review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Along with Cops, The Goat is one of Keaton's two funniest shorts. Which makes it one of the best shorts ever made. This has an decent "plot" for a short, and it forms a perfect line on which to hang some great gags. Keaton is mistaken for an escaped convict (how the mistake happens is a classic) and then must elude the authorities. Best gags - the bread line and t he "elevator".
|
positive
|
Yes, I watch this show. Because my girlfriend watches it, of course. Well, at least, that's what I tell my friends. But as nobody here ever known me, I can say this; I love it! That's excellent trash TV. <br /><br />First, there's the panel; Tyra herself, who doesn't miss a single opportunity to talk about herself, yet she is to be taken seriously, as she is quite the businesswoman. Then there's Jay Manuel, A sober gay guy, very serious and amazingly professional, and Miss Jay, an extroverted one, "queen" of the catwalk and a damn funny guy, and Nigel, self-styled as the only man on the panel.<br /><br />Second, the show is an in-depth look at a shallow industry, and we've got to give it to the producers for showing us the inside view, which can be informative as well as entertaining.<br /><br />Finally, the edition is great; there is just the right mix of everything; The girls living together in the ego-house, their impressions on sets, the competitions themselves and the judging. All of this slides smoothly with just the right beat. There are no lenghts.<br /><br />Of course, there must be other factors that led to eliminations that we don't see in the shows; The panel is made up of capricious divas, extroverted and quick on the bitching; woe to those who offends them! But that being said, as long as one contestant does not step on their toes, their judgment is usually fair - I think.<br /><br />So, give your brain a break; If you can't beat them, join them, and have a good time watching this bit of reality TV with your loved ones. It will make crave for more, somehow.
|
positive
|
Good exciting movie, although it looks to me that it's not been recorded on location in Thailand, it still looks realistic. Nice story about some girls having 'fun' in one of the most beautiful countries on the world. In real the Thai people are very kind.
|
positive
|
Seeing Les Amants Reguliers calls immediately for comparison with Bertolucci's movie 'The Dreamers', in my opinion the best film made about the 1968 revolt of students in Paris. Actually director Philippe Garrel does not seem to avoid comparing with his much more famous colleague, sharing the principal actor and even including a direct replica eye-in-viewer-eye about an older film of Bertolucci. And yet, LAR is a different film, and an interesting one.<br /><br />The story line seems also familiar. The movie starts with long scenes of the 1968 'emeutes', maybe among the best done until now. The film is made in black-and-white, and the perspective of the static camera on one side or the other of the barricade reminds Eisenstein. Then, as in The Dreamers, the action moves in the Parisian flat where the heroes of the defeated revolt make art, smoke drugs, dream, and fall for one other. There is no direct social comment, no real explanation of the background of the revolt. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters and on the love story between the main characters. It's like a premonition of the process of transition to the establishment that the generation of the 1968 went through, it's just that not all the participants may adapt or survive.<br /><br />The film is more about the characters than about the events. And it is merely for the style it will be remembered about. The black-and-white cinema is memorable not only in the revolution scenes, but also when looking at the characters evolution. Many sequences are enhanced by a technique that is derived from the silent films movies, with long takes accompanied by a off piano tune. The effect is exquisite. Yet the length of the film is hardly justified, it lasts more than three hours and I doubt that cutting it to only two hours would have been a miss - actually I am convinced it's quite a contrary.<br /><br />Without raising at the depth and subtlety of Bertolucci's movie LAR is another perspective to remember about one of the more important years in the history of France and of the world in the 20th century.
|
positive
|
The first bottom movie was an absolute laugh from the beginning. Excellently made and thought out. I will definitely take my hat off to the production team and the actors. The Bottom actors attempt to run a hotel. If you look closely this film was most probably shot in the Isle Of Wight, near my home.
|
positive
|
Primal Species comes from B Movie legend Roger Corman and as such everybody who watches this needs to realise that this is a Low Budget B Movie and it knows it.<br /><br />A bunch of terrorists high-jack a Lorry and kill an entire army doing so, they believe it to hold uranium, but No..... It contains two Dino's with a taste for Human Flesh... Then a Crack team, who might as well be called Delta Force get called in.<br /><br />OK, This ain't Jurassic Park, and Yes The Dino's are never clearly seen because it's obviously a guy in a Costume that's not too dissimilar to Barney the Dinosaur - only slightly LESS terrifying,but come on guys this had about 1% of Jurassic Park's Budget and as such does what it can.<br /><br />Does this deserve to be in the bottom 100?....HELL NO!!! I think the nearly half of voters who give this a 1 - are being WAY WAY overly harsh, it's much closer to a 4... it's actually a lot better than a whole host of other movies not in the Bottom 100, and has a similar production value to a Sci-Fi Channel Production. (again Movies which get a overly harsh time from critics here on IMDb)<br /><br />The acting is as expected in a B Movie although none of the actors take it that seriously, neither does the script<br /><br />All in All it's an enjoyable B Movie - Not for Film Snobs<br /><br />** out of *****
|
negative
|
You want to know what the writers of this movie consider funny? A robot child sees his robot parents killed (beheaded, as I recall), and then moves between their bodies calling their names. Yeah--what a comic moment. This is the worst movie I ever paid to see.
|
negative
|
Neatly sandwiched between THE STRANGER, a small film noir picture that proved Welles can do a formidable genre work on budget and on time and ironically proved his biggest box office success in the forties, and MACBETH, a no-budget Shakespeare adaptation shot in old western shets in 23 days, comes THE LADY FROM SHANGAI, a dark film noir woven from the very same fabric of Wellesian mythos that covers THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, MR. ARKADIN and any other film the director didn't manage to save from the clutches of studio bosses.<br /><br />Six years after THE MALTESE FALCON, with the post-war craze of the film noir in full swing, Welles, always ahead of his time, a true visionary director of tremendous artistic integrity, envisioned a labyrinthine world of shadows that is already darker, more sinister, paranoid and serpentine than anything his contemporaries were doing at the time. It's no wonder the movie was so misunderstood at its time, to the point that one full hour of footage was forever left in the cutting room floor, and it was once again Europe that championed it as another Welles classic.<br /><br />Certain set-pieces stand out. The aquarium scene with its flickering light and ominous shadows, and of course the Funhouse/Hall of Mirrors finale that is as classic a piece of Wellesian bravura as any in CITIZEN KANE or THE TRIAL. The only faults I find with the movie is Welles' ill-advised Irish accent and perhaps some of the erratic editing in the first act. The story however unfurls in a progressively mesmerizing manner, which the cuts only serve to intensify. I believe the heavily chopped versions of Shangai and Ambersons attain a surreal quality for that matter.<br /><br />Welles would exile himself in Europe for ten years and return in 1958 to deliver yet another stonewall classic, the monumental TOUCH OF EVIL, perhaps the crowning jewel of the film noir that was already in its waning days by that time. Shangai was not the box office success a star vehicle for Hollywood's premiere star of the time, Rita Hayworth, ought to have been, and Welles marriage with Hayworth ended before the movie was even released. Sixty years later and one hour of footage less, Shangai is still one of the best film noir pictures one is likely to discover. Surely that must count for something.
|
positive
|
It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm at the time it was. I'm examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.<br /><br />Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast. <br /><br />What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic. <br /><br />The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion. <br /><br />He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him. <br /><br />But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known. <br /><br />It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.
|
positive
|
"Eh-heh eh-heh hey, dude - look at these aliens. They're like - biting the humans and stuff! Eh-heh eh-heh eh-heh" <br /><br />This must rank amongst the worst movies of all time. It's utter drivel for anyone with a modicum of a brain. Sure, you have the reviewers on the payroll who give glowing reviews and vote highly for this abomination but it's easy to tell who these sell-outs are. Their reviews are TOO good. To give a movie like this even a mediocre review claiming it had some B-movie remedial appeal would be a glowing review! Calling this a great movie tips the hands of the corporate shills.<br /><br />But enough of that.<br /><br />This movie had about all the bad characteristics a movie can have without being SO bad that it's enjoyable just to laugh at. The old Japanese 60's monster films had a quality that this movie lacked. At least in those 60's films you could laugh at just how bad the rubber monster suit looked. Or laugh at seeing the strings holding the space ships, how the models dangled on the strings and how the flames curved UPWARDS out of the back. Those movies made fun of how BAD they were. Alien Express (aka Dead Rail) seems to actually think of itself as a GOOD movie - which makes it incredibly absurd.<br /><br />The effects were awful by today's standards. Beyond awful. However not quite as bad as the 60's monster movies hence they lacked the comedic appeal. The plot and dialogue were about as sophomoric as I've ever seen, made even worse by being every bit as predictable as you might expect. I won't even point out the plot and logic holes in this one; it just wouldn't be fair to this pitiable plot (plus it would take to long to even get started). Most of the acting was awful; Lou Diamond Phillips must have been very desperate to agree to touch this one.<br /><br />SciFi Channel is rapidly becoming the "cheap thrills channel", producing movie after movie without an iota of concept or intelligence in the lot. I can only wonder - why bother?<br /><br />Don't bother with this tripe. It doesn't get any worse.
|
negative
|
Anne Brontes epic novel THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL should be studied and read throughout schools and libraries and peoples living rooms. Its a fantastic story and tells the "real" truth on alcoholism and ruined marriages and a mothers fight to keep her son away from her brutal husband. Its so alike todays stories that we see and hear and I believe people can learn a lot from reading this book. Based on possible true experiences that the author had back in the 1840s.<br /><br />Do watch this film, its a great version of the book and very moving indeed. I'm sure Anne herself would have been happy with the way it was produced.<br /><br />Excellent acting and great locations.
|
positive
|
The Dune miniseries opens with a "flashforward" montage of action sequences. The realisation quickly dawns that these are the *best* scenes out of the 265 minute running time, and they're not good. Not good at all. Oh dear. <br /><br />But let us not judge a book by its cover (even though that's exactly what we're being invited to do). Let's give Dune a chance to redeem itself.<br /><br />Well, here's the expected watery opening on Caladan. But who's this petulant, strangely ugly man? Paul Atreides? *This* is Paul Atreides? This generic plastic puppet? And why does he look so old? What's that? The actor's only 25? Well, he doesn't *look* it, and that's way too old anyway.<br /><br />But at least he has charisma, right? Wrong. Alec Newman is a stumbling, mumbling buffoon. I'm picturing him being discovered sitting in the dark in a remedial acting class because nobody liked him enough to tell him the class was over, and he's just too dumb to realise it. When your Paul Atreides has all the screen prescence of soggy toast, and an acting range from "petulant" to "blank" your production of Dune is doomed from the start.<br /><br />The other actors take pity on poor Alec though, and give uniformly insipid and incomprehensible performances so that he doesn't look too bad by comparison. At least, I *assume* that is what they are doing. Because I'm charitable, you see.<br /><br />To be fair, they are clearly being given no direction at all. Random gestures, blank or inconsistent deliveries, missing their marks, it's all here. This is like a master class in how not to do it.<br /><br />And sure, there are more elements of the book in this miniseries than there are in the 1984 movie, but there aren't twice as many, because of all the. Pauses. To fill. Time.<br /><br />But we can forgive all this because of the small budget of $20 million, or only $5 million per hour. Nobody could be expected make quality science fiction on that sort of budget.<br /><br />Except perhaps "Stargate SG-1" which makes do with $1.4 million per 50 minute episode, or "Farscape" at $2 million. And frankly I'd rather watch four episodes of either of those while being punched in the kidneys, than have to sit though the travesty that is Dune the miniseries again.
|
negative
|
Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.<br /><br />The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.<br /><br />This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop.
|
negative
|
Simple story... why say more? It nails it's premise. World War 3 kills all or most of the human race and we're viewing 2 of the survivors. The message is that the 2 warring sides should not have been at odds in the first place. Distilled down to representatives from each side, we see they have everything to come together for:<br /><br />Security... Finding resources... food, shelter, etc... Survival... Love...<br /><br />At the end they've decided to pool their resources, (she finally does), so they will survive. Simple story, expressed in the limited budget of the early 60s television landscape. We see it in 2009 as somewhat old and maybe predictable. In the early 60s, no one had seen such stuff... I give it a 10...
|
positive
|
1st watched 6/24/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Stefan Rujowitzky): OK thriller, but a little too predictable. This story is based in Germany, which is also where the movie is made. It is about a young medical student who gets a shot to go to a premiere school in Heidelberg and arrives seeing some strange things occurring. Someone she met on the train there and saved, shows up on the school's experimentation table and she's suspecting foul play right away. She does some investigation and the disappearance of her friend leads her to a secret society called AAA(and no it's not Alcoholics Anonymous) that has something to do with the anti-Hippocratic oath and is used to perform experimentations on live people that doctor's wouldn't normally be able to do. She finds out her grandfather(who was a dean at the school) was a big part of establishing it and it's pretty readily filled by members of the school. It's an interesting story but the problem with this movie is how quickly the audience is told what's going on and then it's kind of a horror movie with the heroine fighting off the bad boy of the group that's taking things to the next psychotic level. Although this movie was made in Europe, it plays to a young American audience with it's focus on gore, sex and the horror film premise(which is really it's big downfall) and explains why it probably made good money and spawned a sequel but doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.
|
negative
|
Sorry, not good.<br /><br />It starts out interesting, but looses its way a few minutes into the movie.<br /><br />It does not help a lot that none of the normally great actors (Quaid, Glover, Ermey, Leto etc.) delivers a really good performance. <br /><br />It might be owed to the fact that I saw a dubbed version (german), but Dennis Quaid's character was especially wooden and annoying, and Danny Glover does not really make for a believable villain. Moreover, Jared Leto's character does not really contribute to the story whatsoever (except saving one main character's life at one point, but that scene is as necessary as a windshield wiper on a submarine in the first place ;-)<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary scenes - the main complaint is really the tangled and cliché-ridden storyline: The detective (of course!) has to settle a personal matter with the villain and is (of course!) suspended from his official duties courtesy of his personal entanglement. The killer (of course!) *wants* to be tracked down and plays a cat-and-mouse game with his opponent for years ... I don't know how many movies build on a similar plot - most of them better, however.<br /><br />The plot has got holes galore and many completely unbelievable and unnecessary scenes that do not contribute to or work well with the storyline at all (e.g. the truck stop scene or the car at the cliff's edge etc.)<br /><br />To top it off, the ending tries to be original and exciting, but fails completely in these regards. We've seen *much* better finales with a similar kind of ultimate-battle-on-a-train-in-a-forlorn-winter-landscape setup ... In the end there is the supposedly moving reunion of parent and child ... hokey, at the least.
|
negative
|
A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.<br /><br />What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls.
|
negative
|
Gee, what a heck of a movie!... I said I wanted to become a specialist in bad movies from all decades, so I decided to start by this one. It was a pretty adequate choice. I entered this adventure to find some lost gems and uncomprehended masterpieces, but I didn't see anything of the sort in this pastel-coloured mess. I haven't really watched many bad films before, but I've got the feeling this is what's called "so bad that's good", probably because it is so unintentionally damn funny! First of all, there are the inaccuracies. There are plot-related inaccuracies, physical inaccuracies, and also psychological inaccuracies. The latter in particular are as insane as Van Damme's ass cheeks inside that blue spandex. Extremely tacky lines exist too and I won't even start to talk about some of the hilarious action moves. There isn't exactly bad acting from everyone involved in that hot mess of a movie, except in one particular case. Geoffrey Lewis looks completely pathetic as Frank, which is an utterly stupid character. And, to tell the truth, I was actually very surprised to see that Van Damme did a decent job playing the twins. He succeeded in achieving a different tone and mood in the two roles that was convincing to me. But the movie was mostly very bad and the sad part is that it was produced by a major motion picture studio... which is now bankrupt.
|
negative
|
There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.<br /><br />Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he "got" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was "My Name is Modesty," a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.<br /><br />The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her "origin." I realize the words "Direct-to-Video" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look.
|
positive
|
It seemed as though the year 1984 was anything but the Orwellian nightmare it was calculated to be with George Orwell's science fiction novel!! 1984 turned out to be one of the happiest times in American history!! The upsurge in the economy, and a reemergence in basic American values, cultivated an idealistic aura of resumed innocence which was viewed by the American people with a very auspicious disposition!! There have been many ersatz renditions of classic movies in the past, but, the originals are almost always considered superior!! "Purple Rain" is such a movie in this category!! Made in 1984, "Purple Rain" provided a doggerel of eighties, happy-go-lucky quality music, which they incorporated into the making of this excellent film!! Certain artifacts indicative of the eighties are indeed classics!! Screwball comedies, neon accented clothing, and of course, the music!! Eighties music is considered by experts to be the best decade for music in American history!! Set in Minneapolis, "Purple Rain" accommodated the use of naive entertainment with the changing times of the city. When I was a little kid, I lived in Minneapolis for about eight months, back then, the non-white population was under 3%!! By 1984, African Americans had made some in roads into Minneapolis, and, thus, they established a firmly embedded culture of their own as well!! The movie "Purple Rain" evokes an eighties style clothing, and music ensemble, which effortlessly captivated the movie audience!! I loved the music to "Purple Rain", and, the innovative approach this film takes to confrontational success, is indeed, brilliant!! See this movie if you have not seen it already!! Prince became an eighties icon with this masterpiece!! For a short time, he dated Kim Bassinger, he must be doing something right!! "Purple Rain" put Prince on the map!! This film gets my emphatically assertive verdict of THUMBS UP!!!!
|
positive
|
Let's get the flaw out of the way right off the top - the movie should have been much longer. Ray Charles was a brilliant, fascinating man who lead a complex, challenging life. There was simply no way to fit it all - or even touch on it all - in a standard length movie. Given that, the makers of this film did an admirable (and I'm sure quite agonizing) job of putting together a film that could not tell the whole story yet managed to set forth a representative sampling of the man and his music. Ray Charles' strengths were evident throughout the film and his weaknesses were neither amplified nor sugar-coated. We could have wished for another hour chronicling his life after 1980, but I suppose that would have tended to turn the film into an homage and, while it would have also allowed for the resolution of several things that were left hanging at the end, on balance I guess it was better as presented.<br /><br />Now for the big question: what are the criteria for an Oscar? The wife and I have seen untold numbers of films in our years, but we immediately agreed that we have never seen a performance the equal of Jamie Foxx's. The line between actor and character was not blurred - but rather it disappeared completely. We had heard much of the hype before seeing the movie, but this was uncanny. Foxx WAS Ray Charles. You didn't watch the movie with the feeling that you were watching Foxx do an outstanding job of portraying Ray Charles - you watched it somehow believing or understanding that you were watching Ray Charles himself. I don't know how else to put it. We were completely blown away. I'll admit that we haven't seen all of the other performances up for an Oscar this year, but that really doesn't matter. Foxx took this to a whole nuther level, one which we've never witnessed before and doubt that we may ever see again. I can think of no other movie I've ever seen in which a person playing a part so completely and convincingly became the person portrayed. We salute you, Mr. Foxx. We understand that the awarding of an Oscar has to do with much more than the performance, but whether or not you win, we want you to know that you have done something that is in a class absolutely by itself and you should take enormous pride in your unparalleled achievement.<br /><br />P.S. The music was naturally great. I remarked to the wife that if there is one moment in the history of music to which I wish I could have been witness, it would have been the genesis (in Kansas City, wasn't it?) of What'd I Say? The film did a wonderful job with it - just wish I could've been there!
|
positive
|
A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.<br /><br />This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.<br /><br />Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.<br /><br />But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.<br /><br />I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic "I Spit on Your Grave". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.<br /><br />My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).<br /><br />Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.
|
negative
|
I have to agree with the previous reviewer. Although the Kristin Erikson did a great job of playing the possessed girl, I seriously don't think that Isabelle, the character she was playing, was possessed. I have seen people have psychotic breaks due to sexual abuse, and they never made it clear whether or not the father had actually abused her or not. I also had to watch some parts of it over again, to make it clear as to what the letter said, what the characters' names were, and I'm still not clear on a few things that happened, whether they were real or not. I'm trying to find the "original" story that it was based on, to compare facts, but I can't seem to find anything about it online.<br /><br />It wasn't a bad movie, but some of the dialogue was incredibly cheesy. Special effects wise, the movie wasn't bad for a Grade B, pretty much, and those possession scenes made it all worth while... that is, if you have nothing better to do. LOL
|
negative
|
For years I thought this knockabout service comedy was a product of John Ford, especially with Victor McLaglen as one of the leads. It certainly has the same rough house humor that Ford laces his films with. <br /><br />To my surprise I learned it was George Stevens who actually directed it. Still I refuse to believe that this film wasn't offered to John Ford, but he was probably off in Monument Valley making Stagecoach.<br /><br />Victor McLaglen along with Cary Grant and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., play three sergeants in the Indian Army who have a nice buddy/buddy/buddy camaraderie going. But the old gang is breaking up because Fairbanks is engaged to marry Joan Fontaine. Not if his two pals can help it, aided and abetted by regimental beastie Gunga Din as played by Sam Jaffe.<br /><br />The Rudyard Kipling poem served as the inspiration for this RKO film about barracks life in the British Raj. The comic playing of the leads is so good that it does overshadow the incredibly racist message of the film. Not that the makers were racist, but this was the assumption of the British there at the time, including our leads and Gunga Din shows this most effectively.<br /><br />The British took India by increments, making deals here and there with local rulers under a weak Mogul emperor who was done away with in the middle of the 19th century. They ruled very little of India outright, that would have been impossible. Their rule depended on the native troops you see here. Note that the soldiers cannot rise above the rank of corporal and Gunga Din is considerably lower in status than that.<br /><br />Note here that the rebels in fact are Hindu, not Moslem. There are as many strains of that religion as there are Christian sects and this strangling cult was quite real. Of course to those being strangled they might not have the same view of them as liberators. But until India organized its independence movement, until the Congress Party came into being, these people were the voice of a free India.<br /><br />But however you slice it, strangling people isn't a nice thing to do and the British had their point here also. When I watch Gunga Din, I think of Star Trek and the reason the prime directive came into being.<br /><br />Cary Grant got to play his real cockney self here instead of the urbane Cary we're used to seeing. Fairbanks and McLaglen do very well with roles completely suited to their personalities.<br /><br />Best acting role in the film however is Eduard Ciannelli as the guru, the head of the strangler cult. Note the fire and passion in his performance, he blows everyone else off the screen when he's on.<br /><br />Favorite scene in Gunga Din is Ciannelli exhorting his troops in their mountain temple. Note how Stevens progressively darkens the background around Ciannelli until all you see are eyes and teeth like a ghoulish Halloween mask. Haunting, frightening and very effective.<br /><br />It was right after the action of this film in the late nineteenth century that more and more of the British public started to question the underlying assumptions justifying the Raj. But that's the subject of Gandhi.<br /><br />Gunga Din is still a great film, entertaining and funny. It should be shown with A Passage to India and Gandhi and you can chart how the Indian independence movement evolved.
|
positive
|
******SPOILERS******<br /><br />The unfunny radio quiz show host Kyser and his mediocre band are the excuse for Lugosi, Karloff, and Lorre to pick up a paycheck in this bland, sporatically watchable haunted house spoof. Lugosi is a mystic whose seances are exposed as a fraudulent attempt to bilk an heiress' fortune; Karloff is the butler and Lorre is a professor who exposes fake mediums, but it turns out that they're both in conspiracy with Lugosi. <br /><br />Of course, Kay Kyser and his band of 30-something year old "kids" uncover the truth with the minimum of possible humor along the way. Not recommended to any but the absolute horror completist.
|
negative
|
Being Belgian myself, I take interest in the history of Congo. It has been our only colony for many years (Rwanda was a Belgian protectorate, but not a colony), and it is part of our country's history. Nowadays it seems to be very popular to say that all that the Belgians did to Congo was wrong, especially in the 19th century. I'm not saying that bad things didn't happen. Of course they did, but back then this wasn't abnormal. Do you really think the French or the Brits were that much nicer in their colonies? No, they weren't. It was 'normal' at the time for our king Leopold II to use Congo as a way to gain personal wealth. It was his private property (it didn't belong to the state then) and he tried to make the most out of it. Of course gruesome things like hands being chopped off happened and yes to todays standards that's inadmissible, but in those days it was common practice. And it has to be said, all this didn't happen anymore during the last decades... I know several people who have lived an worked in Congo for many years before the declaration of Congolese independence. It's true that they had several black servants, but they are very nice people and I really can't imagine they ever treated them bad. For as far as I know they have always treated them with a lot of respect (However, I'm not saying all Belgians did). In fact if they weren't that old now (almost all about 80 years old now) they would love to return to Congo.<br /><br />The good thing about this movie is that it gives an historically accurate vision on what happened during the last years of Belgian governance and the first years of Congolese independence. The story isn't as black and white (perhaps not the best words in this context, but how else to explain what I mean) as I feared it would be. It doesn't say that all the Belgians did was wrong and all the Congolese did was good. It shows perfectly how the Congolese, in their rush of getting independent from the Belgians, didn't mind to accept help from the Russians as well as the Americans, who both had more eye for the raw materials like copper, diamonds, bauxite, rubber,... and getting the Congolese in their political 'camp' and weren't all that interested in their independence. It does not only give a good idea of how Lumumba became more powerful, but also how Mobutu played a double role. It shows the Belgian reaction on some of our compatriots being violated, threatened and even murdered (My father was one of the paratroopers who were send to Congo to rescue the Belgians). It gives a good idea of the political problems Lumumba encountered as the province Katanga didn't want to be part of the Congolese Republic, the role that the Belgians had in the murder on Lumumba ... it all gets it's part in this movie.<br /><br />The story seems to be very accurate and the characters really look and act like the real ones. This movie has been able to give a very good idea of what life in Congo in the late fifties and early sixties was like and should be seen by everybody who is interested in the history of the country. But it should also be shown in history classes, especially in Belgium, because it's a part of our history that should never be forgotten. I give it a 7.5/10, perhaps even an 8/10.
|
positive
|
If you want a film with the full range of emotion, look NO further; dramatic and funny, and scenes of wrenching emotion; I can safely guarantee VERY few will be able to view this warm and VERY human film without shedding a tear now and then. The acting by the two leads is hard to believe; you would swear the two young men really DO suffer from Muscular Dystrophy (Rory) and Cerebral Palsy (Michael); quite simply, two of the FINEST performances I have EVER seen; these are two very believable characters as well, and you never have the feeling things have just been "tossed in" for dramatic purposes or to evoke sympathy. In the DVD release as "extras" they have "deleted scenes" (including an alternate ending) and an "extended party sequence"; why these clips were not included in the final film is hard to understand, as they tie in with the rest of the film perfectly and are in NO way superfluous. But without reservation I can heartily recommend this film to anyone; one of the very best I have ever seen.
|
positive
|
This movie is a hard-to-find gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss. The complications are wild, she is not so ordinary as she seems with five children from five different ex-husbands who are all still madly in love with her, and he is not so shrewd as he thinks he is. This movie doesn't follow a predictable path and that's what keeps you watching. The acting is superb and there are some very moving moments along the way as well. The working class displays more savvy than those above them, almost in the same way "Gosford Park" showed the upper crust is not all it's cracked up to be mentally. I recommend this movie very much. See it! 9/10
|
positive
|
Colonel Chabert is one of the best adaptations from novel to screen I have seen in the movies. It combines the realism of French cinema with excellent characterisation, from Depardieu's lost Chabert to Fabrice Luchini's proud Lawyer to Fanny Ardant's complex widow. The movie has wonderful dimension, as you might expect from a top cinematographer such as Yves Angelo. The characters keep this movie in gear and although a bit slow in the beginning, picks up pace and is a fine movie by the time it reaches the finish.
|
positive
|
How did I ever appreciate this dud of a sequel? All it does is throw balls! Worst of all, it doesn't compare to even the first installment of the series! The comedy suffers from not being funny. Where did all the unintentional laughter go? Enough slapstick on-the-field action goes on too long. Bob Uecker literally saved this one from a complete nine-inning shutout. What's next, MAJOR LEAGUE 4: RETURN TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE? Ehh, could be! Leave this one on the shelf and plan a trip to the All-Star Game. This one's had three strikes too many.
|
negative
|
My website (theflickguy.org) lists "Michael" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt: <br /><br />"Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented "standing in line". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling."
|
negative
|
Many funny scenes about the people that you don't normally pay attention to in a movie and what they have to do to get work and what happens once they do. Lou Myers was very funny as Half-Step Wilson. Any guy that has a tight group of friends can relate to many of the non-movie related scenes scattered throughout the movie.
|
positive
|
This was an absolute disgrace! The worst dramatisation I have ever seen. German officer's with a spotless English accent, they didn't even attempt to be German. How were we supposed to take them seriously? Garbage garbage garbage! Leave the German acting to the likes of Ralph Fiennes & Liam Neeson in future.
|
negative
|
This Don Siegel/Clint Eastwood strange and hypnotic drama was left by the wayside in 1971 and what a pity. A fascinating character study with some great women for Squint to deal with. Geraldine Page was one of our supreme actresses and she's perfectly cast. Young Jo Ann Harris is a flirty minx, and Elizabeth Hartman (who died too young) is undeniably repressed.<br /><br />A 7 out of 10. Best performance = C. Eastwood. Released the same year as DIRTY HARRY, this did no business, beside getting some good reviews. Seek this out unless you're only into "Explosion" films. Very subtle and frightening, this piece will stick with you.
|
positive
|
This movies is the best movie to watch for comic book feel. The sets, costumes and the color are just so vivid it is just like stepping into a comic book. This is the movie I think of when the Mob is mentioned, the suits, the hats and the attitudes.<br /><br />Hoffman gives comic relief as Mumbles and you can't help but feel sorry for Madonna as she tries, and fails, to win Tracy over. This movie contains all the classic mob clichés - burying people in concrete, blowing up peoples cars, tieing up the good guy and attempting to blow up his girlfriends house.<br /><br />This movie is a classic in ever sense of the word, even camera angels cry out comic book. Its so great to be able to go back to an older movie and see that someone knew how a comic should be made into a movie after seeing such mistakes as Spawn and the Hulk. <br /><br />!!!YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!
|
positive
|
I'm not a massive Disney fan, but my 7 year old son is starting to get into them, so we've built up quite a collection, and this is one of my favourites. We first saw this a couple of weeks ago and we must have see it half a dozen times since! OK, as others have pointed out, not the most complex or inventive of plots, but there's more to a film than that.<br /><br />Great characters, Phil Harris stealing the show as Thomas O'Malley, but Edgar the butler not far behind. The music is superb - my disabled son always insists that I lift him up and dance with him to "Everybody wants to be Cat" this says it all. And "Thomas O'Malley" is just as enjoyable.<br /><br />I'm not sure why some people have such a downer on this film other than a dislike of cats! And yes, it does take a few of its cues from "101 Dalmations", and maybe "The Lady and the Tramp" (It's been a long time since I've seen that, so I'm not going to compare them), and while "101 Dalmations" is better in some ways, for me "The Aristocats" is far more enjoyable. Isn't that what these films are about? <br /><br />Apart from "Peter Pan" (now that is a 10/10 film), this is my favourite Disney film. My 7 year-old son loves it, his grumpy 41 year old dad loves it, so you can't ask much more of a family film.<br /><br />Superb!
|
positive
|
Great acting on the part of Gretchen Mol. This film is one of the best biopics to hit the screen in some time. While it does cover the majority of Bettie's young life, it also manages to stay on a mostly focused path which is something most biographical films seem to lack. There is some lovely and alarmingly funny subtext in the dialogue and acting. This film is an excellent break from the Dir. of "American Psycho," and I think this will show through as her best work to date. Oh, and as a cinematography buff, I give this film 100% in the cine dept. It was amazing how well they pulled off a 50s look with modern film stocks. Accolades to the D.O.P. All around very enjoyable. I recommend any interested to see it: 8/10.
|
positive
|
Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime.
|
positive
|
Well, I have finally caught up with "Rock 'N' Roll High School," almost 30 years after it first became a midnight movie sensation in 1979. (Latecomer that I am, I will probably first see this summer's new documentary "Patti Smith: Dream of Life" sometime around 2040!) And no, the film doesn't feel dated one bit, and yes, it was worth the wait. This is a very high-energy comedy that features loads of great music and some surprising moments. It tells the story of Riff Randell, adorably played by P.J. Soles, and the battle that she and her fellow students at Vince Lombardi High wage against their new repressive principal, Miss Togar. (Danny Peary, in his book "Cult Movies," quite accurately describes Mary Woronov's performance as an "evil Eve Arden.") A typical teens vs. Establishment story line is beefed up here with some absurdist humor (those exploding mice, that giant mouse, the Hansel and Gretel hall monitors) and some truly rousing tunes. Riff is, of course, the #1 fan of that original punk band The Ramones, and that band dishes out a baker's dozen of its greatest songs during the course of the film, including five at a concert that is a total blast. Indeed, the sight of Riff furiously dancing to "Teenage Lobotomy" at this blowout may be the picture's funniest moment. And the initial appearance of Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and Marky in their Ramonesmobile, and later slinking down a street singing "I Just Wanna Have Something To Do," is quite exhilarating. The film ends with an explosive confrontation that is, I would imagine, every high school kid's wet dream. Fun stuff indeed. On a side note, The Ramones were one of the loudest bands that I have ever seen in concert, so I was very amused to note that the DVD for this film comes with optional English subtitles for the hearing impaired. How many aging punks out there found these subtitles necessary, I wonder....
|
positive
|
"Darius Goes West" is the touching story of a brave teen coping with Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy and his personal quest to see the Pacific Ocean. He receives help and encouragement from a group of young men who love and care for him while going on this quest.<br /><br />The story has a natural drama and honest portrayal of the commitment of young people to help one of their own stricken with this incurable disease.<br /><br />Anyone who thinks young people are self-centered and narcissistic will find this movie to turn that stereotype on its head. It is the power of the young people and their engagement with Darius' plight that is very compelling in this documentary.
|
positive
|
The curse of Monkey Island is a brilliant video game and its a stroke of genius from the video game designers at lucasarts to have created this sequel. All the characters are brilliant, the voice overs for the characters were realistic and funny. A lot of effort went into this game and it deserves the 10 i gave in the vote, keep up the good work lucasarts!
|
positive
|
There is something about Doug McLure's appearance in a movie that is a warranty of wretchedness. His DG initials are like a special cinema-certification, that comes somewhere before 'U'. <br /><br />Cushing, on the other hand, seemed to suffer from both a dilatory agent and poor judgement of his own. He did excellent work in the Hammer movies as Dr Van Helsing. I'v seen him do a very passable Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound Of The Baskervilles'. And his magnum opus was probably Grand Moff Tarkin in the first 'Star Wars'. The only man but the emperor who could tell Darth Vadar to 'stop bickering' and get away with it. But - crikey! - he's done some turkeys. There was that lamentable 'Daleks' movie for one. And here's another.<br /><br />There's a machine that's been hijacked from Tracy Island. It's a cylinder with a screw at the front and traction devices at the sides. I'm surprised Jerry Anderson didn't sue for plagiarism. Maybe he was bought-off. Yet if the movie is any guide, they can't have paid him much.<br /><br />It's 1976 and we're still playing about in latex romper-suits. <br /><br />That's about it really. Some movies have an entertainment value in the 'so bad it's good' category. This one doesn't even manage that. It wouldn't even entertain kids. 'Crash Corrigan's' stuff from the 1930's has got more going for it.
|
negative
|
It all starts with a suicide. Or is it a car crash? I guess it all depends on whether you choose to start at the beginning or the end. Director Gabriele Muccino gives you the ability to enter his new film Seven Pounds whichever way you prefer as he starts at the end and works his way back to the beginning, showing us the course of events that led us to that heartbreaking 911 call. This is one powerful movie; maybe that is because I'm a softy when it comes to dramas of this ilk, dripping with weighty moments and chock full of devastating performances, but either way, a film works best when it truly touches me, when it lingers in the back of my head hours after leaving the theatre. And this is from the team that brought us the overrated, sappy, and not all that redeeming Pursuit of Happiness, so I'll just say my anticipation was closely guarded for a big letdown. With all that, though, I was with Seven Pounds from the opening frame all the way until the credits rolled. Even though you figure out what Will Smith's character is doing, that secret mission he is trying to complete, it is the way in which he fulfills his penance that shines bright and leaves you with a tear-filled smile at the end.<br /><br />Our entry point is a bit jarring, leaving us off-kilter trying to comprehend what is going on. Smith's Thomas has lists of names, one of people we don't know and one of people it appears he is attempting to follow and audit. Working with the IRS allows him access to these strangers for a glimpse into their lives in order to see whether they are worthy of a gift he has the power to give thema gift that could completely alter their circumstances. He calls an old childhood friend (Barry Pepper) and reminds him to do what it is he promised, to not second guess his decision because there is no changing his mind. Even in a role as small as Pepper's, you can't help but feel the utter grief held aloft in the background, hanging above everyone's head. It is his character, seen maybe three times, that really encompasses the primal level of emotion being dealt with. His breakdowns, whether tear-streaked and composed or head in hands convulsions, show the bond these two men have is one that stands the test of time and any circumstance to come its way.<br /><br />After that phone call, begins the journey to meet new people. Thomas is on some sort of mission to help alleviate the monetary troubles of mortally ill folk, trying to stay afloat despite the heavy burden of medical bills and survival. This progression takes many turns, from a "blind, vegan, meat salesman" that he berates to see whether he can get him to explode; to a phase two donor-necessity heart patient, unable to print her line of stationary, or even run with her Great Dane Duke; to an abused and scared Latino mother of two, too afraid to leave her boyfriend; to a dying hockey coach that instills faith in a downtrodden youth community; to a little boy in need of a bone marrow transplant. There are people who live with the pain and inevitable future with a disposition of hope and wanting to cherish each day, and there are those attempting to beat it by cutting corners and spending all their money at the expense of those who need it to go out in style. Why it is up to Thomas to weed through the mix and find those that deserve his "gift" is unknown at first, as is why this man, seen in flashbacks as an aeronautical engineer with a beautiful wife and huge beachfront home, is now living in a motel, driving a beat-up car, going door to door in order to audit for the IRS. As he says, though, "he kind of stumbled into the job".<br /><br />Smith's quest as Thomas is a long and painful one, tempered with moments of clarity and honest compassion. As a man with the means to help, he takes his job seriously, crossing off people undeserving and testing those he believes are worthy to the nth degree. If that means he must yell and make fun of them, he must do it. At every step, though, you see the suffering in his eyes, the pain eating away at his soul, taking each step towards his fate, one as a saint of redemption, not only for those he wants to help, but for himself as well. It is an award-worthy performance and I only wish Smith would do more dramas like this instead of his blockbuster action summer tentpoles, because, while they are fun, this guy is too good for them. The man better win an Oscar before he is done or it will be a travestyat least in my mind.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is stellar across the board. Woody Harrelson as the blind salesman is pitch-perfect handicap with a joy of life. His shy smile and belief in humanity comes across throughout, whether on the phone being yelled at, sitting in a diner eating his pie, or at the piano in the park, playing for all who will listen. Elpidia Carrillo, as the abused mother, is fantastic, showing the hard evolution from prideful to scared to completely overwhelmed by the kindness of a stranger, allowing her family to finally be safe. And Rosario Dawson shines as the "once hot" young woman, beaten and broken by lengthy hospital stays, all but given up on living life to find love and happiness. It is the introduction of Smith's Thomas that opens her eyes again to be a woman, a free-spirited sexual creature that can just live without fear of wondering what day will be her last.
|
positive
|
... what a porn movie would look like if you took out the sex and just left in the bad dialog, cheap sets and bad acting, you would have Galaxina.<br /><br />This film came out when the Original Star Wars proved there was a market for Science Fiction. This in turn lead to some gems such as Alien and a revitalized Star Trek. Unfortunately, it also led to some bad movies, and this was obviously one of them. (I say obviously, because I hadn't even heard of this film until a few days ago.I missed it when it came out in 1980.) <br /><br />Here's the underlying problem. Dorothy Stratton couldn't act, so for most of the movie, they didn't even let her try. I understand her tragic death has given this film an undeserved cult status, but for the life of me I can't understand why.<br /><br />Clearly, the movie tried to Spoof Star Wars, Star Trek and Aliens, but they clearly don't understand than when you spoof something, it has to be FUNNY! This movie wasn't, or at least, the comic timing on jokes that could have been funny weren't. Science Fiction is ripe for parody, as Spaceballs and Galaxy Quest proved. This movie, however, did it poorly.
|
negative
|
It is the best movie on acting I have ever seen. All the artists are old Turkish theater actors, they are magnificent in this movie.It is sometimes said that "They do not act, they live it", you can really see this in this movie. The director is also competent, you cannot see lots of moving cameras around but the positions of the cameras are also good. But after the acting, the most outstanding part is the content of the movie. It gives happiness, enthusiasm, desire to live, importance of real friends to people. We all started to live individually nowadays, in this film you see that there are someone other then us. And most importantly, you see that the most honorable feeling in the world is love, loving your friends, loving your darling. All people should see this movie...
|
positive
|
No offense to anyone who saw this and liked it, but I hated it! It dragged on and on and there was not a very good plot, also, too simple and the acting was so so...<br /><br />I would give this snorefest a 2 at the most
|
negative
|
This film about secret government mind experiments and the corrupt use of the citizenry by secretive and vile shadowy figures had the potential for being a really interesting movie. But for me, it failed. I won't elaborate much on the rather confusing plot line, but if you are looking for a detailed explanation, the comment by user "reluctantpopstar" gives a good description of it.<br /><br />But it didn't work for me. I found it slow, which would be okay but for the fact that it seemed to go nowhere. The viewer is left in the dark about too many things to really be able to get a handle on this movie-in some films, one can argue that the filmmakers intended to provoke thought and left things ambiguous for that reason. I don't think that this is the case here.<br /><br />As for the frequent long shots of two buildings that have been frequently mentioned by other users...I see that they do have a point-they give the viewer time to get another drink without missing any of the "action". And I suspect many viewers would welcome the opportunity to have several beverages on board to get through this one.
|
negative
|
Guy Ritchie's noble effort is beat up, knocked down, raped, kicked around, shot, stabbed, spit upon, punched, sodomized, and abused and left for dead by Madonna's dreadful performance. Her acting was very reminiscent of a graduate from the Al Gore School of Dramatics and Public Speaking. Guy Ritchie did do a somewhat noble attempt to remake this, and if you exclude ALL of the scenes that his wife was in, it's a fair movie at best. I think that the best acting job ever, had to be Guy comforting his wife that her performance was good enough not to re-shoot. If you have an opportunity of watching Swept Away or clipping your toenails for 89 minutes...go for the extended pedicure.
|
negative
|
I feel very generous giving this movie a 2 out of 10. Okay, noted that the special effects are, 'okay' and Renny Harlin did make one my favorite genetically-altered-sharks-attack-a-research-station movie, that of which you may know as Deep Blue Sea. Also, the opening credits are done fairly well with a remix of WhiteZombie's "more human then human' and it does go fairly well with what is in the context of this 'movie'. But enough praise, lets get to the reason why this movie sucks so much.<br /><br />Not since Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did i ever feel that the special effects in a movie were totally wasted. Okay, our story starts with four guys who are descendants of four different families, each of which possess a never fully explained power from a never fully explained family background that did a never fully explained art of witch craft. Oh and for some reason, these descendants are all 17, all go to the same school, are all on the swim team and all, for some reason or another, sit in bed with their shirts off, sweating and talking to each other on the phone. I have nothing against gays, Gothic or thirteen year old's, but that is what this movie is aimed at...13 year old goth who question their sexuality. Yeah there's girls in it who sit on their beds in their panties or whatever, but how come they don't take their shirts off? hey its only fair.<br /><br />Anyways, the characters in this movie are told that when they turn 18, they will ascend and be granted new profound, almost god-like powers. But before i go any further, i forgot to mention that when they use their powers, they age slowly and they grow more addicted to it. That explains why they got people in their late 20's to play 17 year old's. Oh and if something needs explaining, don't worry, someone will explain it all in one large piece of dialog. God this movie sucks...where was I? oh yeah, the ascension part.<br /><br />Okay, apparently there was a super-secret-alpha-one family that the others forgot about or some s#*t like that, i don't know, i was dozing off at this point. But they were written out some how and the new kid at school who is befriending the group is 'secretly' one of these descendants from the fifth family. And I say 'secretly' because anyone who has seen any of the previews of this movie knows that this new guy is the bad guy. He has greater power then the others because he's older i think. Anyways, Bob Loblaw (say it out loud) things happen and we get to the final fight in the movie.<br /><br />To be honest, I was all game for a witch battle. You know like Saurmon vs. Gandalf or anything along the lines with magic battle, because you know, this is about witches and stuff. Now, when these two witches throw down, its more of like...how can i put it...a very, very crappy version of a Dragonball Z type battle. They throw stuff at each other, talk, throw stuff, talk, throw stuff, talk etc. When i say 'throw stuff' i only say that because i have no clue what the F#%k their throwing at each other. It looks like big gobs of slimy water. God this movie sucks, anyways, when our main witch 'ascends' he doesn't get very powerful at all. He just throws bigger gobs of slimy water. Things happen and it ends in a way that you as the viewer know its gonna end. The good witch wins bad witch loses.<br /><br />You know how shitty a movie is when the bad guy says something so incredibly stupid as, 'I'm gonna make you my Wiotch' Thats where i wanted to punch myself in the face for sitting through this whole...thing.<br /><br />Yes, i admit, the thought of witches doing battle, using powers in the modern day does sound kinda cool, but when the execution is this bad, i really wished they didn't make THIS movie. Maybe if it was R-rated, had tit's and threw in more deaths with a dash of gore, it might have worked...might have worked.<br /><br />If your interested in watching this, don't buy it or even rent it. Wait for it to come on TV or borrow it from your sucker of a friend who bought it. Just don't waste your time with this hack of a movie. If you spend any money on it, there's a good chance your putting an effort towards a sequel to be made by Uwe Boll called, The Covenant 2: Alone in the dark with the house of the dead.
|
negative
|
A typical old b&w film. The dialogues are sometimes good, but too often - especially in the second half - they get naive, sometimes awfully naive, occasionally close to the point where they are unintentionally comical. The first third, with its background information on Ladd's Gatsby shown with a series of interesting flashbacks, is the best part of the movie. But once Gatsby moves into his new villa and makes his moves on Betty Field, the film gets overly melodramatic. The ending is yet another cop-out ending; I don't know whether the novel itself contains this dumb, clichéd ending or whether the movie's producer made some changes to it, but I've always considered car-accidents to be a poor way to add drama to the conclusion of a story. I've seen this plot-device a million times (or if it's not a car, then it's a fall from a horse); the writer doesn't know how to end the story but he knows that he wants it to be dramatic, so he adds in a car-accident. Lame. And to make things worse, the accident is outrageously coincidental and preposterous, both plot-wise and time-wise; plot-wise because Field's husband's mistress (Winters) gets killed by Field, and the fact that Winters sort of rushes out from the gas-station into the street as though she'd never noticed in the years that she had lived in it that there was a dangerous road right across her house - and, of course, at the very moment that she comes out she sees Ladd's car and mistakes it for Field's husband's car and then shouts "Over here! I'm here! Run me over and make the ending tragic that way!"; time-wise because Ladd and Field get involved in an accident at the very day when they are preparing to tell Field's husband about their affair. Basically, there is just too much forced and artificial irony in this accident. It also doesn't exactly help this movie how Winters's husband, Da Silva, goes on a revenge mission to kill the guy who ran over his wife; he basically does this by walking around like a zombie, going from car to car looking for scratches, and acting very badly indeed. Both Da Silva's acting and his character's behaviour throughout the film are awful and confusing, respectively.<br /><br />Scott Fitzgerald was upset on a couple of occasions how his novels were adapted for the screen by Hollywood's screenwriters, and - although he was dead long before this movie was done - he might have been right to complain, judging by this film's naive script. Or, maybe his novels are even sillier and more naive than this film, and were actually improved upon by the screen adaptations. Or, the films are pretty much like the novels. I could, of course, read this particular novel to find out, but I just can't be bothered. Fitzgerald's name doesn't exactly inspire me to read any of his books (and I don't mean the way his name sounds.) He was certainly no Heller, Clavell, or Twain. More like Hemingway a lot of noise about nothing.
|
negative
|
To this day, there isn't a movie I've seen more times than The Chipmunk Adventure, nor has any movie brought me more happiness. This is by no means the greatest film or even the greatest animated film, but to an 8 year old girl in 1988 it was the coolest, funniest, most exciting film ever! I'm still equally as impressed today with the musical numbers, each one a standout song with wonderfully dramatic lyrics in the epic tradition of 80's pop (think Pat Benetar on helium, only catchier). <br /><br />Controversy has stirred over the blatantly suggestive tone of the Chipette's song "Gettin' Lucky With You", which to me seemed much more innocent at the time. However, looking at it as a rational adult, I can totally understand the concern; you've got three young girls in skimpy harem outfits passionately proclaiming "getting lucky is what it's all about". The Chipettes' were definitely sexualized tenfold for this movie.<br /><br />But this controversial issue doesn't even come close to overshadowing the Chipmunks' otherwise fabulous feature length animated adventure, I encourage parents and childless adults alike to check out this movie. Especially if you were a child of the eighties/early nineties like me. :-)
|
positive
|
I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?
|
negative
|
DANGER: Watch for falling spoilers...<br /><br />Boy, was this a bad movie. I know that they were going for a "true love conquers all" kind of thing, but about all this film conquered was about 3(which felt more like 9) hours of my afternoon which I will never get back. The movie is about two young lovers named Kai and Gerta who live in a remote town in a fantasy world. Kai is the much-abused bellboy at a hotel owned by Gerta's father. At first Gerta ignores Kai's advances but she eventually warms up to him much to the disgust of (You Guessed It!) Gerta's father. As if this obstacle wasn't enough to overcome, an evil snow queen shoots a shard of glass in Kai's eye and he becomes a mean person treats Gerta poorly. Kai is eventually taken to the Snow Queen's fortress (Which is the same set as the hotel just covered in ice, because the good people at Hallmark like to go all out) and Gerta sets out on a mission to get Kai back. Along the way she runs into the 3 other seasons that are evil in their own special way, but Gerta escapes them with the help of some dull and forgettable characters she meets along the way. (All the while you will want to turn it off, but can't force yourself to do it. It's probably the most evil and most effective spells cast by the Snow Queen) Anyways, I will spare you from the ending because anything you can think up in your head right now is probably better then how they ended it. So, in conclusion, the Snow Queen is an incredibly boring movie, which takes the fan out of fantasy.
|
negative
|
I saw this film 12 years ago on TNT. It was Susanah York's Birthday and they were showing this film as a double feature with Tom Jones (1963). I have not seen this film on TV since. I took interest in seeing this film because one of the stars is the very funny and talented Jim Dale, as Lusty the sailor. I believe that Dale now does the narration of the Harry Potter books on Casette, but anyway he is quite funny. This is a fast paced comedy. It is not on VHS or DVD. Columbia Pictures should go through their film collection, and consider restoring and releasing this film to DVD. Christopher Plummer is hilarious as Lord Fopington, Ian Bannen is also quite humorous as Ramble the sailor. This is a bawdy comedy, the kind of film one no longer sees, with great production values. ***1/2 stars out of ****
|
positive
|
Famed filmmaker Werner Herzog's "Fata Morgana" is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.<br /><br />The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.<br /><br />This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.<br /><br />"Fata Morgana" does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.<br /><br />Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, "Fata Morgana" will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: "Fata Morgana" is ... different.
|
positive
|
Whenever someone tries to tell me that they think a movie is the worst ever (and it's usually some movie that's "cool" to hate, like "Manos, the Hands of Fate" or "The Avengers") I ask them, "is that movie a comedy about an orphan who is constantly trying to murder adults? Does anyone utter the line 'I'd rather eat a turd' in that movie?"<br /><br />This movie is WAY too infantile and moronic for adults, and WAY too violent and irresponsible for children. Is there that much money in the Beavis and Butt-head demographic to make a series of movies like this? There is a Problem Child 3, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather eat a turd.
|
negative
|
During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the "civilized world" voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.<br /><br />Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have "key" roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims.
|
negative
|
This movie will undoubtably not go over well with some, because most of the horror is mental. But it does have a little something for almost everyone, including a couple of really cool abduction scenes with aliens. The film makes extensive use of alien abduction mythology, while also showing a bit more intelligence about some facets of abduction myths than you would expect out of a movie. Jillian McWhirter is excellent in what had to have been a grueling performance.
|
positive
|
Aimless teens on summer break in a small Ohio town can't find any meaningful ways to fill their time. Some consider driving to Chicago; others are content to drink and bully their peers. In a random act of alcohol-fueled arrogance, the bullies rough up a homeless man and steal a strange book. The handwritten text turns out to contain archaic spells designed to summon demonic forces. A night or two later, one of them reads an incantation and is quickly possessed. He turns into a vicious killer and begins to quietly prey on his former peers.<br /><br />"Demon Summer" is an amateur production with a microscopic budget. The production values are low, but the filmmakers were smart enough to not be ambitious. Little in the way of special props or shooting locations were needed. The acting is especially weak and there is virtually nothing original in the screenplay. On the positive side, the special makeup effects are surprisingly good by low budget film standards. Despite this, the gore is minimal. Makeup effects aside, there is little going for this film, even for die-hard gore-hounds. Not recommended.
|
negative
|
The plot sounded like it had promise. To be honest I did not watch the entire movie. After about an hour into the movie I had to make a decision. Is this movie worth watching until it conclusion? The answer was clearly NO! It was not the fact that the human body could not receive a transplant from a different species without rejecting it. Nor the premise that he was being chased by secret government authorities for an human / wolf transplant. It was because the movie was badly written, acting lacked emotion and I did not understand the several dream sequences with the wolves and buffaloes. When he was running to the zoo with a dog pack and leaving them at the front of the zoo gate the saying "If you can't run with the big dogs don't leave the porch" kept running through my bored mind. Save yourself the time and skip this movie. I can guarantee if you do dare to watch it you will sit there slack jawed as I did wondering why anyone waste money, time, energy and effort to make this insulting outrage to American cinema.
|
negative
|
Horrible film with bits of the Ramones strewn about. Your worse than average 1970's/80's comedy format of the cool kids taking over the school with some whimsical plan. This movie is terrible. The plot consists of a girl who enjoys the Ramones and a school bent on fighting against their oppressive administration. Forget this movie and watch something like Wild Zero starring Guitar Wolf if you want an entertaining B movie. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible plot with the stamp of approval of the Ramones who probably needed some money quick so they said yes to this movie. That is the only logical thing I can think of because this movie blows.
|
negative
|
**May Contain Spoilers**<br /><br />A dude in a dopey-looking Kong suit (the same one used in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA in 1962) provides much of the laffs in this much-mocked monster flick. Kong is resurrected on Mondo Island and helps out the lunkhead hero and other good guys this time around. The vampire-like villain is named Dr. Who-funny, he doesn't look like Peter Cushing! Kong finally dukes it out with Who's pride and joy, a giant robot ape that looks like a bad metal sculpture of Magilla Gorilla. Like many of Honda's flicks this may have had some merit before American audiences diddled around with it and added new footage. The Rankin/Bass animation company had a hand in this mess. They should have stuck to superior children's programs like The Little Drummer Boy.
|
negative
|
This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.
|
negative
|
I tried. Lord help me, how I tried. But there are just some people almost incapable of creating quality. Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll, Britney Spears, and Asylum. To their credit "The 9/11 Commission Report" seems like an honest attempt by the company to advance into a more sophisticated state of storytelling and movie making. But for all intents and purposes, it comes off as another truly film in their gallery. At the opening, the disclaimer notifies audiences that all the names have been changed, but the names of the terrorists remain relatively the same. A man named Mussaui attempts to learn how to fly a plane. With a stone cold grimace that would instantly make anyone uneasy, this "undercover" agent is able to learn how to fly on a small computer. And you have to wonder, not how he was able to get into this program so easily, but on how these people didn't even ask questions; because this scene is so far-fetched in its presentation, and the actor playing this man is extremely over the top. And you can see that director Scott attempts to mimic Paul Greengrass with a bright grainy photography that's followed by an awfully dizzying and irritating hand-held direction that, throughout the entire film, attempts to take off from Greengrass's gung-ho guerrilla film-making techniques. <br /><br />You can sense Scott emulating Greengrass's technique for realism, but it becomes rather lame-brained halfway in. Meanwhile the film comes off less a "Traffic" take off, and more a take off on "Law & Order" in which we'll have the disclaimer notifying us the names have been changed, the logo almost reminiscent of the "Law & Order" logo, and then ninety minutes of the actors pumping their chests and discussing politics.<br /><br />Neither of which are ever as compelling as it tries to be. And then when the film seems as if its attempting to be an adult drama, Scott relies on his old failsafe, the sex scene. Scott's new film looks like it really wants to be thought of as a low budget "Munich" but it's not, and it manages to be underwhelming on every such occasion possible. "The 9/11 Commission Report" falls flat, and that's because its limited in its attempts to imitate other films.<br /><br />While I appreciate the ambition inherent behind the camera, this new perspective of the events leading up to 9/11 is flat, and dull. Hard as it may try to be a low-budget "Munich" it's only really as entertaining as a normal Dolph Lundgren film you'd find on Cinemax.
|
negative
|
Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.<br /><br />Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.<br /><br />The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.<br /><br />No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.
|
negative
|
The premise of the story is simple: An old man living alone in the woods accidentally stumble upon a murder of a small child, and tries to convince the police that the murder has occurred. Though very little dialog is provided throughout the film, the visual narrative told by the camera's eye alone made the film quite engaging. The setting of the gray woods conveys a feeling of loneliness, which complements the quietness of the characters themselves. We can also sense helplessness in the old man's inability to convince the police of the murder, which parallels the silenced child's inability to tell her own story.<br /><br />True horror lies in feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and irrationality. This film successfully addresses these elements by visuals alone, rather than relying on cheap sound effects or blood and gore that other bad horror films use when the narrative is weak.<br /><br />Cleverly, the story unfolds at a slow pace to build up tension for a few creepy and startling moments. The ending is also unexpected and believable. Reminiscent of Japanese horror films, such as "The Ring," and "Dark Water," or English horror films, such as "Lady in Black," and "The Innocents," this film provides viewers the experience of true atmosphere horror. I recommend anyone who enjoys a good chilling to the bone scare to give this film a try.<br /><br />By the way, if you haven't seen the films I just mentioned above, you might want to give them a try as well.
|
positive
|
For those who never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage and their only exposure to the story was this film, this film is OK as movie musicals, nothing special, just OK. I have seen the show on Broadway 4 times and even auditioned for a touring company of the show once and for someone who pretty much memorized the original production, the 1985 film version is so dreadful on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, for those who have never auditioned for a theatrical production, let me assure you that IRL when you audition for a play, the director, producer, and choreographer never ask personal questions and don't give a crap about why you wanted to become a performer. A real theatrical audition, whether it be for a play or a musical, rarely takes more than five minutes. If you're auditioning as a dancer, you get shown a 64-bar dance combination once, you do it, and then they decide immediately whether you're in or out. Michael Bennett's original concept of the show was to flesh out the lives of dancers and introduce to the uninitiated the passion for performing and why so many sacrifice so much for so little. The play is about these dancers. First of all, director Richard Attenborough took so much focus off the dancers by beefing up the Cassie/Zach relationship and by casting Michael Douglas as Zach. In the play, you NEVER see Zach...he is just a voice in the back of the theater and his relationship with Cassie is barely touched upon. Cassie shown in the cab in traffic trying to get to the audition and upstairs talking to Larry (a character who is not even in the play)was all added for the movie and took so much focus off what the story is about. Major musical numbers were cut or rethought. The opening number in the play "I Hope I Get It" shows all of the dancers doing a jazz and ballet combination and then people get eliminated. In the movie they jam three hundred dancers onstage together and show them in closeup to disguise the fact that they have cast people in the film who can't dance (can you say "Audrey Landers"). "Goodbye 12, Goodbye 13, Hello Love", a brilliant vocal exploration of these dancers' childhood's jaundiced memories was reworked as "Surprise, Surprise" mainly a vehicle for the late Gregg Burge as Richie. The show's most famous song, "What I Did for Love" which in the show was a touching allegory sung by the entire cast about what they give up to dance, becomes just another standard love song in the film, performed tiredly by a miscast Allyson Reed as Cassie. Jeffrey Hornaday's choreography for the film is dull and unimaginative and doesn't hold a candle to Michael Bennett' original staging and when you're making a movie about dancers, the choreography has to be special. There are a couple of good dancers in the film, the previously mentioned Gregg Burge as Richie, Michelle Johnston as Bebe, and Janet Jones as Judy, but they are hardly given the opportunity to show what they can do, yet Audrey Landers, who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, is given one of the show's best numbers, "Dance 10, Looks 3." I will admit that the finale, "One" is dazzling, but you have to wait almost two hours for that. I would say that if you never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage, this film might be worth a look, but if you are a devotee of the original Broadway musical...be afraid...be very afraid.
|
negative
|
Nell Shipman must have been paid a hefty sum of money to promote the Maxwell automobile's off-road capabilities. The plot of the movie is pretty simple, Nell plays a writer who has a bad case of writer's block, and needs inspiration, so she goes to visit Mexico to absorb the atmosphere. There she meets the hero (Bert Van Tuyle), a cowboy who chooses to drive a car rather than ride a horse. While Nell is visiting with her father's partner at his mining camp, a gang of local bandits kidnap her and bring her to their camp deep in the wilderness. The hero needs to get to her quickly, so he decides to drive there in his car. This is where the film takes a weird twist. Bert proceeds to drive over every terrain imaginable, huge rocks, small streams, heavy brush, scraggly tree stumps, steep inclines, etc etc, for the greater part of the film we get to see this car struggling to crawl over obstacles. Now mind you, this isn't a modern-day ATV, it's a 1920 Maxwell automobile, so it looks very out-of-place as an off-road vehicle. And it clearly has limitations for some of the terrain it encounters, we get to see it stuck more than once in this film. But the filmmakers made an effort to show it beating the odds and eventually passing all the obstacles. Once the hero gets to the hidden camp and rescues the girl, he jumps in the car with her and drives off with the bandits in hot pursuit (on horseback), and at this point it became hysterically funny to me. Watching this car slowly rolling over huge rocks, getting stuck in gravel and mountain brush, going forward and back to get momentum enough to pass over fallen tree limbs, the bandits should have had ample time to catch up. But they never do, even though we are to believe this wilderness chase goes on throughout the night. And in a silly climax, the car climbs a mountainside, and helps Nell and the hero push a huge boulder down the side to crush the pursuing bandits.<br /><br />After seeing this film you would think the army should invest in 1920 Maxwell automobiles because they clearly have better off-road capabilities than Hummers and Bradley tanks combined. Watch this film just for laughs, it's worth it just to see Nell cuddling up to the car grill and saying "You did your best, brave little car"
|
negative
|
I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.<br /><br />In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.<br /><br />Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.<br /><br />The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.<br /><br />With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.<br /><br />2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.
|
negative
|
This is a most handsome film. The color photography is beautiful as it shows the lavishness of the Metropolitan Opera House in brilliant color. Other indoor scenes at various mansions, etc are equally brilliant. As for the music, what more can be said other than that Lanza's voice was at its' peak as he sang so many of the worlds' best known and beloved arias. The marvelous Dorothy Kirsten is also a joy as her soprano voice blends with that of Lanza in delightful harmony. Of course, Hollywood took their customary liberties with the life story of Caruso. There is precious little in the story line that relates to actual events. For example, the facts relating to his death are totally fabricated and bear no relationship to the truth. There are some very good web sites that tell the true story of Caruso and contain several pictures of him. These web sites can be located by using any good search engine. There are also several books available concerning his life history. But, the fictional story line does nothing to mar this beautiful film. The voices of Lanza, Kirsten, and the chorus members are the real stars of this movie. Enjoy, I know that I sure did.
|
positive
|
This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.<br /><br />STUPID US.<br /><br />Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.<br /><br />The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".<br /><br />Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions. <br /><br />AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.
|
negative
|
After watching this, I had lost a little respect for Christopher Lee (This has passed over time). This film was utter garbage. First, they tried to recreate the ending from the first "Howling," with incredibly bad make-up. Then they try to turn it into a sad excuse of a werewolf porn film! The plot sucks and the whole film is just AWFUL!!!! A brother of a werewolf victim from the first film (From the look of it, it was SUPPOSED to be Dee Wallace Stone)teams up with Lee and another woman to destroy the group of werewolves, lead by Sybil Danning, who seems to be naked all the time.<br /><br />This is not even worth renting (Unless you want to waste your time and money watching the nudity.). Try to catch it on cable instead. It would be so chopped up, it may actually make sense.
|
negative
|
> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films. This was > one. >
|
negative
|
Film starts off great in 1872 with a violent, bloody fight between Dracula (Christopher Lee) and van Helsing (Peter Cushing). Dracula is impaled and dissolves to dust--van Helsing also dies. Somebody gathers Dracula's ashes and buries them in the grounds of a church. Cut to 1972--here's where the film falls apart.<br /><br />We are instantly hit over the head with loud, bad 70s music, HORRIBLE fashions and silly dialogue. When this was made Hammer was losing money and decided to try anything to get a hit. Putting Dracula in the 1970s was NOT a good idea. The fashions, music and dialogue date the movie horribly. We're introduced to a bunch of annoying kids in their 20s who decide to have a Black Mass--"for a giggle". Naturally they have it at the church (now abandoned) and naturally revive Dracula. It's a good thing a descendant of van Helsing is around...but Dracula goes after his niece (Stephanie Beacham) in revenge.<br /><br />Lee and Cushing are great as always in their roles and whenever they're on screen the movie gets a much-needed shot of energy. The opening and ending battles are the highlights of the film (although the ending is spoiled a lot by playing lousy 70s music). Also the main ringleader of the kids is named Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame)--a truly stupid name that dates back to the 1940s. The film also has scream queen Caroline Munro looking absolutely great. The film is well-directed and pretty well-acted but the plot is stupid, the constant barrage of 70s fashion, dialogue and music gets annoying real quick and I was basically bored silly.<br /><br />Most Hammer fans agree--this was one of the worst Dracula movies--it's followup (Satantic Rites of Dracula) was THE worst--and the last Hammer Dracula film. This gets a 2--just for Cushing and Lee.
|
negative
|
I really like this movie because in Australia, Chinese movies like these never get shown during prime time. I must say this is one of the best serious movies ever, which outlines the difference between the Hong Kong people, and mainland Chinese. It really shows that there's discomfort between the two, but can only get better as HK are learning Mandarin. It also showed me how in mainland China the indie rock scene exists, and that Chinese people do know how to strum the guitar and get the house funking! Whoever said China isn't ready for rock music? Daniel Wu is absolutely superb, with his clean and crisp voice, honest acting, and a total chick magnet. I recommend this movie to those who don't know much about Asian people to cleanse themselves from the typical Western stereotypes, and people who just love Chinese/Asian cinema like myself. Check it out!
|
positive
|
As essential a part of British pop culture as the Monty Python and James Bond, Doctor Who was a massive hit for 26 years (1963-1989), making it one of the longest running TV shows in the world (most serials are lucky to have ten seasons). Plans to reboot the series were always on the BBC's agenda, and after a miscalculated (not to mention Americanized) TV movie produced by Fox failed to capture the magic of the original version, another nine years (Comic Relief spoof and animated mini-series notwithstanding) were required before the ultimate Time Lord could return properly, courtesy of acclaimed writer Russell T. Davies.<br /><br />Davies' brilliance in reintroducing the character lies in his decision to do so through the eyes of an outsider: Rose Tyler (Billie Piper), a London-based girl who leads a very normal life until one night she is attacked by creatures made out of living plastic. She is rescued by an elusive stranger who introduces himself simply as the Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) and then disappears after quipping: "Nice to meet you, Rose. Run for your life!". As she gets more and more curious about this "man", she soon finds herself in a whole new world: aliens, invasions, travel through time and space, and of course, the omnipresent Police Box-shaped TARDIS.<br /><br />The first 45 minutes of the new Doctor Who are almost perfect (the special effects could have used a bit more polishing) because Davies nails two things: the show's unique humor and the two protagonists. The original series' most endearing trait was its blend of spectacular sci-fi and pure British comedy, a hybrid that's hard, if not impossible, to export. Here the laughs are all linked to the conversations between Rose and the Doctor, who come off as fully rounded characters after just one episode. Okay, so technically Eccleston's Doctor is the Ninth to use that name, but he distances himself from the previous eight incarnations by speaking with a Northern accent (the one he uses on a daily basis) and justifying it with a terrific line: "Lots of planets have a North!". <br /><br />The real triumph of this episode, though, is Piper's performance: in theory, Rose is in her late teens, therefore nearly the same age as thousands of young viewers who had never heard of the Doctor before. Her portrayal of an ordinary girl lost in a new, exciting universe, represents the new generation's reaction to the return of a TV icon, and the chemistry that instantly forms between her and Eccleston is a sign indicating the new Doctor Who is just as good as the old one.<br /><br />First, fifth, ninth, it makes no difference: there may have been others before Eccleston (and Piper, for that matter) but together he, William Hartnell, Peter Davison and the rest of the bunch are one single character, one so cool he doesn't even need a name: he's THE Doctor.
|
positive
|
I like this movie much, it's special type of humor by Ondricek and Machacek... I think it's better then Samotari (Loners).. Maybe it's difficult to understand when you are not Czech. If you are not watching that movie, just enjoy it, don't mind about anything else.. just relax !!
|
positive
|
Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.<br /><br />The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.<br /><br />All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.<br /><br />The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.<br /><br />Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period.
|
negative
|
am i the only one who saw the connection between the discussion of camus 'the myth of sisyphus' and mary's life? in camus version a man is condemned to spend his eternity with a giant boulder that he must roll up a hill. unfortunately every time he reaches the top the boulder slips and ends up back at the bottom for him to start. there may have been a buzzard pecking at his eyes, i'm not sure right now. in the movie mary spends her life struggling to get her life together, unfortunately every time she gains any footing she falls and loses everything. case in point would be the party she throws where she gets intoxicated, offends her falafel lover, and is practically attacked by liev schrieber. in case you question this theory, note how this scene ends with her attempting to climb a flight of stars while books fall from nowhere impeding her progress until ultimately she passes out. the next morning when she awakens she is still on the stairs, never having reached the top.
|
positive
|
The promise of Martin Donovan playing Jesus was, quite honestly, enough to get me to see the film. Definitely worthwhile; clever and funny without overdoing it. The low-quality filming was probably an appropriate effect but ended up being a little too jarring, and the ending sounded more like a PBS program than Hartley. Still, too many memorable lines and great moments for me to judge it harshly.
|
positive
|
There are bad movies, terrible movies even boring movies...I can watch most and put up until the end, not this time. Avoid this like the plague, annoying music throughout, terrible editing, no comedy, its tackier than a novelty mug...My missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be Legally Blonde material or something kind of watchable, but never better than average, chick flick. Its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button.<br /><br />The Girls, well, they were not great to start with (Denise done OK in Starship Troopers and Wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. I feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this...Pamela Anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face.<br /><br />Please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen.
|
negative
|
Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.
|
negative
|
If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???
|
negative
|
it's movies like these that make you wish that you never picked on the nerd growing up in school. If you liked this movie, then I would suggest you watch Valentine. I just found out today that the guy who played Marty(Simon) killed himself a little after the movie was released which is a shame since he did a good job. I wonder if it's because of the part he played in the movie. It starts out when Carol tricks him into going into the girls restroom to act like they were about to do it. When he was changing in the showers, Carols popular friends snuck into the bathroom and got everything ready, camera, electric shock, pole. When Marty open the curtain butt naked he realized that he was tricked. He tries to cover the shower up but the kids open it, grab Marty and starts being mean to him while the camera is rolling. They picked him up, dunked his head in the toliet while it was being flushed, and they electricuted him(slightly). When the kids are in detention, given by the coach, 2 of the boys give Marty a joint that will make him throw up. Skip breaks one of the glass windows in the gym using a brick to get the teacher to excuse him. While Marty is puking in the bathroom Skip sneaks into the Science Lab and mixes some stuff that looks like cocaine but not sure what it was. The lab blows up disfiguring him badly. 5 years later the kids who tormented him that day got invitations for a 5 year school reunion at the old school which was burn that day it exploded. One by one the people get killed off. I don't understand how the girl who drowned really drowned. she could have gotten back up after Marty left. She almost got out the first time.
|
positive
|
As I don't have a TV, and had never heard of this mini-series, I didn't know what to expect from The Second Coming and hired it purely on the strength of its plot synopsis, which sounded interesting.<br /><br />Dear God! (Every pun intended.) If someone told me that this had been written by a class of thirteen year olds who had been given the project of turning the second coming into a school play I wouldn't have been surprised.<br /><br />Why, oh why did they decide to portray Jesus mark II as what amounted to an idiot savant? Is there anything in any of the gospels to suggest this? Okay, an ordinary bloke, but a Great Northern Moron. I don't think so.<br /><br />Apparently all Jesus did to impress people was his miracles, because according to this take his preaching sure as hell never impressed anyone. Certainly without the night into day stunt Mr Jesus Eccleston would have been floundering without a canoe, a paddle or any kind of following at all.<br /><br />And the odd little gay polemics put in willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason. Other than, of course, Russell waving to his QAF fan base. Jesus turns up in the pub to recruit 'disciples' (more gormless Northern losers and, of course, the gay writer's standby - the harpy woman, nag, nag, nagging away). Gay rights are rammed down his throat to no real purpose, almost like Russell thought he 'owed it to the lads' to put Jesus on the spot. <br /><br />I can't really see the real Jesus coming out with "Well, I've nothing against it personally, mate." Only someone truly middle class and woolly could imagine Jesus to be quite this wet.<br /><br />And don't start me on the ending. 'Please come in and eat rat poison because the only way we can be truly free is if God dies'.<br /><br />It was like an Eddie Izzard sketch of God as Bill Gates. "Hello, I'm Bill Gates, and now you've pointed out to me that my global domination is cramping your style I'm going to give it all to you, my customers." And eat the rat poison, of course.<br /><br />I'm often mystified by the ratings on IMDb, but the high rating on this one takes the biscuit.<br /><br />Never mind Jesus for the new millennium - this is Jesus for brainless MTV lads.<br /><br />God help us all indeed.
|
negative
|
Wow, where to begin with this one. Well, if you enjoy laughing at the utter failures of filmmakers, then this one is for you. I bought this movie for 5 bucks because I never pass up an opportunity to laugh at B-movie God Casper Van Dien's blunders, and boy was this one of them. It may have been enough that this movie contains the single most lame movie monster ever. This thing, which is supposed to be an Indian ghost, looks more like a plastic candy bowl skeleton that you put on your front porch on Halloween. He dons a cape that is clearly a garbage bag, complete with what appears to be a bucket-shaped bonnet over his head. At some points this is a man in costume, at others it is clearly a plastic prop placed on top of a horse. This monster has the uncanny ability to see with "predator" vision, a clear rip-off, and can miraculously appear after throwing his spear. Sometimes the spear cuts people, sometimes it doesn't. This thing also manages to down a helicopter with a single arrow. Wow, this makes a much sense as when the kid blows up a spaceship with a firecracker at the end of "Critters." This creature is impervious to bullets, but somehow dies at the end of the movie. At the end of his killing spree, which we never really find out why he is on, he gets blown up. This is an incredible feat, for we had already seen this thing blow up 3 times in the film. But, I guess this last time was the charm. <br /><br />And don't even get me started on the lameness of the other characters. First of all, what Delta Force unit employs women? Last I checked the military still disallows women into combat situations. Also, this unit is "undercover." Why? What possible reason would they have to be undercover? And they're not even good at it, I guess no one would realize that they were military if they didn't have on uniforms, BUT THEY WERE ALL CARRYING MACHINE GUNS (which incidentally change sound effects throughout the film, at some points sounding like air rifle BB guns, and at others, canons). There is one part when the Skeleton Man throws some construction workers from a catwalk, and you can clearly see the pad that they fall onto. At another point. Michael Rooker falls down a hill that is clearly flat ground. They tilted the camera slightly to give the appearance of an incline, but he is clearly pushing himself along in this looooooonnnnnggggggg fall scene. Then when he is helped back up the hill, the rope is flat, and when it shows the woman at the "top" of the "hill" the rope goes upward from her grip, not the way it would look if she was pulling someone up a hill. Rooker actually has a line that says, "I'm not going after him, I going after it." What? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I watch these bad movies as a hobby. The saddest part about this quote is that you can tell that everyone involved in the writing/production of this film thought that it was so bad-ass. Believe it or not, compared to the rest of the dialog, this is good. <br /><br />The acting, bad. The makeup, really bad. These characters either had scars or wounds that liked to change sides of their face. Maybe these are alien scars that like to run around on your face. Yeah, I think I'll make a movie about that, "Attack of the Alien Scars that Move Around on Your Face." That villain would be more intimidating than the Skeleton Man, and the film would probably be scarier.
|
negative
|
I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! <br /><br />It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.<br /><br />Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!
|
negative
|
I liked this quite a bit but I have friends that hated this. There's no sex, but there's very little nudity in any of the episodes - which is a good thing. Also, Keitaro has a toilet fixation that's explored in at least half the episodes. (Toilets are way more advanced in Japan.) Hmm, I'm wondering why I rated this so high myself...? It certainly isn't that I like naked cartoon girls. In some ways, Keitaro Oe (the main character) is analogous to Johnny Bravo except instead of being an obnoxious, musclebound jock, Keitaro is a hyperactive nerd. Or you can think of him as Japan's answer to Leisure Suit Larry. He's easier to take if you watch it subtitled rather than dubbed, but he grows on you either way if you give him a chance. He IS the Goldenboy. <br /><br />The formula is the same for each episode. Boy meets girl, boy tries to win girl's heart despite being a dorky pervert, boy somehow succeeds against all odds. Typically, the girl doesn't realize she likes Keitaro until after he's beaten to a pulp and/or pulled off some spectacular stunt like engineering a modern operating system in one week or winning a race against a gasoline-powered motorcycle using his bicycle.<br /><br />Episode #1 features a rich software tycoon. I think animating her boobs put a major dent in the budget because she's the only female that has this kind of animation. She also dresses completely unprofessionally. Most people who rate this negatively probably never got past the first episode.<br /><br />Episode #2 has the rich, young daughter who likes to tease. She's only 16 but that's legal age in Japan (and in some states in the US, I might add). Her father is also a brutal yakuzza type that has a reputation for killing guys interested in his daughter. <br /><br />Girl #3 is the sweet innocent daughter of a noodle shop owner that's mixed up with a bad boyfriend. Aside from Keitaro running interference for the maiden and being kissed by a guy, there's almost no ecchi of any kind in this episode - a sharp drop from the previous two. Nevertheless, Keitaro and the evil boyfriend really pound each other.<br /><br />Episode #4 has Keitaro trying to impress a top-notch swimming coach. Keitaro seems more 'direct' about his intentions with this particular girl than any other... and she's pretty direct in return...<br /><br />Girl #5 is the biker babe. She's probably the most top-heavy of the 6 (although not super-buoyant like girl #1) and 'raciest' in terms of sexuality and vulgarity. This particular episode is easily the most over-the-top in terms of (lack of) realism. Keitaro should have broken every bone in his body at least twice during the race against the biker babe but I think the producers and writers said, "It's just a cartoon! We can do anything!" This lapse in realism makes it a fan favorite.<br /><br />Finally, episode #6 introduces a new girl (that's works in animation) and the previous 5 girls help Keitaro as he tries to cope with impossible time and resource constraints to get an OAV out the door by the deadline. In terms of ecchi, this one's very tame as well, but there's plenty of humor. The ending has all 5 extremely pretty girls from the past team up to hunt Keitaro, who slips away unnoticed, ostensibly with the intention of gang-raping him. Yeah, that -ALMOST- happens in real life. Someone crossed Ukyo Tachibana (ala Samurai Shodown) with Steve Urkel(ala Family Matters)...<br /><br />All in all, there's no middle ground for this. You'll either hate it or love it. If you're new to anime, you probably don't want to start with this. At the same time, if you can stand characters like Happosai (from Ranma 1/2) or Johnny Bravo... or you like comedies that lean more heavily towards silliness but have very sexual overtones, you should give it a shot.
|
positive
|
Wildman head counselor Tripper Harrison (Bill Murray in peak nutty form in his first lead role) presides over the various wacky hi-jinks at North Star summercamp. Tripper befriends sad and lonely misfit kid Rudy (a nice and affecting performance by Chris Makepeace). Director Ivan Reitman relates the amusingly off the wall comic vignettes at a ceaseless snappy pace and maintains an engagingly good-natured tone throughout. This film astutely nails the breezy'n'breezy essence of summer: making friends, first love, pulling pranks, competing in sports with a rival camp, campfire singalongs, and, of course, the inevitable scary urban legend about the escaped psycho killer with the hook hand. The sense of gleefully raucous fun this picture generates is positively infectious. Moreover, the humor is always goofy and occasionally gross, but never too nasty or mean-spirited. Best of all, there's a winning surplus of pure heart to go along with said humor (the warm relationship between Tripper and Rudy in particular is genuinely touching). The cast have an obvious ball playing their likable characters: Murray's gloriously gonzo and galvanizing presence keeps things constantly humming (his crazy PA announcements are absolutely sidesplitting), plus there are sound contributions from Harvey Atkin as hapless camp owner Morty, Kate Lynch as Tripper's sassy old flame Roxanne, Russ Banham as the amiable Crockett, Kristine DeBell as the sweet, foxy A.L., Sarah Torgov as the feisty Candace, Jack Blum as klutzy bespectacled nerd Spaz, Keith Knight as tubby slob Larry Finkelstein, Cindy Girling as the fetching Wendy, and Matt Craven as the hip Hardware. Donald Wilder's cinematography gives the movie an attractive sunny look and makes nifty use of wipes. Elmer Bernstein's lively and melodic score likewise does the trick. A real riot.
|
positive
|
Beyond The Clouds is a hauntingly beautiful, elegiac work of art. The overall softness of the light that this movie is bathed in, makes you want to touch the screen. The autumnal mood conjured up could only been achieved by a director who has seen many summers of experience. Or, to put it another way, an old man. I know of no other movie that captures and uses the softness of light and seasonal mood with such ravishing quality as Beyond The Clouds. Nearly all the people in this film are beautiful, unless your idea of a beautiful woman is a pneumatic blond bimbo, that is. The dialogue doesn't really matter too much, not that there is much of it anyway, and as for storylines, forget it. Some films exist just as visual experiences, this is one of them. Don't bother if you want "simple entertainment",this not for you.<br /><br /> I could enthuse about the visual perfection of this movie for days, but I won't. If you are at all interested in cinematography, photography, film direction etc., watch this film.
|
positive
|
This is a 'sleeper'. It defines Nicholas Cage. The plot is intricate and totally absorbing. The ending will blow you away.<br /><br />See it whenever you have the opportunity.
|
positive
|
I loved this movie and i never knew it was this old it came out the day n year i was born in and now i am 19 now i still love this movie especially the songs like "My Mother" and "Boys and Girls of Rock N Roll" and i remember as a kid i believe i was 5 n my sister was 6 and my cousin (boy) was 6 as well we used to pretend to be the characters in the movie i was Eloner and Janette and my sister was Britany and my cousin was Alvin Simon and Theodore those were good times and i miss it and having this movie reminds me of the good times since my cousin is old for this stuff and so am i and my sis we are not going to forget about the chipmunk and the chipmunk movie i still even remember the songs and the words off by heart even though i haven't seen this movie for 12 years but now starting to love it again ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS AND CHIPETTES <3<3<3<3
|
positive
|
Reba is a very dumb show. You can predict pretty much anything that's about to happen. Barbra Jean is just too stupid. It's like she's not even a character. A show like this should at least have SOMEONE who resembles a real-life person. I guess Barbra Jean represents a retarded person. Keira or whatever her name is, Reba, Brock, they're all stupid! Keira is like the smartest person on the show, and she's still stupid. EVERYONE IS STUPID! That's my opinion on Reba. Since I have said all I can say about this show, I'll just take up the next few lines of text by saying what I am currently saying right now and do it until there's 10 lines. There. Reba gets 2/10.
|
negative
|
Michael Bennett and Nicholas Dante's Broadway show ran for years, but evidence of its power and charisma is lost in this movie adaptation, which most likely stems from the choice of director (Richard Attenborough, as far from B-way as you could get) and lead actor (Michael Douglas, who plays a director-choreographer like a slimy corporate lawyer). The slim story, about a grueling audition for a Broadway show which turns into a therapy session for the actor-dancer-singers, is pushed right up on us, with loud, brassy talents playing to the rafters. Nothing is modulated or subtle, particularly a laughable subplot about a ex-dancer returning to the theater and butting heads with old-flame Douglas. The over-eager hopefuls are filled with promise and heartache, but their personal stories of angst are a little embarrassing; this, matched with Attenborough's sluggish pacing, spells disaster, and even the now-famous songs fail to break through the artificial wrapping. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
Twelve years ago, production stopped on the slasher flick "Hot Blooded" since almost everyone on the set started dying. Now, a couple of film students have decided to finish the film, despite the fact that there's a rumor that the film is cursed. Well, they're about to find out that some curses are real.<br /><br />When Scream was released, every country seemed to want to cash in on its success, even Australia. The concept, which today has been done to death (a slasher film within a slasher film) was at the time relatively cool and original. This movie was released right before Urban Legends: Final Cut and Scream 3 (well not in the US but in Australia) so it felt like the first movie with this concept. When Urban Legends 2 was released, most of us had all ready grown sick of the concept and since the movie wasn't even good, the movie flopped disastrously. Now, Cut is not the best slasher flick ever, and nor does it try to be. It knows that it's a rip-off, and they even cast a girl who looks like a blonde version of Neve Campbell in the starring role. But instead of trying to add some new and original twists to the story, they've decided to rip-off some 80s slasher flicks like "Nightmare on Elm Street" as well and surprisingly enough, this actually works. The killer is very creepy and that mask is just killer! And instead of trying to scare the audience to death, they've created a very good and creepy atmosphere which keeps us in suspense through most of the movie. There are a couple of plot holes in the movie though that I wasn't able to fully ignore, the ending being the biggest plot hole in the movie. Spoiler ahead; I mean, they burnt the only copy of the movie so where the hell did they find the print that they show in the final scene? It makes no sense I tell you. End of spoilers. All in all, Cut is a pretty creepy slasher flick with a silly story but I consider this to be one of the better Scream rip-offs that never made it big. I'm surprised that this one never got a sequel, but I guess it simply came out too late. <br /><br />Suspenseful Australian slasher flick with very few scares. Cut is still a pretty neat slasher movie and I will have to recommend this one even though I consider the story to be quite silly since it's completely ludicrous.
|
positive
|
Body Slam (1987) is a flat out terrible movie. The low budget reeks, the direction is pedestrian (at best) and the writing and acting is lame. But if you're into old school wrestling (circa 1970's through the mid-80') then you'll be more entertained than the average viewer. I have to warn you, this movie stinks on ice. I gave it a two because I felt like being generous. This turkey was "directed" by stunt master Hal Needham. The stars are Roddy Piper, The Tonga Kid and a bunch of scrub wrestlers and c-list actors (Dirk Benedict).<br /><br />The synopsis of this "movie" is about a promoter who wants to combine "hair rock" and wrestling. But their are others that don't want him to succeed. There's more but I don't want to SPOIL it for you. If you can stomach the bad acting and inane storyline, there's a few surprises near the end for die-hard wrestling fans. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy (and I mean it).
|
negative
|
I'd heard a lot of bad things about this film before seeing it, but thought all the negative comments were probably down to the film's low budget and poor acting - both of which I can deal with when it comes to zombie films. However, what I didn't count on is this film being really, really boring; if there's one thing you can count on from low budget zombies, its gore and entertainment - but unfortunately, this film has neither. I'm quite surprised, because the previous two horror films I've seen from director Bob Clark - Deathdream and Black Christmas - were both highly inventive and entertaining films, but Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things just doesn't cut it. The plot line follows a group of young adults that travel to a burial island in order to mess about with rituals to bring the dead back to life. However, they soon learn that playing with things they don't understand is a really stupid idea when their rituals actually bring the dead back to life and the corpses of the island return to feast on their blood!<br /><br />The plots sounds like it could lead to a decent flick, but what I didn't mention is that the interesting parts don't start until the final twenty minutes; and as this is a ninety minute movie, I'm sure you can guess that this isn't a good thing. The opening hour and ten minutes are padded out with poor acting and even worse characters. I can understand setting up a situation so that the horror is more potent once it comes along; but please, if you're going to spend so long on it, you've really got to make it interesting. All of the characters in the film are over the top and annoying, and personally I just wanted the zombies to hurry up and eat them. The film is not without its merits, however, as the atmosphere is a standout. Lucio Fulci would show seven years later how an isolated island and flesh eating zombies can blend well; but Bob Clark already did it with this film. The direction isn't bad either, but it's brought down by poor make-up effects and a distinct lack of blood, which isn't likely to please fans of zombie movies. Overall, I really can't recommend this film; but if you're a hardcore zombie fanatic, you may get a kick out of it.
|
negative
|
Since the advent of literature, people of all nationalities have been fascinated and easily touched by accounts of unhappy love. Even more fascinating have always been the tales of impossible love, love that cannot be. The Israeli filmmaker Eytan Fox' latest film The Bubble" is about that. And then it is also not. The title of the film refers to the bubble" that is Tel-Aviv set against the background of the political realities of Israel. The country's cosmopolitan and unofficial capital city doesn't have much in common with Nablus, a city in the Palestinian West Bank which also features in the film. It doesn't have much in common with the tense and hateful atmosphere at the Palestinian checkpoints. Actually, it doesn't seem to have much in common with anything surrounding it. The bubble" of Tel-Aviv allows people to have a lifestyle which isn't much different from what you may expect in any Western city. Teenage girls looking for Britney Spears' records, a lifestyle magazine editor looking for a sexy cover for his next issue, trendy people sitting in trendy cafes discussing trendy things over cups of cappuccino and other similarly trendy drinks, while those at home are watching the local edition of Pop Idol. It is this bubble" that also has the potential to lull one's mind into a false sense of reality.<br /><br />The film evolves around the lives of three young Israelis who share a flat and, for the most part, try to stay out of politics. Yelli, the camp owner and manager of Orna & Ella", a hip cafe, rarely leaves the city and prefers not to think about the crap that surrounds them". Noam, a soft and easygoing employee of a slightly avantguard record store, seems to be equally unwilling to engage in long political discussions and contemplations. Lulu, the only female of the lot, is on the contrary linked to the Israeli Left, although her political activities seem to be confined to raves against the occupation". Yelli and Noam naturally don't object to participating in these. Lulu and her political friends make t-shirts with the rave's logo, put up posters and hand out booklets advertising it in the neighbourhood. Their main concern seems to be that there are never any actual Palestinians participating and that the police might come and spoil all the fun for them again. The closest they come to an actual confrontation is when they get into a scuffle with some not so Palestinian-friendly locals who try to prevent them from handing out the leaflets. In other words, predictable products of the bubble".<br /><br />The opening scenes of the film take us to a checkpoint on a road to Nablus where we also find Noam doing his reserve duty. A group of Palestinians is being thoroughly checked before entering Israel, among them a pregnant woman who suddenly goes into labour and gives birth to a stillborn child despite the best efforts from Noam and the doctor who eventually arrives in an ambulance. The woman is comforted by a young man who later turns up on Noam's doorstep in Tel-Aviv with his ID which the latter obviously dropped during the ordeal on the border. His name is Ashraf, he's Palestinian and he's gay. And he hasn't just come to hand back the ID, he has come to see Noam. Without a permit to live in Israel and despite the initial hesitation from Noam's flatmates he stays. He soon gets a Jewish name and a job at Yelli's cafe. Having grown up in Jerusalem with Hebrew, he doesn't have an Arabic accent which makes it possible for him and his newly found friends to conceal his identity. The sky is light blue and the air is sweet. But it cannot last. For he has become part of an equation which was never meant to be.<br /><br />At one point, Noam and Ashraf watch a play called Bent about two prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp who have a love relationship which can never become physical or visible to the surrounding guards. They find a way of being together on another level, a metaphysical one, a level where no one else has access. This is also where our couple arrives in the end. And it couldn't have been much different for them, not in today's Israel.<br /><br />The Bubble" is a political statement about the bubble that bursts when confronted with the political realities of today's Israel set against the background of a beautiful and awkward love story involving an Israeli and a Palestinian, the impossible love story in a divided world where no such things as compromise or other colours than black and white exist. The Bubble" is also a beautiful film about people, gay and straight, inhabiting that strange city, Tel-Aviv, shown through the eyes of people who really care about them. The film's premise may have its flaws and the fatal chain of events may seem somewhat construed, but its strong message and emotional impact will not leave you untouched.
|
positive
|
There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.<br /><br />For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.<br /><br />Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.<br /><br />So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.<br /><br />On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.<br /><br />On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.
|
negative
|
I find myself wondering what the people who gave this a 10 saw in it that I didn't. This movie has a VERY hard time following and/or staying to a plot. If someone tells you it's a comedy, don't be fooled, it's about 98% percent odd-drama and 2% comedy. All actors turn in a great performance, that cannot be denied, however it seems like it really lost something somewhere. Don't know if the original script was good and it had to be edited down or what. This had potential, and instead it was really a flop. I would really like the hour and a half I invested in this movie back, but the video rental place doesn't do returns on time. Save your money and see something else.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.