review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I may be a sentimentalist. But i found this movie truly moving. It was the first movie that reduced me to tears. And it did it more than once!! I recommend it to anyone both gay and str8. Religious or not! Supporting co-star Jackie Bisset stole the show, especially with her one liners. The nude scenes were superbly crafted as well, and all in were good taste. Most shocking was the portrayal of the orientation reversal deprogramming instituted by the Mormon church to the lead character. It shocked me that this still goes on in the world. Nevertheless I enjoyed this movie tremendously. This is definitely the best gay film since Torch Song Trilogy. And much better than the other gay movie offering that year - The Fluffer.
|
positive
|
Atmosphere and droll dialog don't redeem this overrated classic. Boyer is a French thief hiding in the Casbah of Algiers while the police try to figure out how to get him out. Meanwhile, he falls for Lamarr and tries to find a way to escape. The film is slow to get started and never really goes anywhere. Reminiscent of Casablanca in some ways, it's completely lacking any larger theme than the wanted man seducing a good woman. It's all talk-talk-talk, with endless scenes of Boyer swaggering among his idiot cohorts and Boyer wooing Lamarr in the shadows. Personally, I didn't care for Boyer's character for a minute, so the tension was utterly nonexistent.<br /><br />Stock 1930s character actors stumble thru the mushy plot as Boyer's henchmen--guys who clearly do not belong in Algiers. Sigrid Gurie is the wildly-overacting jealous girlfriend of Boyer. His brazen womanizing in front of her doesn't bode well for any future he might have with Lamarr.<br /><br />Especially bad is a long sequence in which an underling comes to tell Boyer how another henchman was captured. It sounds exciting... too bad we didn't see it for ourselves. The ending is completely anticlimactic and seems to be remarkable only because it is not a Hollywood happy ending; that doesn't stop it from being sappy.
|
negative
|
This is another of John Travolta's "come back" movies, and if he continues on with characters and movies like this one, his come back will take hold.<br /><br />This is so sweet...sickeningly so if you're not into the romance comedy scene. If you are, this is one innovative RomCom. Every performance (including that of Skippy the Dog) was beautiful, without much more than a trace of the irreverence found in "Dogma." (Although, as movies go, I loved Dogma!)<br /><br />Travolta is not nearly as brash in his performance as the previews would lead you to believe. He is an angel and if you consider yourself to be well read, then you understand that angels were far from perfect. You will not, therefore, be insulted by this film. Even those who are overly sensitive to such things shouldn't be insulted by this work, as Nora went to great lengths to see to it that it was the least abrasive as possible, given the subject matter.<br /><br />I love this, and love it more each time I watch it. It's beautiful and sweet, engaging, and endearing.<br /><br />It rates a 7.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
|
positive
|
Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing.
|
positive
|
I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.<br /><br />Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother
" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.<br /><br />The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.<br /><br />The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.<br /><br />If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.
|
negative
|
Mean-spirited, ugly, nasty retro-action thriller, about a bodyguard who is determined to find (and destroy!), the killers of the girl he was supposed to protect. This film is almost an anachronism in today's politically correct atmosphere. Director Scott doesn't have any desire to apologize for the inherently immorality behind the film's dramatic structure. Scott is either not aware or doesn't care for 30 years of social advances. I really don't think we will see a more violent film any time soon, so you better go and see this one while you can. Despite its relentless grimness, I think the movie is a powerful example of cinema at its most sinister, exploitative, and effective. Scott has a tough thing to sell, but I think I'm a buyer. The extraordinary technical aspects of this film are just too effective for me to ignore. Scott's directorial choices are simply astonishing, and he pulls a great performance out of Denzel Washington. Sensitive souls need to stay away from this one, but I recommended it to those viewers looking for a great, action-filled movie.
|
positive
|
My husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.<br /><br />My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.
|
negative
|
This is the type of film that makes you question your past admiration for a particular director before you stop and remind yourself that there are very few people whose body of work doesn't contain a few clunkers.<br /><br />The casting in Lelouch's films is of utmost importance because he puts the viewer into such intimacy with the characters. The actors have to bring real screen magic to live up to the intensity. Otherwise it is just hollow. <br /><br />None of the actors in this film had any of that screen magic, in my opinion.<br /><br />Jeremy Irons and Patricia Kaas fell far short as the leads. Irons is a talented actor but he was wrong for this part. Lovable rogue didn't suit his strengths. His brand of charm also hit a false note for me here. Iron's persona is too decadence-tinged to fit into a Lelouch love story.<br /><br />Although I would hesitate to pass up any opportunity to hear an English accent, I also think an American actor would have worked better in this role. So many of the songs that Kaas sings are so closely identified with the Americanness of the particular lyricist that it seemed kind of discordant to then have Jeremy Irons playing the love interest -- even though logically it really didn't matter. It still screwed up the flow of the movie somehow. At least for me.<br /><br />Of course, it would have had to have been the right American. I think George Clooney would have been great in the part. And he would have brought the screen magic in spades. Brad Pitt could also have done a really good job delivering his particular combination of charming and edgy.<br /><br />I was also very disappointed with Patricia Kaas. In reading about her, I've learned that she has a hugely successful career as a singer and many fans, so what do I know, but I found her screen presence as a singer very boring. She was actually a much better actress in her speaking scenes than she was a singer in those scenes in which she had to interpret and sell a song. Nothing she sang moved me. She was pleasant but bland.<br /><br />In contrast, someone like Kate Hudson, who is not a professional singer and has only voice-coach French still would have handled this part a million times better. Not to mention all that stunning French talent out there that could have been tapped into. It was wrenching watching Patricia Kaas take up screen space when there are so many charismatic French actresses who could have been cast instead. <br /><br />The music was so important in this film, it could not really work without the music working. And since Kaas delivered so poorly in this respect, the movie never really had a chance.<br /><br />Lelouch sealed the fate of this movie when he cast Patricia Kaas. JMO.
|
negative
|
In 1983 two Bond movies was made, one was the official Bond movie Octopussy starring Roger Moore who starred as James Bond for the first time in Live and Let Die and the other was the unofficial Bond movie Never Say Never Again starring Sean Connery who played the role as James Bond for the first time in Dr. No, that film was also the first 007 James Bond movie to be made. Never Say Never Again is called unofficial because the company that made the other James Bond movies didn't make this one. Never Say Never Again is also a remake of the 1965 007 movie Thunderball, there are several differences in Never Say Never Again that lets you know it wasn't made by EON. One thing is that the opening is different, there's no gun barrel sequence and no pre-credit sequence, another difference is the music score. Some things in this movie does feel like a James Bond movie like the gadgets and cars, plus James Bond always getting it on with the ladies and the film does have an opening credits song. Sean Connery still does a great job playing Bond, the acting from the other stars is also great. <br /><br />Never Say Never Again is a good film that's just has entertaining as the official James Bond films. Check this out. 10/10
|
positive
|
I remember when I first saw this movie, I was in sixth grade when it happened. Before I saw this, i had listened to the original Broadway recording of it, and I really loved it! But when I saw this, I was like, what the heck?! This movie is missing a lot of the songs from the musical for crying out loud! Who decided to do all of that?!<br /><br />I really am a very huge fan of Gene Kelly, but this movie is probably the worst of a musical that he ever did! The movie looked more like a Hollywood set than the beautiful Highlands of Scotland. And who the heck decided to cut all of Meg's songs out of the movie?! <br /><br />I am willing to bet that when they saw this movie, Lerner and Lowe were probably wondering: "Who in the world decided to do this to our masterpiece?" Well they had a right to say that if they did, they were probably mad at the fact that Hollywood turned their great musical into this rather blank movie.<br /><br />Song and acting wise Mr. Kelly, you passed the audition with flying colors, but you are in a movie that is missing a lot of the text.<br /><br />So in short, if you want a good movie based on a musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner, this one isn't it! <br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
Also known as "Stairway to Heaven" in the US. During WWII British Peter Carter's (David Niven) plane is shot down in combat but he survives. He meets and falls in love with lovely June (Kim Hunter). But it seems a mistake was made in Heaven--he should have died! A French spirit comes to get him but he refuses. He is soon to plead his case in front of a Heavenly Tribunal that he should be allowed to live.<br /><br />Sounds ridiculous but this is actually an incredible film. The script is good with the actors playing the roles completely straight-faced and it's beautifully directed--the scenes on Earth are in breath-taking Technicolor (I've never seen such beautiful blue skies) and the scenes in Heaven are in black and white! Niven is a little stiff at times but Hunter is just great (and very beautiful) and Roger Livesey is superb as a doctor trying to help Niven. The imagery throughout is amazing (especially the staircase and during the final trial sequence) and the special effects are truly great (considering the age of the film). There's also a very strange sequence when Niven runs into a totally nude young boy herding sheep! This is an absolutely beautiful, thought provoking film--highly recommended. This remains unknown in the US which is a shame.
|
positive
|
<br /><br />This is without a doubt the funniest comedy of the year. Everybody is brilliant. The acting is superb. You can see that the actors enjoyed making this film. It´s a shame to spoil the film with give aways, so rent it and laugh your ass off.<br /><br />9 - 10.
|
positive
|
This is certainly a quality movie with a classy cast. As far as movies about Carlos the Jackal go, this one beats Bruce Willis' feeble efforts in 'The Jackal' to a bloody pulp, then spits on them. I am a bit surprised that this movie hasn't attracted more votes, something of a 'sleeper' obviously. A pity because this film is definitely worth a watch. It is clever and never dull. See it, 7/10
|
positive
|
The story is quite slow at the beginning except few interesting humour that come along the way but some of the plot still empty.<br /><br />The science on how the kid entered the 21st century is still a mystery except at the end of the movie, we have been shown of how.<br /><br />Other than that, everything looks ok!
|
positive
|
This film is utterly amazing. From the performances of Huppert, Girardot, and Magimel, to Haneke's screenplay and direction there is not a single misstep. The film may put some people off with it's hard sexual subject matter and with it's slower pace, but it really is a masterful piece of cinema... so do not let it's challenging ways keep you away!<br /><br />Powerful, and deserving every award it won in Cannes!
|
positive
|
If you like shoot em up westerns this is a keeper. I thought that the movie was fun to watch and to see folks that I have not seen in a while. I am no expert but I liked the acting. The town and props etc seemed to fit the period and kind of town that you would find out on the frontier. This is not an A western, not enough people and budget. The costumes and firearms were correct for the time! I expect to see the young actors in the film again in the future. Rachel, Chance, Rebekah and Kirby were great. The SASS (Single Action Shooting Society)members that contributed to this effort were pretty darn good. Hope to see more.
|
positive
|
I didn't agree with any of the theology in the Left Behind series, but nonetheless I found the books gripping and I read 8 of 12 of them. Undeniably good writing and interesting story. However, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie. There was no way mainstream Hollywood would have taken up a Christian series and produced a big-budget movie. So it was done independently... and it just felt like I was watching a really long TV show. It just didn't FEEL like a movie; it didn't have that movie "experience" to it, if anybody knows what I'm talking about. So the movie suffered because of that, and the low-budget, poor special effects were another detraction for me.<br /><br />On top of that, I feel that Gordon Currie was woefully miscast as Nicolie Carpathia. Reading the book, my impression of NC was that he was supposed to be this charming, dazzling, amazingly handsome guy who spoke English with almost zero trace of an accent. So I imagined somebody like Pierce Brosnan in the role. Instead, they found some Clay Aiken pencil-neck who looks like an employee of the month from Best Buy, and gave him a really bad fake accent. So that lost a few stars for me right there. A movie is just not convincing when the major villain doesn't look or sound the way he's supposed to.<br /><br />The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about. Some of the scenes - like one of the conversion scenes (can't remember which one) - were real seat-squirmers for me. And some of the Christian rock music or whatever it was, was really out of place for some of the scenes, like in the one with Kirk Cameron praying in the bathroom.<br /><br />In short, it wasn't a bad movie, but it just didn't do it for me. Stick to the book, folks, it's much better.
|
negative
|
this movie is made for Asian/Chinese market, targeting particularly fans of Jay Chou, one of the biggest music star in Asian.<br /><br />Jay Chou is a very talented song writer/singer. He is mediocre as an actor, although he did appear in several big-budget productions ("initial D", "Curse of the Golden Flower "). Amazingly, he won both golden horse (taiwan) and Hong Kong film awards for "initial D".<br /><br />The supporting cast are very well chosen, which appeals basically everyone from China. The cast including many famous movie/TV actors, singers, even sport commentator (Huang Jianxiang from China). However, they were not given enough time to show their talents.<br /><br />The biggest mistake is that Chu took over both director and writer position. He has a reputation of making shallow and brainless movies based off non-coherent scripts. With his poor directing and lam story, the whole talented cast, fancy vision effects and tones of production money was wasted.<br /><br />However, the terrible movie successfully cashed in over 10 million dollars, maybe even more in Asian, which made this one of the biggest box office success in Asian.<br /><br />The bottom line is: you can watch this movie only if you want to see how money and talents are wasted, or if you are simply accompanying your kids who are fans of Jay Chou.
|
negative
|
Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course. <br /><br />Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there. <br /><br />It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time).
|
positive
|
There are many problems with Mystery Men. First of all there are too many different characters for all of them to be given complex or even interesting personalities. The special effects detract from the story and are not really that special. Paul Reubens is wasted in a pathetic, juvenile role as a character who merely farts and speaks in an inaudible accent.<br /><br />Now onto the decent parts. William H Macy, three heavenly words, and his performance as the shoveler is pitch perfect. The sphinx is an exceptionally funny character who is only mysterious and merely spouts out the traditional mystical proverbs. Ben Stiller is very amusing as well, showing a weak character trying to make it into the big leagues of superheroes. All of the characters do, and that is an area which I found particuarly ironic. That is because all of the actors are Indie film actors trying to make it into the big leagues of Hollywood.<br /><br />To be honest, the reason I thought it failed at the box-office is that America doesn't get irony.<br /><br />All in all I loved the film, but I feel it would have worked better if more effort was put into tweaking the script rather than having unneccesary CGI landscapes and effects.
|
positive
|
I am having a hard time finding the words to explain just how much I detested this movie. The historical trial of Henriette Deluzy-Desportes and the Duc de Praslin is a tragic and compelling story that, I feel, had the potential to be a fantastic film, but failed. <br /><br />Although the cinematography certainly had something to say for itself, it in no way could make up for the terrible structure of the film, the badly written script and most of all the horrendously overacted characters. The worst of them were the Duc's children who were so over-the-top-corny and sickeningly fake that it was almost painful to watch.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film left me feeling nothing more than irritated and profoundly disappointed.
|
negative
|
The film is very fast-moving, bizarre and colorful, it's like Mad Max on speed whit tons of colorers and make-up. Also very Cartoonish, as that said; cartoon sequence pops up here and there. The plot is also very saucy, but I'll believe it's meant too be. The thing that really drives me crazy in this movie, is the characters, they are painfully irritating, especially Rebecca played by Lori Petty, she's really annoying (I'll believe she is the most annoying creature I've ever seen). The editing is also annoying, very MTV stylized. Another thing that's missing from Tank Girl is an exciting adventure. The humor isn't much funny either. It has some nice visuals though.<br /><br />However a lot of people love this film, most of them are women, and that's not weird at all, because this movie is all about girl power.. Tank Girl this is a real chick flick, and the best example of an hate/love film.
|
negative
|
This has to be the greatest practical joke ever. I'm amazed that all the other actors kept a straight face. I might be wrong but the impression I get from this movie was that they duped Frank Stallone and Joe Estevez into acting in this movie that has a budget of just under $40, depending on how much those nerf bats and spray painted catcher's equipment cost, create the most incoherent movie ever created, and sit back and laugh at the fact that Joe Estevez and Frank Stallone weren't in on the joke. <br /><br />If by some chance they weren't kidding and they legitimately tried to make a real movie then I feel sorry for everyone involved in the creation. I've had quite a love affair with cheesy movies, but this movie is so bad I can hardly watch it. They repeat pointless "special effects" so many times that it's obvious they were just trying to cover up the fact that they only shot 30 minutes of footage. If I were forced to watch this movie on repeat I would bludgeon myself unconscious with my own hands after about one and a half times through. No offense to the great Frank Stallone, but I would rather watch Sylvester teach a fingerpainting class for 10 hours than watch that movie ever again.
|
negative
|
This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.<br /><br />Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.<br /><br />If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:<br /><br />1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of "charming loser" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.<br /><br />2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.<br /><br />3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an "Ejaculate on the cookie"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.<br /><br />4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.<br /><br />Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked "The Other Sister" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.<br /><br />17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.<br /><br />2 out of 10.
|
negative
|
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have got to be one of the best buddies ever to work together. They have made lots of movies together, i think they are both fantastic when they do work together in a movie. Out to sea is a fantastic comedy movie i think to watch. I give the movie 10 out of 10. Jack lemmon and Walter Matthau will be remembered when the movies they did together will be on tv. They will be sadly missed. God bless you both.
|
positive
|
This is one of those films that makes you want the time you spent watching it back, and then some, like the time you spent accidentally picking it out, the time you spent getting to the video store, etc.<br /><br />First off, the look: It's grainy, it's low budget. Now that in itself doesn't make for a bad film. But the way it was filmed makes the action look unnatural, so that's kind of distracting.<br /><br />Then, the story. 3 gals go on a gal's weekend away from guys. Of course, as EVERYONE does when going on a camping trip, they stop on the way to get earrings. When they arrive at the area in which they're going to stay, they get pulled over by Mr. Ranger Sir, who scolds them for throwing a lit cigarette out of the car at fire season, and then drives them where they're going (a remote cabin). Of course, 2 "cute guys" wander into their vicinity, and Bambi (yes, Bambi) and Aubry are immediately smitten, but apparently Bambi is smitten by anything with two legs. Mady is rather disappointed by this development because she was looking forward to a weekend of forgetting about her ex by getting sh**-faced and stoned with her gal-pals.<br /><br />Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a mean old hermit that lives up that way, that's perhaps someone to not tangle with, and the area & cabin in which they're staying have a sort of "reputation".<br /><br />So of course, sooner or later (unfortunately, MUCH later) some of our weekend wood-visitors begin to die, and find various booby traps (although a couple of them actually hit a little lower than that) and of course, the remaining campers are understandably upset. No cell phone reception of course (who would miss out on a chance to check their cell phone for reception in a movie anymore?). Mr. Ranger Sir keeps popping up at odd times & his behavior seems a bit odd but he has said he will get help.<br /><br />There's a fantastic twist to this that you just won't want to miss too, if you're still awake. Pray that you wake up to a blank screen.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, the production values are terrible, and the whole undertaking is just lame & I find it amazing this was even released. Avoid at all costs, 1 out of 10.
|
negative
|
This movie is surprisingly good. The ninja fighting sequences were unbelievable. I haven't see all Sho Kosugi's films but this is probably the best of those I've seen. Probably the most impressive fighting sequence was at the beginning when ninja killed about 20 people, that was one of the most impressive ninja fighting sequences I've ever seen. Another good fighting sequence was at a cops funeral where the ninja provide more people to bury. The last fight was also very impressive. Also I kinda liked the soundtrack of this movie. The story was good enough for a ninja-movie, actually it was kinda different from other ninja-movies. So if you are a fan of ninja-movies, you'll probably like this one.
|
positive
|
Let me start out with saying I was VERY surprised with the production value of this movie. I managed to catch an early showing and I have to Say this is the BEST (if not only) Christian film to hit theaters since The Passion.<br /><br />Don't let the PG-13 rating scare you off, the rating is appropriate because of the serious issues that are dealt with in this film (divorce, teen pregnancy, drug use, and suicide), but nothing in the film is gratuitous. This is definitely a movie that a Junior High youth group could see without upsetting (most) parents, and the message is wonderful. The best part is this is not a film FOR Christians, it is a Family film without the cheesy 7th Heaven feel.<br /><br />The laughs are there, and several times in the theater everyone was laughing, the bits of humor were natural and didn't seem scripted or forced, and that made for good pacing in such a serious film. Teens and young adult, both religious and otherwise, will be able to identify with many if not all of the characters in the film, and I was surprised to see such issues dealt with in this kind of film. The plot is not in any way predictable, and by the end hits closer to home than many will admit. Christians, fortunately, are not shown as all mighty know it all's of "The Word", but instead people just trying to understand life. Humans make mistakes and no one is perfect, not even in this film... not by a long shot.<br /><br />The acting is top notch, the writing spot on, and you aren't hit over the head with all the preachy Christian rhetoric. This is a great film that will make you and your teens think, talk, and perhaps question their own morality (or lack thereof). If you want to see a quality family film in January check your local listings for this film, and you might learn something about yourself.<br /><br />And I am a 25 year old male that just wanted to see a free movie.
|
positive
|
There are rumours that a fourth Underworld is going to happen. If so, than the third part, which is also a prequel, would be in the middle of the franchise. With prequels that succeed the original movies, you always ask yourself in what order should you watch the movies, so that it makes sense ...<br /><br />In this case, I guess it doesn't matter that much. The third Underworld movie isn't up to par with the other two. They had their obvious flaws too, but this one lacks a few things and it feels like a cash in. It seems like it's not going full throttle, which is a shame, because the actors sure could've used better material to work with.<br /><br />The story is OK, but it's nothing special. A nice movie, but Rhona Mitra couldn't fill the shoes of Beckinsale (yes she plays another character, I mean the void, that Kate B. left) ...
|
negative
|
It is the first time I can recall where an adaptation did exactly like the book... In fact, only jokes were added to the story rather than content blended or removed!<br /><br />Such as the Egyptian slave Cellularis who had difficulty transmitting, um, communicating, LOL! Or when Tidivinnus was played like a quasi-Sith Lord and got annoyed when the Roman Empire endured a blow, the general ordered for the Empire to..? Ah, watch the movie folks!<br /><br />I can easily believe that this picture was one of the most expensive in French Cinema History and for my part it was worth it, Depardieux was excellent as the Roman bashing and Boar chomping Obelix. Clavier playing the little indomitable Gaul was perfect and a far cry from his days as the bumbling squire of Jean Reno in "Just Visiting."<br /><br />The fight-scene between Artifis and Edifis was hilarious and was nice to see the Matrix theme was not borrowed to despoil an otherwise perfect battle!<br /><br />Redbeard the pirate and his crew almost stole the picture, from scuttling their own ship to being the engine for Otis' (Edifis' Assistant) invention used at the very end.<br /><br />I understand there's Asterix and the Olympics with many of the same team back, by Toutatis, I plan to view that too!
|
positive
|
Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.<br /><br />Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.<br /><br />Terrific
|
positive
|
I managed to catch a late night double feature last night of "Before Sunrise" (1995) and "Before Sunset" (2004), and saw both films in a row, without really having the chance to catch my breath in between or ponder on the meaning of each film separately. After sleeping it over, I have to say that I largely prefer the former over the latter, and I shall explain why.<br /><br />Before Sunrise introduces us with then young actors, Ethan Hawke (Reality Bites, Dead Poets Society), only 25 at the time of the film's release; and Julie Delpy (the Three Colors trilogy), then 26 (although looking much younger). He is a promiscuous American writer, touring Europe after breaking up with his girlfriend; She is a young French student, on her way home to Paris. They meet on the Budapest-Vienna train and spontaneously decide to get off the train together. The two deeply spiritual and intellectual individuals than spend a whole night together walking the beautifully captured streets of Vienna, exchanging ideals and thoughts and gradually falling on love.<br /><br />The film has 1990's written all over it: back then, technology was leaping rapidly, the new millennium with all it's hopes and dreams was waiting just around the corner, and young adults like the ones depicted in the film were filled with love of life and passion for the future. The characters of Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy), with all their flaws and inconsistencies (Celine's accent, if by mistake or on purpose, was half American-half French, and it swinged from one spectrum to the other, breaking the character's credibility), were a mirror of the time. Watching the naive couple swallow life with such meaning and excitement, acting all clichéd and romantic yet managing to have the audience fall for them as well, is what really made this movie work for me. The fact that the director doesn't let you know if their relationship continues after the film or not makes it all even more worth while.<br /><br />All in all, Sunrise is a dreamy stroll through the urban landscapes of Vienna, a well told classical romantic rendezvous, and a film I will definitely return to for further insight sometime in the future.
|
positive
|
First of all I would like to point out that this film has absolutely nothing to see with the Dutch folklore story of the ghost ship that is also called THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. In this film, you will not see a single sailing boat. You will not see sailors, ghosts, or anything remotely exciting. It is not the story of the ghost ship, and I wish they had notified it in the main credits or I wouldn't have watched it, because I really thought it was the film about the legend. It seems many people think the film has to do with the legend of the ghost ship, since the film is listed on the Wikipedia page for the "Flying Dutchman" legend... I don't understand why. It is maybe based on the resembling legend called "The Wandering Jew"? Or maybe did they just adapt the worst parts of the legend? The film begins with a fight sequence that would let anyone hope the film will have battle scenes. Unfortunately, it is the only battle scene of the film. Then you see Daniel Emilfork (who was Krank in City of Lost Children) for about two seconds, and that would let anyone hope the film will have good acting. Unfortunately he is very bad in the film. The same thing can be said about Italian actor Nino Manfredi, who was one of Italia's best actors ever, and who here is condemned to embody a crazy bird wrangler with no back story whose only purpose is to seem to be the "wise man" of the film. And boy, does that film need wiseness! Every other character of the story seems to enjoy swimming in excrement, yelling, torturing others (in excrement), fornicating (in excrement) or laying in excrement some more just for the fun of it. It seems to be such fun that each character of the story gets to have his or her turn being dumped in feces at a point or another. Coming from a Dutch director, you might think that extreme dirtiness and shockingly real filth are necessary elements in a period piece, elements which contributed to make Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven's film, "Flesh + Blood", such a great film. The thought of "Flesh + Blood" would let anyone hope that a film similarly filthy and visually straight-forward would be good. Unfortunately, and unlike "Flesh + Blood", there is no dramatic progression, no fights, no good acting, and put simply, no "Flesh and Blood". The photography, as the opening sequence unfolds, is well-done and enticing. This too, stops very early in the film. The music, from Nicola Piovani (of "La vità e bella" fame) is repetitive and annoying, when not irrelevant (it sometimes implies that there is grandeur in a sequence, while on screen the actors are splashing in liquid dung). Throughout the first "act" of the film, which lasts nothing less than an hour (!), the film takes place within the same perimeter, which is around the farm where the main characters live. The characters play with excrement a lot, drown in it, play in it. A long period of time elapses through numerous ellipses to allows the main character, a young boy who loves to play in excrement, to become older and play in excrement some more. The bird-man talks a lot to say foolish things in Italian. Spanish conquistadors speak French. Nothing makes sense. Everything is confused and takes hours to happen. Then there is a second act called "the Ship", in which we see what might have been a ship, a long time ago, but which is now remains of a ship (covered with excrement did I mention?). The main character, while walking a bit further away from the farm, just happens to run into it, and decides it's really cool so let's live in it. The hunchback who lived in it before is trying to kill him, but he doesn't really mind because (did I mention?) he's not very bright. He thinks the ship can navigate and hopes to sail on it, until more conquistadors show up (at least they seemed to be conquistadors because of the Don Quixote style hats but as I've said it's really confused who's who), make the Dutchman a prisoner, along with the retarded hunchback, and they burn the ship to the ground. The last part of the film, which is really hard to bear for the spectator because it just consists of even more excrement with even more retarded middle-age peasants fighting in it, takes place in a mad asylum. Yet more torture and drowning each other with feces. Yet more loitering for the director, who seems to have definitely given up on his job, or passed onto the second crew camera assistant to do the rest of the job. In the end, a lot of the mentally-challenged new "friends" that the Dutchman made die. The woman he had sex with who was his brother's wife to begin with tries to have him meet his son. The Dutchman and his son talk. The film ends after two hours of dungy images and calamitous acting and technical performances. Then the credits roll and the spectator fells immensely free from having to watch atrocious films with no plot that pretend to be something exciting like fantasy films based on legends, while they are nothing but a mere catalog of how full of excrement some films can get when they don't have enough financing powers to put battles instead or even horses.
|
negative
|
This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.
|
positive
|
The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.
|
negative
|
Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3
|
negative
|
I tend to like character-driven films. I also think Hope Davis turns in consistently good work, so I had high hopes for this movie. Those hopes were soon dashed.<br /><br />The main flaw with this movie is the direction. There are a lot of scenes that are daydream sequences. The movie makes frequent use of the Denis Leary character as the alter ego of the Campbell Scott character. It doesn't work for me at all. This would have worked better as a play than a movie.<br /><br />There are problems with the plot as well. It is important that the characters in a movie take a journey and end up in a place different from where they started. I didn't feel that the characters grew in the experiences portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Finally, the editing wasn't well done, either. There was a very big sag in the middle of the movie that was exceptionally boring.<br /><br />Except for acting, which I felt was consistently strong, this movie failed in almost every aspect of cinema.
|
negative
|
Pitch Black is a survival story. It's about how to survive in an hostile, alien world against even more hostile enemies. The task gets even more difficult when the nearest enemies can be found within your own surviving group.<br /><br />The plot of Pitch Black is quite usual and has been seen several times before in different variations. But what makes this movie shine above others, is it's well-written characters.<br /><br />The group consists of very different people with few more interesting than the others: Jack, a boy with a secret; Fry, a pilot having hard time with her own conscience; Johns, a bounty- hunter with a drug-habit; Imam, a holy man facing the fact that God is sometimes cruel and Riddick, a convict and a murderer learning to value others, not only himself. Characters start to live in the movie. They aren't only paper like in many other movies of this genre. You start to care for the characters, especially for Riddick though that feels quite odd. He is supposed to be the bad guy. In this movie, the line between light and pitch black is very thin. All characters are familiar with both.<br /><br />Other thing that works in this movie is the casting. Rarely do actors fit to their roles this well. Radha Mitchell is suitable for Fry. Cole Hauser brings the right amount of cruelness and sense of responsibility for Johns. But the most impressive work is done by Vin Diesel. He does great job as Riddick. In his hands Riddick is quite creepy, definitely very dangerous and also deep character, just as he is supposed to be.<br /><br />So, how do you survive in Pitch Black? Keep your friends close and enemies even closer.
|
positive
|
If you're a layman interested in quantum theory and string theory, read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene of Columbia University, and "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge.<br /><br />Recipe for #$*!:<br /><br />3 parts bombastic New Age pontificator, 2 parts pseudoscientist, 2 parts real scientist<br /><br />Mix together until ingredients are indistinguishable from each other and spread on celluloid thin enough that there is no discernible substance.<br /><br />Serving suggestion: barf bags.
|
negative
|
I love bad movies: Showgirls, Plan 9 from Outerspace, so on. And this movie fits right in. Don't believe anyone who tells you this is good film. It's downright awful. Tim Curry's accent moves from German to Portuguese to Hungarian. There's a person in a gorilla suit who is supposed to be able to communicate using a glove that interprets the ape's sign language. There is a scene with a killer hippo that moves around a river like a Great White Shark. There are people hopping up and down Mt. Kilimanjaro as if there were escalators installed on it. This thing is laughably ridiculous. So ridiculous I was rolling on the floor. It is totally implausible. I loved every minute of it.
|
negative
|
Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment is without a doubt ***** stars on first view, its a raw realistic creepy and disturbing look into the dark side of human nature. This movie gets right to the point, you may be thinking what point? The point is to satisfy fan's of just extreme violence and gore. This movie has some gore, more or less just torturing a women violently. There are really only 3 scene's that could be considered gore. I'll tell you one thing though Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment makes Hostile look like Sesame Street. If you thought Hostile was a crazy brutal disturbing torture flick then you ain't seen the half of it until you've seen Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment.<br /><br />Movie Rating 0-5, Gore 0-10<br /><br />Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment (Uncut) ***** (7)
|
positive
|
Here's a spoof that's guaranteed to entertain folks in the IQ range of Homer Simpson. It's a cheap shot at every great Superhero, notably Spiderman and Batman. But it doesn't end there; it gets progressively worse until it disintegrates into a pathetic ensemble of slapstick trollop by the truckload.<br /><br />For those interested in the plot, you've only to watch Spiderman while under the influence of some heavy narcotic. What you get is Dragonfly Man a boy wonder, who loves the girl next door, suddenly inheriting some stupendous super-powers.<br /><br />The rest of the script is as predictable as waking up in the morning and brushing your teeth, but don't' take my word for it! For kids, this is somewhat amusing; for adults it's a great film to drop the kids off for.
|
negative
|
This is one of the most anti-traditional war movies about was I have seen. Instead of the typical films that stress glory and perhaps super-human characters (like John Wayne), this film is the exact opposite--stressing the de-humanization that ALSO happens in war. The story concerns the Japanese who are stranded in the Phillipines after the US returned in late 1944-early 1945. By the time the movie begins, the Japanese have clearly been beaten but because of the insane logic of Bushido, they cannot allow themselves to consider surrender. At one of many poignant moments, the lead character is told at the beginning of the film to report to the hospital since he isn't capable of fighting due to his TB. The problem is that the hospital won't accept him, so his commander tells him to once again go to the hospital--and if they won't accept him he should blow himself up with a grenade! Well, this happens just in the first five minutes of the movie--a lot worse things befall this soldier and the few stragglers because they won't surrender. Plus, there is a case in the movie where a soldier DOES try to surrender but is gunned down. This happened a lot later in the war because so often the surrendering Japanese soldiers booby-trapped themselves to blow up when they came near. In addition, the film shows the most vivid depiction of starvation and the accompanying madness of any film I have seen. In addition, cannibalism, cowardice and betrayal all accompany this very gritty, realistic and depressingly realistic film. You simply couldn't have made a better film of this type. Horrible but great.
|
positive
|
This wonderful 3 part BBC production is one of the sweetest love stories that I have seen in a while. The actresses display a very high level of talent, especially Rachael Stirling as Nan Astley. She is funny, seductive and cute. The love making scenes and the close up kisses are very erotic regardless of one's sexual preference. <br /><br />The characters are well defined and very believable. I guess this is a by-product of a good adaptation from a well written novel.<br /><br />A truly remarkable well paced drama that picks up speed quickly after a couple of boring (but necessary) scenes in the beginning.<br /><br />My vote: 9/10
|
positive
|
Do you know when you look at your collection of old, videotaped movies, and realize that there are some that you've only seen once or twice, and you can't remember if they're worth the time it takes to see them? The Alibi is/was one of those films; I found it, not long ago, and decided I might as well give it a chance. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with my decision... on one hand, the film is really, really bad, on the other, now I have another free tape... yeah, you get it. The plot is predictable and not in any way original. The pacing is bad. The acting is bad, but that's not really surprising, seeing as the two leads are former soap-opera stars... they're used to overact. The characters are poorly written clichés. The film even manages to screw up the easiest damn way to impress me(through film): court scenes. Even those don't elicit one single emotion for or against any of the cardboard-thin characters. The film just has no real redeeming qualities whatsoever... even the dialog is bad. The thing is, it's so full of clichés that it's laughable. And that's the one thing that lifts this above a rating of 1/10: the(albeit unintentionally so) comic relief of the many clichés and stereotypes. I didn't pay very much attention to the film, but just about every time I looked at the screen, there was something to laugh at. One final note: I considered using the line "Tori Spelling can't act" as a one line summary, but I guess everyone knows that, so I opted for the current one, seeing as it's more informative. All in all, a thoroughly bad film, but not the worst if you've got nothing else to do and if it's on TV. Good for a few laughs, if you can sit through it. 3/10
|
negative
|
I really enjoyed this movie. Typically Ron Howard who seems to like being associated with Michael Keaton. Love the scene when Hunt travels to Japan with his sales pitch. Whoa, how did that get in there ! Cheap laughs but great value
|
positive
|
I've been on a bad run of films. This is a clinker about an arson plot and a psychopath. Tom Skerrit, whom I really enjoy, was pretty young here. He is a builder with a passion, but he has a partner whose profit motive includes over-insuring and burning. Into the mix comes an agent, who is drowned, his daughter, and her nut-case boyfriend. James Mason plays the insurance investigator. Any idiot, given a little warning, would know something was rotten in the nation of Australia. Still, they bumble their way. The most interesting thing to me was that the huge hotel that was going to be built, never got beyond being a bunch of sticks. Low budget, I guess. The plot could have been interesting. Maybe they should have hired a film editor (the did?). Half the time you don't know where the characters are, but I guarantee a five million dollar payoff would have probably made a close watch on the structure mandatory. It doesn't work. Although there is lots of neat fire.
|
negative
|
I've just watched this with my three children - 12yrs (boy), 10yrs (boy) and 8yrs (girl) and this film was good old fashioned family action adventure. Although definitely aimed at the kid market (I'd say 5 to 13)it was certainly watchable and as a parent it is a pleasure to find a movie that appeals to a broad range of ages whilst still being suitable for the whole family to watch - particularly younger children.<br /><br />The story revolves around Ricky, a bit of a nerd with a vivid imagination (this can definitely be seen in his daydream sequences) who foils a kidnapping and major art theft while on on-board a flight to Washington for a school trip. Ricky's dad is an airplane mechanic, so Ricky not only knows the structure of the aircraft inside out but is also a top-gun on his computer flight simulator. This comes in handy when the pilot and co-pilot are out cold through a series of misadventures and there is no-one left to fly the plane. I don't want to give away any more of the plot.
|
positive
|
This is a wonderful film as a film - it gets an 8 out of 10. As a filmed piece of accurate history...one wishes to be more loving, but it is a 5 out of 10. And I think I am actually being very charitable.<br /><br />What was he like - that man of horse and saber who was the youngest "boy" general in the Union Army of the American Civil War, and ended dying with all his command in the greatest military victory of the North American Indian tribes? Opinionated, militant, bumptious, bloody-handed, ambitious, clever, too-clever, Indian-foe, Indian-friend(?), and national hero. His death in 1876 was treated as a national tragedy and pushed him into a position of fame equal to Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant/Lee, and Sherman/Jackson. It is only with a growing awareness of the mistakes made in his career - the overly ambitious hot-spur, that his reputation declined. Yet to this day, George Armstrong Custer remains the best recalled figure in our history's military annals to lose his last battle (I can't really think of a similar one - maybe General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, forced to stay with his men on the Bataan Death March - but Wainwright survived the March and the Second World War). <br /><br />Custer has appeared in more films than far better generals, due to the Western adventures and Little Big Horn. Pity that the details of the real career were never handled so lovingly as Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn handled them in this film. But even in 1941 the legend was still potent. Olivia De Haviland portrayed Libby Custer, who was recently pointed out in another film review on this thread survived George until 1933, so her effective handling of the story was still in place eight years later. Custer was seen as our wayward but brave knight errant, and with the shadow of World War II looming closer we had to keep the myth and bury the truth. John Ford would have fully understood this and approved it.<br /><br />So we get the view that he was a hot-spur, but he was patriotic. Although almost pushed out of West Point by demerits (which was true), Custer was in the class of 1861, and it would have been really stupid to be picky about such a fighter that year. You see, most of the so-called military talent from West Point (from Robert E. Lee down) was southern, and joined the Confederacy. The Union needed every northern "Point" man they could find.<br /><br />Custer's Civil War career should be given closer study - he was attached to the staff of General - In - Chief George B. McClellan, and distinguished himself in the Peninsula Campaign and other eastern front warfare. But he was a cavalryman - and he would rise under the watchful eyes of Grant and Sherman's buddy Phil Sheridan in the latter parts of the war. In particular he served with dash and distinction at the battle of Cedar Creek, which ended the threat of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley. It also hit Custer hard on a personal level (his close West Point friend, Stephen Ramseur, joined the Confederacy and rose to a position like Custer - mortally wounded, Custer sat with Ramseur all through the latter's last night alive).<br /><br />Following the war things fell apart. He wanted to make his brevet - Major Generalship permanent (it wasn't, as it was a battlefield promotion). They only had a Lt. Colonelship to give him in the shrunken army along the frontier. He tried to play politics, making the error of supporting President Andrew Johnson on a political trip in 1866, and finding most Northerners hated Johnson as an inept idiot. He supposedly admired the Indians (he certainly was eloquent in writing of them and the West), but he caused a genuine military massacre in 1868 of Indian women and children that ended with a court martial. Later, during the 1870s he would support Indian claims against a ring of politicians (that went up to the Secretary of War, William Belknap) who bought and sold Indian trading posts for profit. It ruined Belknap, and left a black eye on the Grant Administration. It put him into the doghouse with Grant and Sherman (who was Belknap's former commander), and Sheridan barely saved his career. Then he was sent on the final Big Horn Campaign. And immortality arrived.<br /><br />That career is worth a real film, but would it be too critical? Should we hold a man of the 1850s - 1876 to the standards of 2007? Would we like that done to us in a hundred years? Certainly it could happen, but I'm not sure we'd like it.<br /><br />Custer (1941 style) fit Flynn like a glove, with his giving the closest to a "dance" performance in any of his major films. His final movie with Olivia De Haviland is underlined with a melancholy due to the fate of the hero's character. In support actors like Sidney Greenstreet, Stanley Ridges, Arthur Kennedy and Anthony Quinn did very nicely as friends, foes, or even treacherous sneaks (Kennedy). As an entertaining piece of myth making it remains high - but as a study of a complex military hero it is not what it should be.
|
positive
|
As a fan of old warner brothers gangster movies i had to check this out,its the 2nd best movie in the adventure classics DVD set that also had one of my favorite movies;Scott of the Antarctic on it.this was made in 1939 a good year for a lot of warner brothers movies,it boasts a great cast;John Garfield,Claude Rains,Ann Sheridan,and the dead end kids,who would be later known as the Bowery boys at monogram pictures. well a boxer(Garfield)gets framed for a murder he did'nt commit and is on the run and being tailed by a tough new york detective(Claude Rains) he ends up at a fruit picking place run by a pretty woman(Gloria Dickson)and the dead end kids(Huntz Hall,Leo Gorcey,Benard Punsley, Billy Halop,Bobby Jordan,Gabreil Dell)he later returns to boxing but tries to keep a low profile.this was directed by famed director Busby Berkley who directed timeless classics like 42nd street,goldiggers of 1933,and 35,footlight parade and many others.i would like to give a shout out to platinum DVD/video for putting out a lot of good budget priced DVD's like adventure classics(see my Scott of the Antarctic review)i give they made me a criminal 10 out of 10,great movie. ill have to point out that i have only seen 2 john Garfield movies,this one and body and soul.i thought he was a very good actor.
|
positive
|
"Cry Freedom" is not just a movie. It is a historical account, heroic story, and insight into the cultural background of a major event in history. Not only does Denzel Washington do a terrific job of impersonating a motivating, determined hero, Steve Biko, but he delivers a message to the public about the horrors of South Arfrican Apartheid. The story of Biko, an influential leader, and his main "influencee", Donald Woods, is a heartbreaking one. But, the ultimate success of his life can go beyond the atrocities committed in South Africa. "Cry Freedom" manages to communicate to its audience the optimistic aspect of the seemingly disturbing plot. It is because of great films like this one, that the public can become educated on terrible events in history, great leaders who sought to end them, and how we can never allow them to happen in the future. Because of this importance, "Cry Freedom" is an amazing film that should be seen by all.
|
positive
|
A Christmas Together actually came before my time, but I've been raised on John Denver and the songs from this special were always my family's Christmas music. For years we had a crackling cassette made from a record that meant it was Christmas. A few years ago, I was finally able to track down a video of it on Ebay, so after listening to all the music for some 21 years, I got to see John and the Muppets in action for myself. If you ever get the chance, it's a lot of fun--great music, heart-warming and cheesy. It's also interesting to see the 70's versions of the Muppets and compare them to their newer versions today. I believe Denver actually took some heat for doing a show like this--I guess normally performers don't compromise their images by doing sing-a-longs with the Muppets, but I'm glad he did. Even if you can't track down the video, the soundtrack is worth it too. It has some Muppified traditional favorites, but also some original Denver tunes as well.
|
positive
|
If you suffer from insomnia then Radiant would be the best way to send you into a 7-year coma. The film is so preposterously overwrought and mundane that it's hard to imagine that director Steve Mahone could overlook such obvious dullness.<br /><br />The story has an exiled Doctor (who we never get to see) move out into the desert to create a vaccine that will cure all diseases by filling the hosts full of antibodies that can combat any infection (yes, just like that episode of Futurama). The vaccines don't work and the human guinea pigs become infected with a virus that kills within 48 hours.<br /><br />Not wanting to be caught by the Government guys in masks the group head into the desert for cover, hoping that the sunshine will kill the virus. All of this is narrated by Michael, the only one of the quartet immune to the infection. And it's the most boring narration ever. They could have cast someone with an interesting voice but instead we get someone with less vocal personality than Clive Owen.<br /><br />On top of this the editor insists on fade-cutting more than half the movie, giving it a weird dream-like feel and increasing the audiences desire to go to sleep. It's no surprise that half of the audience walked out of this, I was not one of them for some reason. But I bloody well should have.<br /><br />The ending is supposed to be shocking and clever and foreboding. But it's plain and simply not. A relief yes, but not dramatic in the slightest.<br /><br />The utter cheapness of this production and muffled sound that renders a lot of the dialogue unintelligible cripples what could have been an interesting sci-fi story if it had better actors, cooler locations and a sense of urgency. As it is, Radiant is a snoozefest.
|
negative
|
There are two ways to regard 'Head'. Either it is a dazzling, mind-blowing collage of music, old film clips, psychedelia and T.V. sitcom-style comedy, or a plot less, pretentious, rambling mess. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. It is also one of the best movies of all time.<br /><br />'The Monkees' - Davy Jones, Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz, and Mike Nesmith - had just finished their hit series, and wanted to do a movie. In collaboration with writer Jack Nicholson and director Bob Rafelson, they made 'Head'.<br /><br />It begins at a bridge opening ceremony in San Francisco, where the Monkees gate crash the proceedings. Mickey jumps over the safety rail, plunging hundreds of feet into the water. Mermaids rescue him to the accompaniment of a gorgeous Jerry Goffin & Carole King composition called 'The Porpoise Song' and visuals that make the Stargate finale of '2001' look drab by comparison. By now you will either have switched off in puzzled disgust or be completely captivated.<br /><br />More bizarre happenings unfold; Mickey uses a tank to destroy a Coca-Cola machine in the middle of the desert; the entire Italian Army surrenders to him; the group are hired to play to play the dandruff in Victor Mature's hair for a television commercial; an overweight waitress insults the group, describing them as 'God's gift to the eight year old's'; a surprise birthday party for Mike goes wrong; the group are sucked into a vacuum cleaner, and to cap it all, are driven away inside a giant glass tank.<br /><br />You will either hate this or love it. I found it a refreshing change from mindless pop musicals of the 'let's do the show right here' variety. The songs are good too; 'Daddy's Song' is superbly choreographed by Toni Basil ( later to appear in Rafelson's 'Easy Rider' ) and boasts wonderful editing, with Davy's clothes changing colour at lightning speed. 'As We Go Along' is a lovely Goffin & King number whose accompanying images carry a strong environmentalist message.<br /><br />Frank Zappa, Annette Funicello are just two of the guest stars to crop up. Did Victor Mature read the script before agreeing to do this, one wonders? He's hilarious in it though.<br /><br />So mad there just has to be real genius behind it, 'Head' is a little '60's gem and one worth revisiting time and time again. Shame it did not find an audience at the time. If only 'Spiceworld' had been like this!
|
positive
|
Pun intended. This low budget action/horror vehicle for Don Wilson's ability to kick things is the stuff direct-to-video fare is made of.<br /><br />The plot: Wilson is a humorless vampire hunter who comes under fire from local law enforcement after he is forced to slaughter creatures of the night in view of the public. Police chase him, vampires chase him, he responds by kicking...a lot.<br /><br />There is a little more to the story, but it is so inconsequential that I honestly can't remember it; I think people actually spoke in the movie, but that's up to debate. The plot is nothing more than a set-up for Wilson to kill as many vampires as possible in the running time, usually by kicking them.<br /><br />The technical specs are, in a word, anemic. Little color treating, amateurish use of lighting, simplistic use of camera and angle. Blood and gore is noticeably limited, odd for this type of film. The most hurtful of the filming foul-ups is the jarring shift to super-shaky cam during each and every fight scene. If the camera begins to bounce around like a reese monkey on speed, then you know Don is about to start kicking everything in sight.<br /><br />All in all, this is the kind of bad movie that can be made good with a few friends and a lot of cynical humor. Otherwise, do not watch, unless you really like to watch things get kicked.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
A fun filled romp, full of silly if not sometimes cruel jokes. Not the best of movies, but definitely well worth watching. David Niven and Stewart Granger are their usual charming selves with Granger as an especially delightful and ingenious gentleman. Ava Gardner as wonderful as always, with such a delightful character that is absolutely iresistable. The story line is typical, but full of jocular surprises, especially concerning the unconventional relationships between Granger, Gardner and Niven.
|
positive
|
Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies. <br /><br />In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following). <br /><br />Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".<br /><br />Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film. <br /><br />After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).<br /><br />You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.<br /><br />So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!
|
negative
|
#1 Vampires vs. Humans<br /><br />#2 Military-reject roughneck squad as first responders to dangerous, unknown Vampire incursions.<br /><br />#3 Sexy female Vampire on the side of the "good guys".<br /><br />#4 Plenty of gore and action.<br /><br />There are four (4) major plot devices that may help you decide if you want to watch this movie. If you want all four, then the next plot device may not deter you...<br /><br />#5 In outer space.<br /><br />That last one almost got me too, but I'm glad I watched. In a pile of terrible direct-to-video horror that is the Sci-Fi channel Halloween marathon... this movie is a breath of fresh air. It will stand-up against any of the other Sci-Fi channel offerings, and even against the other Vampire movie Natassia starred in (who keeps giving Uwe Boll money?).
|
negative
|
"D.O.A." is a non-thrilling thriller from directors Rocky Morton and Annabel<br /><br />Jankel. The acting is okay and the screenplay is pretty bad. This movie also has some moments which will make you laugh at how stupid the scenes of violence<br /><br />are. For example, someone is shot near a window. We then see from outside<br /><br />the building what looks like that person jumped. I laughed my head off when this happened. This movie tries hard, but ultimately fails. Only watch this movie<br /><br />when you have no other choice.<br /><br />My Critique: **<br /><br />Rating: [R]<br /><br />Rating Reasons: Violence and language.*<br /><br />*There was no rating reason available due to its age.
|
negative
|
Anarchy and lawlessness reign supreme in the podunk hick hamlet of Elk Hills. The town elders deputize tough, cagey Vietnam veteran Aaron (a wonderfully robust and engaging performance by Kris Kristofferson) and several of his fellow vet buddies to clean up the place. The plan goes sour when Aaron and his cruel cronies decide to take over Elk Hills after they get rid of all the bad elements. It's up to Aaron's decent do-gooder brother Ben (amiably played by Jan-Michael Vincent) to put a stop to him before things get too out of hand. Writer/director George ("Miami Blues," "Gross Pointe Blank") Armitage whips up a delightfully amoral, cynical and wickedly subversive redneck drive-in exploitation contemporary Western winner: he expertly creates a gritty, no-nonsense tone, keeps the pace brisk and unflagging throughout, and stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable muscular aplomb (the rousing explosive climax is especially strong and stirring). The first-rate cast of familiar B-feature faces constitutes as a major asset: Victoria Principal as Ben's sweet hottie girlfriend Linda, the fabulous Bernadette Peters as flaky saloon singer Little Dee, Brad Dexter as the feckless mayor, David Doyle as a slimy bank president, Andrew Stevens as an affable gas station attendant, John Carpenter movie regular Charles Cyphers as one of the 'Nam vets, Anthony Carbone as a smarmy casino manager, John Steadman as a folksy old diner owner, Paul Gleason as a mean strong-arm shakedown bully, and Dick Miller as a talentless piano player. Moral: Don't hire other people to do your dirty work. William Cronjager's slick cinematography, Gerald Fried's lively, harmonic hillbilly bluegrass score, and the abundant raw violence further add to the overall trashy fun of this unjustly neglected little doozy.
|
positive
|
Polanski returns to the themes of solitude and madness which he explored to such tremendous effect in Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, in The Tenant.<br /><br />The atmosphere is trademark Polanski - dark, brooding, unnerving - but there is something awkward about this movie and I am not sure whether or not it is deliberate.<br /><br />Sven Nykvist, who was responsible for some of Bergman's most beautiful films, doesn't quite do himself justice here. As his name was one of the things which really attracted me to this movie, I was a little disappointed in how few instances of truly impressive cinematography are in the film.<br /><br />The only thing that really lets the movie down is the acting. Polanski is certainly not a bad actor, but he seems to have bitten off more than he can chew with the difficult role of Trelkovsky. Some of the supporting cast are great, notably Melvyn Douglas as the landlord and Shelley Winters as the concierge, but others are weak and miscast. It is also hard to get past the fact that all these supposed Parisians have American accents.<br /><br />Quite unexpectedly, there are some fine moments of dark comedy in the film. Anyone who has seen The Fearless Vampire Killers knows that Polanski is certainly a good comedic actor. However, there are moments when it slips dangerously close to being a parody of itself. Trelkovsky's sudden (and somewhat unexplained) 'transformation' is more likely to raise giggles than eyebrows, which detracts from what should have been a powerful moment in his psycho-dramatic journey.<br /><br />All in all, The Tenant is an enjoyable and intriguing experience, if a little too languorous for its own good. There's a handful of exceptionally chilling moments and a consistently uncomfortable and foreboding atmosphere but this film, while being very good, does not quite hit the mark as successfully as it could have.<br /><br />Alas, at the end of the day, an 'okay' Polanski movie is still better than most other 'good' movies. Definitely worth a watch, just don't expect to be blown away.
|
positive
|
This is a movie about how men think women think about love. No woman describes a one-night sexual encounter and declares it a love story.<br /><br />Of the ten monologues I felt only three really had any kind of truth ring through them. I kept waiting for the film to get better, and it did a bit, but never better enough.<br /><br />This is an interesting concept, and I kept wanting it to be good, but it never succeeded. Maybe if they actually WERE love stories it would have worked.
|
negative
|
This is a cute little French silent comedy about a man who bets another that he can't stay in this castle for one hour due to its being haunted. And, once the guy enters the house, it looks much more like a crazed fun house or maybe like the after-effects of LSD!! While there ARE ghosts and skeletons, there is a weird menagerie of animals, odd special effects and gags as well. It's awfully hard to describe but the visuals alone make the film worth seeing. HOWEVER, understand that the self-indulgent director also had many "funny gags" that totally fell flat and hurt the movie. His "camera tricks" weren't so much tricky but annoying and stupid. IGNORE THESE AND KEEP WATCHING--it does get better. The film is fast paced, funny and worth seeing. In particular, I really liked watching the acting and mugging of Max Linder--he was so expressive and funny! Too bad he is virtually forgotten today. For an interesting but very sad read, check out the IMDb biography on him.
|
positive
|
This film, I thought, was the great journey that Forrest Gump should have been. It's a rare treat to watch a cable movie in the middle of the day and come across a foreign film that is done so well. This film is very well acted, and I strongly suggest it to anyone who can take sub-titles.
|
positive
|
OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.<br /><br />We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.<br /><br />they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen.
|
negative
|
The first two sequences of this movie set up the two conflicts: the -thematic- conflict between the soldier Todd and his suppressed humanity, and the -physical- conflict between Todd and his bio-engineered replacement. Both sequences are quite gripping in different ways.<br /><br />Peoples' screenplay falters somewhat by resolving the first of these arcs half-way through the movie, which means the second half is little more than a straightforward action romp.<br /><br />Nonetheless, kudos to the makers for creating an genre action piece with heart and even a bit of soul and especially to Kurt Russell who conveys much with very little.<br /><br />Not a great film, but one worth seeing.
|
positive
|
I was drawn to this movie the moment I saw a preview of it on Oscar night. When I read about Kay Pollak, I was hooked. We Americans are suckers for a comeback kid.<br /><br />I understand this movie was a huge draw in Sweden. As a very provincial American I can only speculate on the reason. Perhaps it is because of the provocative joke that the Lena character makes at the beginning of the movie and other social comment but perhaps it is because of the central message which I believe has the same appeal everywhere in affluent societies.<br /><br />The message of this movie for me is the same as the movie Titanic. Life is short people and as far as anyone really knows it's all we've got. It can be taken away at any time. So isn't it a pity that we spend so much time hiding behind walls separating us from other people because we're so afraid of being hurt? Tearing down the walls is painful but feeling alive lies on the other side of those wretched walls. Feeling alive is worth taking the risk. Give and you will receive. So start living NOW.<br /><br />Many people are criticizing this movie for it's lack of characterization and other flaws. I say you are all pseudo-sophisticated. Get a grip folks, it's a parable, a fable for we affluent westerners who are materially rich but whose souls are in abject poverty.<br /><br />So join a choir or a band or help build housing or distribute food for those less fortunate than you. Spread some joy and make the world a better place as long as you get out and commune with your fellow man. Writing a check is not enough. We are a social species by the way. Even the humblest of your fellow human beings can affect you in ways you never thought possible.<br /><br />Rugged individualism has its place but it is over-rated.
|
positive
|
This is a great example of a rather simple Film Noir story that is handled exceptionally well--thanks to excellent direction by Otto Preminger as well as some lovely acting performances. Dana Andrews stars as a hot-headed detective who all too often uses his fists instead of his brains. Soon after the film begins, Andrews is being reprimanded for this and is warned that if this continues he'll be off the force. A bit later, while investigating a crime he's attacked by a suspect and Andrews is forced to fight to protect himself. This time he does NOT use excessive force but the assailant is killed. Andrews panics and assumes they won't believe him so he tries to cover up the death--though instead an innocent man is ultimately blamed for the crime.<br /><br />There's a lot more to the film than this--including a plot involving a slimy villain (Gary Merrill) and a love interest for Andrews (Gene Tierney). All in all, this is one of the better examples of the genre--with great gritty dialog, superb lighting and a simple yet very effective story. This is the way Noir was meant to be.
|
positive
|
Somewhat funny and well-paced action thriller that has Jamie Foxx as a hapless, fast-talking hoodlum who is chosen by an overly demanding U.S. Treasury Agent (David Morse) to be released on the streets of New York to find a picky computer thief/hacker (Doug Hutchinson), who stole forty-two million dollars from the treasury and left two guards shot dead.<br /><br />"Bait" marks the sophomore feature for Antoine Fuqua ("The Replacement Killers") and he handles the task fairly well even though it doesn't top his first movie. What the two films have in common is the action sequences, which are flat-out excellent.<br /><br />Foxx is pretty good here although his character is annoying in the beginning, but throughout the film, I began to catch on. Hutchinson is marvelous as the mastermind who can be ruthless as John Malkovich and patient as the late Laurence Olivier was in "Marathon Man". Morse is okay as the agent who comes up with the ingenious plan to get whoever did it at all cost.
|
positive
|
This is definitely the worst movie Adam's ever done but at this point in his life, he was just happy to have a movie. There are 3 or 4 laughs in it but I used the fast forward button through some of it. Don't waste your time. I only saw it because I wanted to see all of his movies, but it sucked.
|
negative
|
This film is exactly what its title describes--an attempt to get you to buy into what the writers have to offer.<br /><br />First, it's kinda fun to see the 1996-style Toronto I remember with all its silly haircuts, sunglasses, clothes, and attitude. It really hasn't changed any; just a nice, safe, cheap, provincial little urban backwater that makes a great meeting place for international film types! It's also amusing to see Kenny and Spenny head to L.A. and find out that it's Toronto all over again, only with a strange assortment of beach bums, musicians, fortune tellers, and yet more uppity film types.<br /><br />I don't see Pitch as a film to be enjoyed; it's not entertainment unless the viewer enjoys watching someone's aspirations being trampled. I take Pitch as a warning that power and money is really held by studio execs and production houses. Would-be (and "successful") writers, musicians, and actors are still mere transients even when they reach the Big Time.<br /><br />So, Kenny and Spenny are trying to sell you a warning. Buy it or don't, but the message is still there.
|
positive
|
What would you say about a man who was about to get married and was having his bachelor party with some of his closest friends at a Hawaiian guy bar? All smooth sailing until he takes his "bachelor hat" off. What would you say about him talking to one of the suggestive dancers and then sleeping with her? What would you say if that exact girl was the cousin of his finance? A new low, right? Well Paul Coleman, played comically by Jason Lee, leads this experience of a nauseous blur and a new low. I got to say this is one of his good leading roles. However I do believe his role in Vanilla Sky was better acted.<br /><br />His finance named Karen is played by the up-and-down actress Selma Blair while Karen's character, Becky, is played by the lovely and talented Julia Stiles. Getting back to where we left off, Paul now has to deal with one arising problem to another. He gets diseases, has to deal with certain people, and has to play his lie games with stealth or any member of each of the families could get P.O'ed, including one of his relatives that hasn't had a "bowel movement" for 14 days. *Vomit* All of this leads to the long awaited wedding with one hilarious scene before it recapping all the hell that Paul and his brother had to go through.<br /><br />Overall, A Guy Thing is quite funny and is all right. Sometimes the story may seem to go nowhere and you get tired of scenes here and there but it's a mixed movie. And if you're a Canadian and a fellow fan of the CTV Brett Butt sitcom, Corner Gas, you'd recognize a small role played by Fred Ewanuick, the same man who plays the hilarious Hank in the series. This movie is all right. It's another feather in Lee's hat (quite an empty hat so far, however).<br /><br />My Rating: 7/10<br /><br />Eliason A.
|
positive
|
Sad to say this is one of the sillier of John Wayne's series of poverty row westerns for Lone Star Productions. Here he is a United States Marshal on the trail of a bandit known only, I kid you not, as the Shadow.<br /><br />No it's not Lamont Cranston, it's some dude who gives his orders through an open wall safe so his men don't see who he is. But the voice is unmistakable, you'll know within 10 minutes of the film. <br /><br />And another reviewer here is quite wrong, no squeals or groans from the audience would have occurred because Gabby Hayes was still playing a variety of roles and he's clean shaven here. He had not yet found his niche as the lovable oldtimer sidekick of various movie cowboy heroes like the Duke.<br /><br />Later on he does lead his men quite openly in the climax so I'm not sure what the point of the original gimmick with the wall safe was. I don't think those that wrote this one knew either.<br /><br />Wayne gets Yakima Canutt as an Indian sidekick here and the relationship is just about the same as an unmasked Lone Ranger and Tonto.<br /><br />It's all pretty silly if you ask me.
|
negative
|
I was at a friends house for Thanksgiving and watched a DVD of the movie, Eddie Monroe. I've been a fan of Indie Films for almost 20 years, (I loved the Brothers McMullen), and was impressed how good this movie is. My friend, who works at Magno Sound, told us that this movie was shot on Super 16. The photography was so good, it looked as though it was a 35mm shoot. Furthermore, the music combined with Fred Carpenter's direction, was art. The storyline was original and led up to an ending that surprised all of us watching...very cool. The acting by the entire cast was good, especially the actor who played, Uncle Benny. He was amazing. This film was a nice holiday treat, and I was delighted to be one of the first to view a movie that many will be seeing in the future.
|
positive
|
Seeing Laurel without Hardy in a film seems strange, yet it's entertaining all the same. It's a well done parody of what became a classic silent film and it showcases Stan's talents very well. While his pictures with Oliver Hardy were great, these early solo efforts give you an idea of how skilled he was at his craft and how great he might have been had he continued in the tradition of Keaton and Chaplin as an individual star on his own. The dance sequence with his real-life wife in the café scene is the best part of the picture, and has some pretty funny bits to go with Laurel's excellent dance steps. And the bullfight climax is a gem, as even the bull takes a pratfall. And I like the irony in the scene where he's buried in hats and comes up wearing his familiar Laurel and Hardy bowler hat. As much as I love the Laurel and Hardy team and feel that there was never a funnier comedy duo on screen during their prime, it's nice to see them on their own once in a while (check out THE FIGHTING KENTUCKIAN that Hardy made with the Duke as another fine example.) Dale Roloff
|
positive
|
I thought that the love letter was a pretty good movie. There were certain things that could have made it better. But Kate Capshaw is absolutely beautiful, and she showed it in this movie. I wish that there could have been a few more revealing scenes of her, but it was still a very good movie. It was very fun to watch!
|
positive
|
I'm not quite sure why, but this movie just doesn't play the way it should. It should be humerous and fun, but instead is just boring. I think a large part of it is because they way over played the "gadgets." The old cartoon it is based on is much better.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.<br /><br />Well, the 1973 TV version of "Double Indemnity" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.<br /><br />Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.<br /><br />However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.
|
negative
|
You have to like baseball, and you have to at least sort of like Tom Selleck, but if you meet those criteria you should thoroughly enjoy this movie. Selleck plays former major league star who finds himself traded (?) to Japan as his career winds down. Really well thought out and fascinating look at Japanese customs and behavior. Great supporting performances by Selleck's manager ("Japan's Clint Eastwood"), his girl friend Takanashi, and his interpreter. The chemistry between Selleck and Takanashi works very very well, this is really a very nice romantic movie apart from the baseball. Look for Haysbert as fellow player well before he became a persistent shill for Allstate. Movie wraps up very nicely. Easily in my top fifty all time movies and maybe my favorite one on baseball.
|
positive
|
This year's Eurovision was to me a big disappointment. I've watched the Eurovision Song Contest every year since 1986 (well, at least that's the earliest one I can remember, and I was only 2 at the time). As any other year this one contained both good, bad and horrible songs - nothing new there. However this year's show was the worst one I can remember. Only very few good (decent's probably more like it) songs and a lot of absolutely terrible songs.<br /><br />Turkey's winner song "Every Way That I Can" sounded to me like a rip-off of Turkish singer Tarkan's hit "Simarik", just sounding a lot worse. It didn't deserve to win from my point of view. Belgium's song "Sanomi", coming in second, was a no-language song. Wonder what's next? Animals singing? Nevertheless the music for the song was quite catchy, giving the song a kind of dreamy feeling, to which the "lyrics" seemed appropriate. One of the better songs, but that's not saying much.<br /><br />After one of the closest races in Eurovision history Russian duo t.A.T.u. ended in third place just three points behind Turkey and behind Belgium, with "Ne Ver', Ne Boisia" ("Don't Trust, Don't Be Afraid"). To me t.A.T.u. was one of the very few highlights of the show, surprising just about everyone by being some of the most covered up girls of all the female contestants. They let their song do the talking and if we ignore the fact that they failed to pitch a few times in the first chorus, they let the song speak very well indeed.<br /><br />The biggest surprise when looking at the scoreboard was Austria. The bookmakers here in Denmark had the biggest odds on that song - a song that indeed was beyond horrible - but ended up in 8th place. Could it be that bum of his being shaken to the rhythm of the song? That performance was the one that made me and my family laugh the most, not because it looked good, but because it looked so stupid that it was actually fun.<br /><br />Sweden did what they do the best; ABBA. In 1999 they won with "Take Me To Your Heaven", by sounding like ABBA. In 2001 they made the top 10 with "Listen To Your Heartbeat", again sounding like ABBA, and once again this year they did it ABBA-style, again ending in the top 10.<br /><br />England was finally punished for making those absolutely horrible, non-catching songs, that they've been the past years.<br /><br />Ireland ripped off the winner from 2000, "Fly On The Wings Of Love". And I could go on and on about how bad the songs were.<br /><br />I feel a bit sorry for the Aussies, who this year finally got the chance to see the Eurovision Song Contest. They deserved better than this.<br /><br />I wasn't surprised by the show though. The Eurovision from 2000 to me stands out as one of the best in recent years. 2001 was quite good, but not as good. 2002 was okay, but certainly no more. This year was quite simply disappointing.<br /><br />Let's hope it'll get better next year. If not for us, then at least for the Aussies.<br /><br />4/10. One for t.A.T.u., one for the close race, one for the butt-shaking and one for all the rest.
|
negative
|
And you know why? Because they thought (or at least made horror fans think) that a bunch of obnoxious, foul-mouthed, screaming teenagers, some stupid demons (Where do they come from? What is their purpose? Who knows?) and a dark mansion are all you need to make a horror movie. Needless to say, they were wrong. You also need a script, some logic, some rules, and some invention. This flick DOES have one scene that lives up to its reputation (the lipstick scene, of course), and a couple of funny moments (the kid brother's description of his mother's cookies, Linnea Quigley's "don't look at me" scene). It also has more profanity than any movie I've watched since I last saw "Reservoir Dogs". Literally every fourth or fifth word is a "f***" or a "b****". Then again, when a movie begins with FOUR false scares in its first 5 minutes, you know not to expect anything resembling good filmmaking. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
Sorry everyone,,, I know this is supposed to be an "art" film,, but wow, they should have handed out guns at the screening so people could blow their brains out and not watch. Although the scene design and photographic direction was excellent, this story is too painful to watch. The absence of a sound track was brutal. The loooonnnnng shots were too long. How long can you watch two people just sitting there and talking? Especially when the dialogue is two people complaining. I really had a hard time just getting through this film. The performances were excellent, but how much of that dark, sombre, uninspired, stuff can you take? The only thing i liked was Maureen Stapleton and her red dress and dancing scene. Otherwise this was a ripoff of Bergman. And i'm no fan f his either. I think anyone who says they enjoyed 1 1/2 hours of this is,, well, lying.
|
negative
|
This is an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Someone needs to say "That's not a funny and original, (etc., etc.) film; that is an inferior film. Don't waste your money on it." The film is trashy, and the people in it are embarrassingly inferior trailer trash. They are all-too-realistically only themselves. They have no lines, they don't act. The American Dream is not to create shoddy no-quality films or anything else shoddy and of no-quality; it is to achieve something of quality and, thereby, success. Only people who are desperate to praise any film not made in Hollywood (it can't have been made in Hollywood, can it?) would try to impute any kind of quality to this film. It's worse than "Ed Woods," another film about a film-maker without standards. These films shouldn't have been made, and you shouldn't go see "American Movie."
|
negative
|
Well OK, I've seen Wrath of the Ninja.<br /><br />It isn't something that I would recommend to people who aren't seriously into japanese fighting movies. This is a sort of japanese fighting ninja movie, with a complex plot. It's about these 3 old ninja schools that had these 3 "Swords of Sorcery". I saw the subtitled version (NOT recommended by the way, it's easy to miss something) and I didn't really keep up with it all. It had some good scenes tough, but in general, it wasn't much to my liking.
|
negative
|
Aunt Cora had always been tactless, and her well-bred family ignored the remark she made after her brother Richard's funeral: "He WAS murdered, wasn't he?". They remembered it the next day, when Cora was found brutally murdered with a hatchet...<br /><br />For some reason, the POIROT movies this year have been far from faithful to the original book. I was disappointed about the changes made in CARDS ON THE TABLE-- my favourite Poirot book. AFTER THE FUNERAL is my 2nd favourite Poirot book, and I was scared the story would be destroyed. It wasn't! The movie was nearly page-for-page faithful throughout, right down to the killer's motive! All the actors were wonderful, but my favourite has got to be Monica Dolan, who gives a great performance as Miss Gilchrist, the companion to the late Aunt Cora. Without a doubt the best Poirot movie ever!
|
positive
|
To regard the film as nothing more than a documentary about skateboarding would fail to recognize several important aspects of Dogtown. Peralta (a well- known skateboarding figure himself) has crafted a film that not only deals with the birth of what we know today as skateboarding, but also examines the socio- cultural and economic circumstances in which this sport emerged and gained wide appeal. In addition, his film is rather personal: Peralta's first-hand association with this cultural phenomenon serves as both the informed cinematic investigator and the involved participant-subject. In this role, he is a quintessential "participant-observer," while gathering together a wide array of personalities whom were integral to this movement and those who were profoundly affected by the advent of skateboarding as a competitive sport and subculture. The film employs a uniquely stylistic form of film and sound editing, and the narration (by Sean Penn) and interviews adopt a rather genuine, unrehearsed form that is akin with the anarchic, nihilistic spirit of sidewalk surfing. The film exhibits the kinetic appeal of a protracted sporting, music video tempered with an archaeologist's sensitivity to the importance of time, place, and circumstance.
|
positive
|
While I am not a big fan of musicals, I have loved the films of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers because they are just so much fun. Sure, they can be a bit formulaic, but even though you KNOW what is going to happen, they still are very pleasing to watch. However, despite this, I was a bit disappointed in this outing. Part of it was because this film doesn't have the wonderful supporting cast like you saw in TOP HAT or SHALL WE DANCE. Without Edward Everett Horton or Eric Blore, the film seems to be a bit lacking--especially in the "fun" department. The silly antics of these supporting actors gave the other films charm that you just don't get with FOLLOW THE FLEET. In addition, unlike the usual character played by Astaire, this one is more of a jerk--as his fat head gets Rogers into trouble again and again. And, as a result, it's a lot harder to like him or want to see them get together in the end of the film. Plus, although the music is by Irving Berlin, the songs just don't seem as memorable. In fact, none of the songs were all that special and I can't recall any of them even though I just saw the movie. While this is still a cute and worthwhile film, it just lacks the sparkle and magic of some of their other films. Good but far from great.
|
positive
|
This was without a doubt the best of the "Dirty Harry" series. From the opening credits, you're swept up in a revenge tale that hits hard and is profoundly engrossing. Sondra Locke is perfect in the role of a traumatized woman out for revenge. Eastwood has many "aside" sequences that have nothing to do with the plot, but show Harry at his bad-assed best. Loaded with unforgettable characters in minor roles, this film rocks and should serve as the standard for detective/action flicks. This is the one Dirty Harry flick that's raw and devoid of any "fluff". I can watch this again and again (okay, not in one sitting) because it's a gratifying "out for revenge" yarn. The pace is quick and several of the scenes are unforgettable. "Go ahead - Make my day...You feel lucky, Punk? ...." classic Eastwood as only Eastwood, with his anguished, rubbery expressions, and whispery, menacing voice can do it.
|
positive
|
Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.<br /><br />The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the "once" bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 stars.
|
negative
|
Sharky's Machine is a crime drama set in early 80's Atlanta. It stars Burt Reynolds as a renegade cop who is hellbent on stopping crime and corruption in his city. The story is about a dirty politician who is at the top of a crime ring that has been brining the city to it's knees. Sharky's link to bringing down this syndicate is a high-priced hooker that he falls for during the course of the movie. The action sequences are well done for the early 80's and the soundtrack / score are pretty good. The acting is B-level but this is a pretty decent film to have in your DVD collection.<br /><br />Overall 7/10<br /><br />Peace <br /><br />Buggieblade
|
positive
|
Cassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a "demons and death" rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.<br /><br />Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit.
|
negative
|
Asia Argento is a sexy beautiful woman who likes to run around naked which isn't a bad thing in it's self, but, when her character talks about all the guys she serviced, and to see her with Michael Madsen and an Asian guy in the present tense of the movie, it made me feel like I needed a condom over my eyes to watch this movie, like a disease was going to rub off on me or something.<br /><br />The movie felt like it was going for a love triangle/drama/action/??? plot, it just seemed to go everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The acting was great, the plot, not so great. The director needs to at least pick a genre and practice, practice, practice, before trying to do something as complicated as this again, because they are not very good at it obviously.
|
negative
|
MY BROTHER TOM <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Digital<br /><br />Following an episode of sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted neighbor, young Jessica (Jenna Harrison) forms a relationship with a strange boy (Ben Whishaw) she meets in the woods. Unfortunately, Whishaw has secrets of his own, no less troubling and far more dangerous...<br /><br />Dour drama, sparked by brave performances by Harrison and Whishaw, in which two kindred spirits immerse themselves in a mutual love of nature after being traumatized by their experiences in the 'real world'. Unfortunately, their friendship unravels as harsh reality begins to intrude, leading to an inevitable tragedy. Directed by Dom Rotheroe and photographed in digital video format, the movie looks ragged in places (too many awkward close-ups and sloppy hand-held camera moves) and takes a while to find its feet, but the dramatic pay-off is quietly rewarding.
|
negative
|
OK so i am like most people, give me free tickets and i will go and see most things, now that multiplex cinemas are so good (i remember the old "flea pit" single screen cinemas and i am the healthy side of 40). In England this film was released as "Liar", it's a dog. It is a total waste of good celluloid. 4/10 for the photograpy and set only.
|
negative
|
With no fault to the actors (they all put on great performances), the overall story was not very well executed. The movie opens with a great zinger: a crazy old guy forces a young Aborigine girl's car off the road. But then, we're forced to endure 40 minutes of character development with an entirely new group of characters ... and we don't know why until the 40 minutes are up. It turns out that they are the ones who eventually discover the girl's body ... and the story progresses from there.<br /><br />While the story does pick up at that point, it really goes nowhere. After 2 hours, I asked myself: was there a point to this, or was it just to see the characters struggle with accusations of racism and stupidity of how they handled the discovery? The story was ultimately unsatisfying and felt unfinished. While it is well acted, there's not a strong enough backbone in the film to warrant recommending it.
|
negative
|
When i was told of this movie i thought it would be another chick flick. I was wrong. This movie sends a powerful message about judging others. I was deeply moved. Everyone i have encountered, I have recommended this movie to. No one has come back saying it was bad. Busy, also did a great job with her role in this film. I don't know much about her acting career but wow, they way she pulled off the end of this fill was great.<br /><br />At the beginning it was a little slow. But after she went to the hospital....wow, the movie picks up again. i have no idea why this movie hasn't been spoken of in the movie world. My wish would be for this movie to be released again and advertised more...because it sends a powerful message in a mere hour and a half.
|
positive
|
What's the point of reviewing a movie like this? It's painfully and embarrassingly bad, not even in a way that allows you to make fun of it.<br /><br />Movies like "Little Man" depress me. They represent film at its most disposable. This movie was made for a bunch of 18-24 year old dipsh*t frat boys who the studio was hoping would come out and see it on opening night before word leaked out about how bad it was, so that the film could quickly recoup its investment.<br /><br />A hundred other filmmakers with great ideas probably couldn't get their films made because resources were going toward making this puddle of vomit.<br /><br />Grade: F
|
negative
|
Being a huge fan of hip-hop and turntablism to begin with, I always knew I would like this film. However, I wasn't prepared for just how good the documentary actually is. It covers almost all the important aspects of the only element of hip-hop which has been there from the very start. The "story" begins in the early 70's, and follows the evolution of turntablism as an art from up until early 2000 (turntablism aficionados will point this out as significant).<br /><br />The editing is nigh on perfect throughout the film. Aside from the excellent visual "scratch" techniques which they used, the rapid cutting between interviews and the stock footage is excellent, giving the film pace when it is needed. The sound editing is also very good, with some nice sweeping sounds being used to help with transitions.<br /><br />The absence of a narrator was also welcome. We aren't taken by the hand through the story, and as a result the audience is able to make their own assumptions easier. Each DJ adds another side to the story, and it is so interesting to hear about the unknown stars of hip-hop, especially those who were there when hip-hop was being shunned left, right and centre by the music business.<br /><br />Although there are many excellent things about this film, I do have a few gripes. The biggest of these is the absence of several notable DJs, such as Ca$hMoney and Jazzy Jeff, and also DJs from outside America, such as Scratch Perverts and DJ Noise. However, if you watch the commentary on the DVD (something which I highly recommend), producer and director go in to great depth about how they regret not being able to feature them. The deleted scenes contain many interviews with Ca$hMoney, Jazzy Jeff and the Scratch Perverts.<br /><br />This is definitely the best documentary I've seen on hip-hop culture and music. It does stop short of showing the true potential of turntablism; for that I highly recommend checking out the DMC and ITF videos. However, that is a minor quibble. I highly recommend this movie, not least for the phat soundtrack, with excellent music throughout. (9/10)
|
positive
|
Ghost Train is a fine and entertaining film, typical of the better British comedy chillers of the 1930s and 40s. The antics of comedian Arthur Askey are not as funny as they once apparently were, but this can be overcome by viewing him as a period piece or a curiosity.<br /><br />For a low-budget wartime production, Ghost Train is atmospheric, effective, and it provides some genuine suspense. Great fun for a dark (and, yes, stormy) night. Lighten up, take off the critic's hat, and enjoy.
|
positive
|
I will not vote this movie as an awful one, mainly because i kind of like it, i was one of those summer days that i was so lame to do anything and decided do rent a movie in the stupid section of the videostore. Besides that i didn't slept in the nigh before and the movie got me awake...Let's just start the autopsy, OK, the movie haves a strange plot, first is isolation, there is an expedition, they get isolated in an island because there is no gas on the boat, something like that, there is not a single convincing performance on the actors part(so far), the main problem starts after the isolation idea, the POV of a snake, then another, ...then another, then snakes that change, then false spooks, a lot of them, and when we believe the movie is going on a good way for a b flick keeping the suspense it fails, because after ten or eleven spooks we don't get carried away, the one scene that unmistifies all is the scene when we witness a drunk lesbian show watched by snakes that seem to dance, after this it's becoming not a horror\adventure but a comedy driven movie, the adventure part is discarded also.<br /><br />For me the problem in a movie is the third act, it is the one section that just drives the movie for a already guessed conclusion, or if it succeeds we don't noticed it, like a ninja smoke in our eyes, well....Snake island haves a bad conclusion, it all comes to a «by the book» ending, with a confront, persecution and escape sequence, it was predictable in the moment i rented the dam copy. The other real problem is concept, concept is very important, it is the reason you believe in dinosaurs coming to life or a corpse full of stitches that just wants to live, the main concept about snakes that want revenge after decades on torture by the human civilization, well...hmmm, just doesen't glues on the wall. One thing you will enjoy (if you watch it with an opened mind) is the more b-z sequences, naked lesbian girls, some amateur camera angles, the braindead homage with the grass cutter, the black dude doesen't die first, and thats all... if you want to see snakes, black dudes and comedy and you prefer bigger budgets go and see «snakes on a plane».<br /><br />Hasta moviegoers
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.