an innocent scapegoat. And a mentally ill woman keeps hitching rides with strangers and insulting them until they throw her out of the car! The lives of these disparate characters converge over several days during an intense summer heat wave.<br /><br />The despair in the film is palpable. Many scenes are characterised by long, awkward silences that are twice as effective as a whole passage of dialogue might be. Then there are other scenes during which the dialogue and on-screen events leave you reeling. In particular, a scene during which the security salesman leaves the female hitch-hiker to the mercy of a vengeful guy - to be beaten, raped and humiliated (thankfully all off-screen) for some vandalism she didn't even do - arouses a sour, almost angry taste. In another scene a man has a lit candle wedged in his rear-end and is forced to sing the national anthem at gunpoint, all as part of his punishment for being nasty to his wife. While we might want to cheer that this thug is receiving his come-uppance, we are simultaneously left appalled and unnerved by the nature of his punishment. Indeed, such stark contrasts could act as a summary of the whole film - every moment of light-heartedness is counter-balanced with a moment of coldness. Every shred of hope is countered with a sense of despair. For every character you could like or feel sympathy for, there is another that encourages nothing but anger and hate. We might want to turn away from Hundstage, to dismiss it as an exercise in misery, but it also points up some uncomfortable truths and for that it should be applauded.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.