review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
1st watched 12/24/2009 4 out of 10 (Dir-Robert Ellis Miller): Emotional Christmas fluff that doesn't really get specific enough to explain how the real story happened in this factual-based incident of a man who is wrongly put in jail trying to get a job for his family to make Christmas happen for them. The three kids in the family then run away from home on a trek to Washington D.C. to enlist the then President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. This trek provides some side stories like their positive encounters with a hobo and a puppeteer, which makes the story kind of like a Disney "animals on the run" movie and doesn't quite fit here. At the ending, there isn't any details given as to how the President helped the family and this is another downpoint to the movie, in my opinion. The movie does eventually bring tears, but it takes too long to get to this. The movie isn't supposed to have been an original TV movie(according to IMDb) but it has the obvious fade-outs that make it look this way so I'm not sure their information is accurate. All in all, this is a simple movie(that could have been more complex) with a happy Christmas-like story but blandly played and without a lot of substance.
|
negative
|
Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing "Kid Midas". I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.
|
negative
|
For sci-fans this will be better than anything likely to be running on TV at any given time; that's about the best you can say of it. Good points; repartee and sense of humour is less dull than usual in such movies, the plot is coherent and doesn't use any magical mystical revelations. Bad points; the writers try to do good science but it falls down in direction and production (eg, a rock drilling mole using superheated rock drilling equipment breaks surface underwater with nary a bubble or boiling cauldron to be seen), the characters are cliché's and the plot unfolding is pretty stock standard. OK for a too-tired-to-do-anything-else type evening; but don't expect any major edification or even talking points really.
|
negative
|
I carefully checked if there's another movie named as this one, and there isn't ! But I really don't think we all saw the same movie ! There's no way ! How can you vote more than "1" for this movie ?! The idea of this movie let's say it's acceptable. Oh, and the acting of Dan Gordon (Chris) is quite good. But those are the only two things acceptable in this project. The others are... awful ? It's a very delicate word to describe the acting of the other actors, the directing, the (so said) "special" effects, even the way that the crew was filming ! I don't even like the way that the camera operators were moving to record the scenes ! This may be the most miserable film I've ever seen. I really don't remember a movie lower than this one... Maybe there is, but... I don't think so... Ehh, what's done, it's done... That's the movie and there's too late for anyone to change anything. I've voted "1", but my realistic vote starts with a "-" (minus) in front....
|
negative
|
This movie is very good and the whole family would enjoy watching it.When Susie Q is of to her big night at prom she dies in a fatal car crash on her way to prom by kids who are drunk and high.As the years go by Susie's house gets sold and a family moves into the house that she loves.As the boy who now lives in the house sees Susie and is the only one who can.The two team together with his little little sister and try to save Susie's parents from being broke.Staring Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q.This movie will fell your heart with comedy,sadness and laughter.I hope that you see this movie because it is very good.But no one seems to have it on DVD or Vh's and it no longer comes on TV.
|
positive
|
"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, "Gilligan's Island" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining at all.
|
negative
|
In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.
|
negative
|
Never before have the motives of the producers of a motion picture been more transparent. Let's see: FIRST, they get every willing televangelist to hype this film as the greatest thing since sliced white bread. NEXT, they encourage as many fundamentalist Christians as possible to purchase copies of the film so as to recoup its paltry production costs and pump up its advertising budget. And FINALLY, when the film hits the theaters, get as many said Christians as possible to see it yet again, bus them into the multiplexes if necessary, NOT on the merits of the film itself, but because a #1 box office opening will be seen as some sort of profound spiritual victory.<br /><br />But THAT, of course, won't be enough. I imagine that any film critic with the audacity to give "Left Behind" anything short of a glowing review will be deemed "anti-Christian."<br /><br />Of course, this shamelessly manipulative marketing campaign shouldn't surprise anyone. It is, after all, good old fashioned Capitalism at work. What DOES surprise me is how many people have been suckered into the whole "Left Behind" mindset. As someone who tries to balance his spiritual beliefs with some sense of reason and rationality, it leaves me scratching my head. It would appear that there are many, MANY people who actually believe that sometime in the near future a "Rapture" is going to occur, and that millions of people all over the Earth are going to simultaneously vanish INTO THIN AIR. What kind of reality, I wonder, are these people living in? Is this "Rapture" something they actually believe in, or is it something they fervently WANT to believe in? And when they reach the end of their lives and realize this "Rapture" has not occurred, will they be disappointed and disillusioned? Will there still be people 100 years from now insisting that the "Rapture" is imminent?<br /><br />In a way, I almost wish that such an event would occur! What an interesting day that would be! What would be even more interesting is if the Apocalypse were to occur in a more spectacular fashion, not in the anthropological sense the authors of the "Left Behind" series have portrayed, but as more of a Stephen Spielberg production, with boiling clouds, trumpets, angels descending out of the sky, Moon turned to blood, the whole nine yards. Imagine coming to the realization that it was all coming true, just as the evangelists had been warning for years, and that there was something more awesome than just the cold, hard, physical reality we inhabit. Wouldn't THAT be something???<br /><br />Yet in the final analysis, it's that cold, hard, physical reality that I will content myself with. My life is not so meaningless that I need the fear of a "Rapture" and the "End Times" to make sense of it all ... nor do I need Heaven or Hell to bribe or scare me into behaving decently, thank you very much.
|
negative
|
Ghoulies IV may not be the best out of the series but it isn't too bad, if you don't take it fully serious then you may enjoy it.<br /><br />It's nice to see Peter Liapis return as Johnathan Graves who has gave up using magic and has became a Detective but still thinks about what happened in Ghoulies.<br /><br />The plot is about a woman named Alexandra that is Johnathan's ex-girlfriend that breaks into a museum and takes a red gem, using the gem she awakens her boyfriend named Faust that is Johnathan's dark side but he needs the gem so he can enter the real world and John is sent to hell.<br /><br />Something goes wrong and Alex loses the gem so she needs to find a new one, as she leaves the gateway is still open and two little Ghoulies named Lite and Drak appear. They're not the true Ghoulies since they look like guys in a Troll costume wearing a mask but that doesn't matter since they are humorous in parts.<br /><br />Lite and Dark need to find Johnathan since he can return them home so they go around causing mayhem as they try to find Johnathan. Another difference is that the two Ghoulies are the good guys unlike the ones in the previous films.<br /><br />I found Ghoulies IV to be good but this film may not go for everyone, check it out if you like low budget films like Troll 2.
|
positive
|
I am surprised that everyone (even the critics) seems to think this was a good movie. It was the most clichéd thriller ever made that I have seen. We have the 'bad guy' who wants to force the 'good guy' (or girls in this case) to do something or face the consequence. The 'good girl' in this movie must use her smarts and skills to defeat the 'bad guy' and save the day and her loved ones. Using charisma, bravery, and even luck to save the day. <br /><br />Where to begin? Well, a young woman by the name of Lisa Reisert meets a young man by the name of Jackson Rippner (nice name) at an airport. One coincidence leads to another and soon it seems as if fate is bringing these two together. Sharing drinks, sitting next to each other, seemingly getting along in every way... Is there more to this strangeness? Could these two be meant for each other? Does 'fate' have a reason for their strange and random encounter? <br /><br />Well, as it turns out, unfortunately yes. Jackson needs to Lisa to help him assassinate the Director of Homeland Security by moving him from one room to another so that his men can launch an attack on him. Oh, if she doesn't do this then her father is dead. Though we never learn the exact reasons why and who is really behind this madness, Jackson more then explains how this is going to happen and why its in Lisa's best interest to help him.<br /><br />Of course, Lisa defeats his evil plans with her smarts and in the process stabs him in the neck, makes him trip over chairs, and hitting him with a field hockey stick. Oh, and before that, she leads him on wild chase through Miami airport where she gets passed post 9 11 security and steals a car that she later uses to run over the man who was ordered to kill her father. <br /><br />Yeah, right.<br /><br />First of all, I find it strange that a man like Jackson who can get his hands on high tech weaponry needs the help of a hotel manager. Couldn't he just sneak a bomb into the building? Wouldn't that make it safer for him and his team by leaving out any third parties? And why do characters like Jackson also explain everything they are going to do to someone they are threatening? Doesn't that make it easier to stop them by the same people? <br /><br />The actors did their best considering the movie they were given. Racheal McAdams and Cillian Murphy are still actors to look out for. Also, I believe that Jayma Mays (who played the 'loveable' Cynthia) will be someone we will see more of. It's just too bad they all were stuck with this.<br /><br />2 out of 10
|
negative
|
i realize this review will get me bashed by the expert film critics patrolling this site, but i will defend this film.<br /><br />The Dentist is actually a really good film. The acting isn't always top notch, but the thrills are good and the story's good. Plus you see Linda Hoffman's boobies. Not that I'm an expert in this field, but the direction seems good and the plot makes sense. Corbin makes a great creepy dentist. It does to dentists what Jaws does to sharks...ish. It obviously had a fairly limited budget, but they did well with it what they could, and developed the characters well (those that count).<br /><br />the end.
|
positive
|
When I watched L'Appartement with my girlfriend, she sighed: "How complicated!" And she is right, of course. When you are used to simple, one-linear plots, especially violent hero vs crook schemes, L'Appartement is hard to follow. A couple of the negative reviewers here also have missed one or more important points. Other whine about the confusing flash backs. Come on! This is not the kind of movie from which you can leave to visit the toilet, come back and get hooked again within a few seconds. This one demands full concentration and a keen eye on details. Then it is really not that hard to figure out what's happening and when. The director has left more than enough clues in all scenes.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie centers about the question: why did Max and Lisa split? The film, as my girlfriend remarked, begins as a romantic lovestory, suggesting that two lost lovers will find each other again. Having experience with French movies, I predicted that the story pretty soon would get a sick twist and I was right. In the end of the first part it becomes clear, after many twists and turns, that Max and Lisa were manipulated by Alice. Max did not know, that Lisa had left and why. Lisa did not know, why Max did not contact her in Rome and left her without a trace, when she returned to Paris. The only one who did was Alice and she had her own reasons to keep her mouth shut.<br /><br />After both Max and Lisa have found out the truth, the question of course becomes: can Alice's manipulations be undone? Well, of course not, time has passed by and things have changed.<br /><br />Many European movies use a story telling technique I fully enjoy. There is no exposition of the basic conflict in the beginning, after which two (or more) interested parties try to decide in their own advantage. Instead the spectator is gradually fed with bits and pieces of the plot and hardly knows more than the main characters. L'Appartement is a fine and subtle example of this technique. In the first half Alice seems to be a side character; slowly it becomes clear, that she is key figure.<br /><br />Acting is simply great. Vincent Cassel is perfect as the somewhat naive and impulsive character, who risks a secured life just to hunt a dream from the past. Monica Belucci is very beautiful of course, but also competent. Jean Paul Ecoffey provides the necessary comical touch. Romane Bohringer is very convincing as the neurotic woman, plagued by feelings of guilt and regret.<br /><br />The only reason I did not gave it a 10 is the somewhat unsatisfying end. Of course it was necessary because of the desired symmetry. After all the events Max is exactly on the point where the movie begun, only wiser and sadder. Alice has paid for her sins. But still the little twists on the airport are a bit artificial. Max too easily exchanges Lisa for Alice; Alice too easily decides to reject Max, who has been her dream for so long; Max too easily returns to his fiancée. But then again, I don't know how how this could be achieved without sacrificing the elegant symmetry. I guess sometimes artists have to give up realism for beauty.
|
positive
|
Sometimes I just want to laugh. Don't you? No analyzing, no critiquing and no looking for deeper meaning. Rent this movie, watch it all and laugh your ass off. Don't want to admit you liked it? Fine. But don't trash it here when you and I both know you liked it. It's Damn funny!
|
positive
|
The film did what it set out to do: show how a young girl copes with poverty and grows into her maturity. However, for most of us, this subject has been explored adequately and in most instances with more sophistication than done here. The movie fixated on breasts, which soon became boring and I lost interest. If this was on TV, I would've switched to the latest news on the Starr Report. That's how boring I found this movie.
|
negative
|
This film was set, filmed, and premiered in Oxford, Miss., the hometown of W. Faulkner, the locale of the 1948 book. Most of the extras were locals. I've been to Oxford, and it has greatly changed. This film features Will Geer as the sheriff;he was later blacklisted. It was the writers and actors of social dramas such as this film, and Grapes Of Wrath, that were targets of the HUAC a few years later. I don't recall if the actor playing the young Mallison boy (Claude Jarman Jr) did anything after the TV series Centennial (1978), but he was terrific in this earlier film. And do not miss Elizabeth Patterson who later played in Little Women.
|
positive
|
I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.<br /><br />In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.<br /><br />What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.<br /><br />Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old "Twilight Zone" series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.<br /><br />For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)<br /><br />This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.<br /><br />I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait.
|
negative
|
An incredible performance! This is one of the best films i have seen ever. I know this is being said a lot, but i bet you will not regret watching this film.<br /><br />It's great from the very beginning to the last second. The acting (of especially the mother - played by Judith Light) is so convincing, there are not many other films i've seen that could compare to it, and it seems it's impossible not to feel anything for the people in this drama.<br /><br />There are lots and lots of movies made every year, but if you have to choose just to see a few in your life - make this one of them.
|
positive
|
A classy offering from Amicus, producer Milton Subotsky and director Peter Duffell ('The Far Pavillions' etc) turn in a classy, intelligent 'four-hander' with a strong cast (Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Jon Pertwee, Ingrid Pitt etc) all giving stylish performances, despite a low budget which results in a few 'un-special effects'. The most outstanding contribution, however, is that of the 7-year-old Chloe Franks who turns in chillingly effective account of her part which makes one's blood run cold. Only spoilt by the lurid title wished on the film by its distributors, this underrated release, a cut above the run-of-the-mill 'blood 'n' guts' shocker movie, is for those who appreciate a little thought with their horror.
|
positive
|
At first i didn't like they way the director was constantly switching from the past (gulliver's travels) to the present (gulliver in the insane asylum). But it really is the best way to film the story even though it took some getting used to. Danson is outstanding as the title character and edward fox makes a wonderful villain. Worst part is mary steenburgen as gulliver's wife. She never has been Hollywood gorgeous and in this film they make her look downright dowdy for some reason. I'll never understand why directors make a woman ugly when it adds nothing to the story! Plus you want to strangle her for being so damn stupid in believing the lies bad guy Bates keeps telling her. Even her son can see thru the bastard. Still a good show and i rate it B+.
|
positive
|
Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were "losers" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who "hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the "uncool" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series "Joan of Arcadia") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable
|
positive
|
Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.<br /><br />Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.<br /><br />Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.<br /><br />Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.<br /><br />Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.<br /><br />See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.
|
positive
|
I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.<br /><br />Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).<br /><br />The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).<br /><br />More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.<br /><br />The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.<br /><br />This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).<br /><br />Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own.
|
positive
|
I thought the movie (especially the plot) needs a lot of work. The elements of the movie remains westernized and untrue to the attempt of trying to produce an eastern feel in the movie. I'll give three out of many of the flaws of the movie:<br /><br />First, when Shen told Wendy that he would help her study the history of China, I was really happy that the audience would receive some information about Chinese history; but it turns out that the movie did not exactly show Wendy actually studying Chinese history; yet instead, the movie only shows Wendy practicing the method of remembering what she had studied, which frustrated and put me in dismay.<br /><br />Second, which really bothered me, is how the characters kept mentioning about moon cakes -- moon cakes this and moon cakes that and how good it tastes. Yet they didn't really mention the real significance of it. The only they they talked about that had any relevance to the moon cake was the Autumn Festival, which they did not explain or go in depth. They could have mentioned the myth that correlates with the moon cake -- the Moon Lady. The myth starts of with how there once exists ten suns and each would rotate rising, but one day all ten suns rose up, drying up the land with the rising intense heat; so the Divine Archer, Hou Yi, shot nine of the ten suns, leaving only one sun (there are different versions where the Hou Yi shot the eight out of nine suns). Because of his heroic contribution, he was given the pill of immortality so he could live on forever in case the ten suns do rise up again, but his wife, Chang-O stole it. After stealing it, she fled to the moon, where she met a hare. She then came upon an idea and told the hare to pound the pill into many piece so she could spread the pill all over earth, giving everyone immortality. (There are a few variations of this story but throughout my childhood, I, most of the time, heard about this version). I thought details such as this would make the plot more culturally Chinese oriented.<br /><br />The last thing I would point out is the last battle scene of the movie. The teachers that were possessed by the monks were fighting the Terra-cotta Warriors (the life-like statues of the soldiers) went against the idea of how important Chinese history is to the Chinese. The Terra-cotta Warrors serves as a connection of China's past and it was very westernized (where evil must be killed in anyway possible) that the monks in the movies were willing to destroy that connection. It would be understandable if Wendy, considering she is Chinese-American and doesn't have full Chinese knowledge, had no problem destroying these priceless artifacts.<br /><br />The whole movie was westernized because it seemed that all the monks and Shen want to do is fight... I mean, it's rated TVPG due to violence, which goes against the Confucius thinking of cooperation and harmony. It would seem more accurate that the monks try to avoid violence and try to work things out peacefully before having to resort to violence.<br /><br />All in all, all of or either of the producer, writer, or director did not do their research thoroughly and did a messy and effortless job instead. I would suggest that they either stop airing this movie or that they re-shoot the movie so it contains more accurate information; however, I would give it credit (2 stars) for removing one stereotype of Asians and Asian-Americans of being smart and quiet.
|
negative
|
Some fraud girl tries to compete in the big leagues of motorcross by swiching places with her brother. She gets to the top by lying and manipulation. She should have been disqualified. The movie promotes lying and cheating to win. also the idea of a 9 yr old mechanic is absurd. it takes many many years to get good. Go back to the tonka toys.
|
negative
|
This 1970 hit film has not aged well, but frankly, it was not that good when it was released. Yet, it was a hugely popular success perhaps because the idea of fatalistic young love must have appealed to audiences saturated by constant TV coverage of the Vietnam War. The plot is pure drivel as it concerns Oliver Barrett IV, a privileged Harvard hockey player, who meets and falls in love with Jenny Cavelleri, an antagonistic Vassar music student proud of her working class background. His old-school father naturally disapproves of Jenny, and in a typical act of rebellion, that means the young couple gets married in one of those hippie-era, extemporaneous ceremonies. He lands his dream job in New York, but she gets unexpectedly ill and dies of her terminal disease. There is a veneer of then-contemporary film-making techniques displayed by director Arthur Hiller, but none of that can hide the old-fashioned, cliché-ridden story at its core. The inevitable ending left me particularly unmoved.<br /><br />Both Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw became stars with this movie as Oliver and Jenny but inexplicably so since neither seems able to convey the depth or complexity required to make their characters compelling. At least the boyish O'Neal is sincere in his weakly defiant approach, but MacGraw is so wooden and smirky in behavior that it's hard to see what Oliver sees in Jenny beyond her sarcastic façade. John Marley (two years before finding the decapitated racehorse in his bed in "The Godfather") does better as Jenny's plainspoken baker father Phil, as does Ray Milland as the seemingly insensitive Barrett paterfamilias. The overly familiar Frances Lai music has almost become parody in itself over the years. The print quality on the DVD is good, though the only extra is a rather effusive commentary track by Hiller. The most interesting bit of trivia is that author Erich Segal (upon whose book this movie is based) conceived Oliver as a mix between two Harvard roommates he knew Vice President Al Gore and actor Tommy Lee Jones, who happens to have a bit part in the movie as one of Oliver's roommates.
|
negative
|
The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.<br /><br />The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.<br /><br />I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.<br /><br />And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like "Without the contributions of these brave men and women..." Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.<br /><br />1/4
|
negative
|
This movie was heavily marred by the presence of Steven Seagal. Or as I should say Steven So-dull! Like before Seagal is either too good or too stupid to re-dub his own lines, leaving someone to impersonate his voice for the shots where the sound needed to be looped. A few films before this was he has done this too, but I don't think to this extent! To be honest the film looks pretty good, the script could use some work but parts of this film looked like a real movie! Of course, all told, this film is pretty bad.<br /><br />It would have been much better without Seagal who has become a cartoon of himself. Don't bother. Anything over a buck for this one is too much! I honestly think this is the last time for me and a Seagal film. What's taken me so long to realize this?!
|
negative
|
This is a good blueprint for a study of corporate power and the dichotomoy between required public life and the need for privacy. Robert Taylor has been primed by corporate head Burl Ives as a surrogate son to replace him as head of the corporation. He sends him to England to negotiate a deal, where Taylor is both taken aback by the ethics and morality of the men he is dealing with and manages to fall in love with a refugee while he's at it. He comes back emtpy handed, having done his duty but having told the truth to the English about his motives. He attempts to marry the refugee rather than the boss's niece and so begins an attempt by Ives to discredit the refugee as a suitable wife for a corporate executive. It could have been gritter, nastier and less romantic - the amount of time spent on the romance skews the film away from the points it's trying to make about corporate ethics.<br /><br />Somehow the costume design was nominated (undeservedly) for an Oscar - it's all business suits and the two women in the film dress conservatively - studio politics at work yet again, no doubt.<br /><br />What is stiking however is the black and white CinemaScope cinematography which is excellent - this if anything deserved the Oscar nom. (It was MGM's first 'Scope film in B&W).<br /><br />Not as good as it could have been but not terrible either.
|
negative
|
I just saw this on a local independent station in the New York City area. The cast showed promise but when I saw the director, George Cosmotos, I became suspicious. And sure enough, it was every bit as bad, every bit as pointless and stupid as every George Cosmotos movie I ever saw. He's like a stupid man's Michael Bey--with all the awfulness that accolade promises.<br /><br />There's no point to the conspiracy, no burning issues that urge the conspirators on. We are left to ourselves to connect the dots from one bit of graffiti on various walls in the film to the next. Thus, the current budget crisis, the war in Iraq, Islamic extremism, the fate of social security, 47 million Americans without health care, stagnating wages, and the death of the middle class are all subsumed by the sheer terror of graffiti.<br /><br />A truly, stunningly idiotic film.
|
negative
|
Such great actors such a disappointment. Marlon Brando plays and awful character, the movie is not funny at all, a subconscious message can be seen "IT IS A DAMN CRAP!!!", "IT SUUCKS SO BADLY!!", "THROW YOUR TV THROUGH WINDOW", and so on. It is simply disgusting and irksome. In addition to foolish plot, sense of humor, there is something else. The way the rooms are decorated, the colors. It makes me sick, everything is so colourful that it might cause epilepsy. Usually I do not care about the decoration in movie but this from "Free Money" made me angry. Avoid at all costs! "Free Money" - probably for Charlie Sheen, Sutherland and Brando, but a viewer gets nothing! One watches it at cost of sanity.
|
negative
|
<br /><br />This movie really has nothing going for it. With the Reverend played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman complaining about his constipation and other toilet humor in a 2.5 hour movie, you know that they made no cuts at all and left the crap in, literally. It's a waste of good talent, and a total embarrassment. Dreadful!<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Fires on the plain directed by Kon Ichikawa and written by Shohei Ooka and Natto Wada is a World War two movie which is finally not showing the allies fighting the axis powers, but the Japanese fighting and struggling for their lives on the Philippines. The main characters name is Tamura , played by Eiji Funakoshi, and he is a soldier leaving his regiment because of him being sick. All he has on him is a hand grenade, his gun and some potatoes. Like this, he is trying to make his way to the hospital in order to get a doctor and a cure for his disease. But since the hospital turned him away and gets destroyed, he begins a long walk. Throughout the whole movie, Tamura remains a bit cowardish, but very civil, when the other soldiers become more like animals by using their basic instincts for survival Tamura is still remaining human and would not degrade. A scene which has influenced me a lot to think positively and different about this war movie is, when Tamura comes into a Phillipino village which is completely deserted. There, he fights a dog and finds a lot of corpses of Japanese soldiers stacked up in front of a church. This makes Tamura think and even more scared than he already is. That shows that the soldier is not a brave killing machine, but a servant to higher beings and human most importantly. After he turns away from the corpses, two Phillipinos (a couple or brother and sister : very close relationship) return to the village in order to get their stash of salt back. The main character of the movie wants to be friendly at first, although he walked up to them with his gun, but shoots the woman once she starts screaming. Her brother/boyfriend/husband then runs away in fear and after a moment Tamura follows him and shoots wildly at the fleeing Filipino. He does not hit him. After Tamura picks up the bag of salt , something very precious , he drops his gun into a river. This gesture is very important in order to understand Kon Ichikawa's/Shohei Ooka's profiling of Tamura and the war. Comparing this movie to other World War 2 movies, it is not typical at all. Of course all movies have suffering heroes, but their heroes are more heroic than Tamura. He expresses everything that is human: he is getting manipulated , he is weak , he gets scared , he has hope. This is typical for Japanese World War two movies and for Japanese society. Since World War two is not a discussed theme in Japanese society, Japanese are likely to put Japanese in the second World War in the role of the victim. This victimisation is also very visual in this movie. One of the examples is Tamura, another one the piled up bodies of Japanese soldiers in front of the church and another important one is, when the Japanese soldiers are trying to cross a street and the Americans are already waiting there for them and shooting all of the Japanese soldiers which have worse equipment and are fed worse and have no health equipment or anything alike. In my personal conclusion I have to say that it is worth seeing this film in order to finally see a movie from the other side than usual. It also has no nationalistic propaganda which could've been easily built in. Once you have watched the movie fully, you will be able to see the horrors of the second World War to its total extent.
|
positive
|
"Le Locataire"("The Tenant")is without a doubt one of the most important horror movies ever made.Polanski stars as a Trelkovsky,a timid file clerk living in Paris,who answers an advertisement for an apartment,only to find that the previous tenant attempted suicide by leaping from the apartment window.Trelkovsky is compelled to visit her in the hospital and there he meets Stella(Isabelle Adjani).Trelkovsky immediately moves in when the previous tenant dies and,at first,is quite pleased with having found such a nice apartment.His happiness is soon replaced by waves of paranoia as he becomes increasingly suspicious of his neighbours,who seem to be trying to provoke Trelkovsky into repeating the previous tenant's suicide.This film is great.Polanski manages to create a surreal atmosphere of dread and paranoia.Plenty of brilliant moments such as the classic scene where Trelkovsky discovers the previous tenant's tooth in a hole in the wall,or the fever dream where he wanders into the building's bathroom to find the walls covered with hieroglyphics.The photography by Sven Nykvist is truly beautiful."The Tenant" is a neglected gem.It may be difficult to track down,but it is more than worth the effort.
|
positive
|
You know, I went to see "The Hills have eyes 2" wanting to like it. I really enjoyed the original, and the remake was fairly entertaining. They obviously had more money to throw around than Wes Craven did on special effects the second time around. Even though I still prefer the original film, the remake was done well, and it was kind of a guilty pleasure for me. Bloody, intense, and great special effects. In short, a great popcorn movie for any horror fan.<br /><br />Which brings us to "The Hills have eyes 2". Man, where do I start? The plot, or lack of one, is paper thin. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.The military has decided to monitor the area, and all of these people turn up missing. So what do we do now? Let's send in the National Guard to investigate. In true Hollywood fashion we need to make them the dumbest, and worst soldiers ever seen. Gee, I've never seen that premise before. To make a long story short, you have the mutants killing off the moron soldiers one at a time in graphic fashion. Once again the special effects by Nicotero are great, but the kills no matter how graphic become boring, and predictable. Honestly it seemed to me that this flick was done just to grab a quick buck. It was bloody, and graphic, but I found it predictable, boring, and not scary at all. For me it would have been nice if this film contained one original thought.Wes Craven and his son shared the writing duties, and he has been involved with many of my favorite horror films, but sadly this isn't one of them.
|
negative
|
A group of young travelers that just ran out of gas go into a weird wax museum called "Saluesen's Lost Oasis" owned by a strange man named Slausen (Chuck Conners) as the dummies are controlled by some mysterious force and a madman with special powers wants them dead.<br /><br />One of the most under-appreciated horror movies of the late 70's! This Charles Band (producer of "Re-Animator")production has became one of the scariest and most unique low budget horror productions of it's day combining some psychological themes along without having to result some gore like the usual slasher movie. The movie keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats with tension and some scares, the movie has became a cult diamond in the rough for the genre since then and this is well worth watching.<br /><br />Also recommended: "Pin", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ( 1974)", "The Hills have Eyes ( 1977)", "Maniac ( 1980)", "Magic" ( 1978), "Dolls", "May", "Just Before Dawn", "House of 1000 Corpses", "The Devil's Rejects", "Sleepaway Camp", "Mother's Day", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday The 13th", "Halloween 1 & 2", "Puppet Master", "House of Wax ( 1953 and 2005)", "Jeepers Creepers", "High Tension", "Evil Dead II", "From Dusk Till Dawn", "Waxwork", "Nothing But Trouble" and "Psycho ( 1960)".
|
positive
|
I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.<br /><br />As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA! <br /><br />Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick. <br /><br />3 Stars (out of a possible 73)
|
negative
|
really excellent movie, one of the best i've seen. Touching and simple - just like life, sometimes you cry sometimes you laugh and it's just beautiful. not too much of anything, just as it's suppose to be. Really loved the idea of the movie, noone is bad or good, all or just people, sometimes make mistakes mostly because of society's pressure, everyone tries to stay strong and some succeed more than others and the most important thing is that you don't have reasons to get angry - you can do it, but eventually the anger goes away and then you to need to let love come back in although it's hard, there lies the true happiness.<br /><br />Great actors and cast, the movie really gets you into the feeling of the movie.<br /><br />nice nice nice.<br /><br />I recommend to see it, especially if you like to see italians' life...
|
positive
|
Just in time to capitalize on the long-awaited movie version of "Dreamgirls" is the DVD release of this semi-forgotten 1976 musical melodrama that also takes the rise of the Supremes as its inspiration. Released five years before the Broadway opening of "Dreamgirls" and partially set in the same period, it has a predominantly black cast and a story revolving around an up-and-coming girl group, and that's where the resemblance basically ends. Written by Joel Schumacher well before he became a big-league director of mainstream studio product ("Batman Forever", "The Phantom of the Opera"), this movie seems grittier on the surface. True to form, however, Schumacher weakens the storyline and character development by injecting an abundance of clichés and eye-rolling one-liners. With little affinity for staging musical numbers, Sam O'Steen, a highly regarded film editor but neophyte director, helms the production like a low-budget TV-movie with a frustratingly episodic structure.<br /><br />The story follows three Harlem sisters - sexy Sister, self-righteous Delores and sweet Sparkle - as they sing in the church choir, meet smooth-talking but well-intentioned boys Stix and Levi, and then find their first taste of success as a singing group - first as a sweater-wearing quintet called the Hearts and then as a glitzy trio known as Sister and the Sisters. But naturally there are problems beyond the silly name for the group - Sister gets involved with nasty drug dealer Satin Struthers who beats her and turns her into a cocaine junkie; Levi goes to prison for getting caught in a drug pick-up for Satin; Stix gets frustrated by failure and unwisely turns to some Jewish mobsters for financial help; Delores just gets plain fed up; and poor little Sparkle has to decide what kind of future she wants. A big plus is that R&B great Curtis Mayfield wrote the atmospheric songs, some catchy and one, "Look Into Your Heart", a real winner.<br /><br />The solid cast does its best under the contrived circumstances. Lonette McKee's valiant attempt to make Sister a tragic figure is undercut by some of the ham-fisted plot turns, including a sad Billie Holliday-like turn at the mike. Before they hit it big on primetime TV, Philip Michael Thomas and Dorian Harewood portray Stix and Levi with boyish vitality if not much credibility. The best work comes from Mary Alice in a relatively silent turn as the girls' patient mother and a pre-"Fame" Irene Cara who effortlessly exudes sincerity in the title role (though her costumer and hair stylist should be shot for the hideous look she achieves in the final scene). The DVD just comes with the original theatrical trailer complete with an unctuous voice-over by DJ Casey Kasem and a bonus CD of five of the film's songs performed not by the original cast but by Aretha Franklin off her 1976 recording of the soundtrack. It's not a terrible movie, just an interesting if lacking curio that happens to cover the same ground as "Dreamgirls".
|
negative
|
This is a beautiful movie that is wonderfully acted by all players. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The very end of the movie gets me to mist up every time. If you want to see a great movie, this is it. Jimmy Stewert supplies a wonderfully witty performance and Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek is spellbinding. Morgan's diversity of character is nothing short of amazing. William Tracy as Pepi is terrific comic relief and delivers some of the movies most important lines and performances. Felix Bressart delivers a fantastic performance as Perovitch, a stumbling bumbling shop worker who's life's ambition is to please those he works with. It is a simple story of how close co-workers can become and how two people who have great animosity towards each other fall in love though unusual circumstances.
|
positive
|
Well.....horror this ain't, but.......!!!??? A terrible low low budget backwood-flic of the worst kind, sort of AND...therefore quite charming and funny to watch...at least on my tv set!!! A cross between Pete Walker, Herschell Gordon Lewis and...say....damn, I give up...just can't come up with any "prettier" resemblances for this trashy movie. Everything is soooo wrong that I just have to enlist it in my film collection alongside with....Death In Venice.....Nekromantik.....Blue Velvet and The Good,Bad,Ugly... right !!?? People with some small talent for adding gory inserts or sexy happenings to film they buy offa other people, should pick this film up immediately....sure is a fat lil' ol' goldmine waiting here, oh maaaannnn!!!!!
|
negative
|
I had known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.<br /><br />And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind.
|
negative
|
John Cassavetes is on the run from the law. He is at the bottom of the heap. He sees Negro Sidney Poitier as his equal and they quickly become friends, forming a sort of alliance against a bully of a foreman played by Jack Warden.<br /><br />As someone who has worked in a warehouse myself when I was younger, I can tell you that the warehouse fights, complete with tumbling packing cases and flailing grappling hooks are as realistic as it gets. I've been in fights like these myself, although no one got killed.<br /><br />The introduction of Sidney Poitier's widow is a variation on Shakespeare's Shylock "Do I not bleed?" This is an anti racist film, which, at the time, was much needed.<br /><br />All the three principle characters - Warden, Cassavetes and Poitier - are superb, with Warden the most outstanding of the three.
|
positive
|
If Ashanti had been a serious attempt at a film about the institution of slavery, still prevalent in third world countries the film might have been better received. Instead it turns into a star studded disaster of a movie where the stars came in, said their lines, and picked up their paychecks without much conviction.<br /><br />Michael Caine and his wife Beverly Johnson work for the United Nations World Health Organization and are busy doing their humanitarian thing in East Africa. Along comes Peter Ustinov who can barely summon enough ham in him to make a go of the part as a Moslem slave dealer. As Johnson is black he grabs her anyway along with a lot of children and a few adults as well.<br /><br />Of course Caine doesn't take kindly to the kidnapping and the rest of the film is spent in a rescue attempt. The rest of the cast has such folks as William Holden, Rex Harrison, Omar Sharif and Indian film star Kebir Bedi in parts and looking so incredibly bored with the whole thing.<br /><br />Usually in something like this talented people like those mentioned above will just overact outrageously and feast on a diet of scenery. But Ashanti doesn't even have that going for it.<br /><br />What an incredible waste of time. The aroma of tax write off is permeating the air.
|
negative
|
Ray is one of those movies that makes you pause. You actually think about what you heard or think about what you read about this man and it doesn't even come close. During my first viewing of Ray I forgot I was watching a movie I felt like a peeping tom watching this man's life thru a window. This movie is so compelling it drags you in and it involves your every emotion you go thru a emotional roller-coaster ride and when it's over you don't want to do it again so soon because it has that kind of emotional punch that other movies are lacking. Jamie Foxx deserved his Oscar and quite rightfully so his performance is spectacular and it should be held up as the standard for anybody wanting to do a bio pic anytime soon. This movie is as good as it's subject both deserved the titles classic and legend.
|
positive
|
John Scott (John Wayne) and partner Kansas Charlie (Eddy Chandler) are trail buddies who make their way to the Rattlesnake Gulch rodeo. Scott is a pretty fair contestant, but finds that unless he's willing to accept twenty five cents on the dollar in prize money from a crooked promoter, he'll have to collect his winnings at gunpoint. Quite coincidentally, bandits Pete (Al Ferguson) and Jim (Paul Fix) decide they'd like the rest of the rodeo take; they shoot promoter Farnsworth (Henry Hall), and make it look like Scott and Kansas Charlie are the killers. <br /><br />Wayne and Chandler use a running gag in the film where they're about to go at it with their fists over various trivialities. Each time Chandler takes a wild swing, Wayne foot stomps him and knocks him silly.<br /><br />If you're very attentive, there's a neat Lipton's Tea ad in one of the scenes in which Scott's love interest Anne (Mary Kornman) appears.<br /><br />Later on in the film, the buddies are framed once again over a stage robbery. Having a change of heart and seeing the error of his ways, bad guy Jim wants to come clean and confess to the sheriff, but Pete shoots him down. While being patched up, Jim tells his story to the doctor and his sister Anne. In an unbelievable scene, Anne marches right into the middle of a gunfight between the good guys and the villains to confront the sheriff.<br /><br />"The Desert Trail" is one of the blander John Wayne Westerns from Lone Star Productions during this era. Noticeably absent are George "Gabby" Hayes and Yakima Canutt, one or both are usually to be seen in these oaters. If you're a John Wayne fan though, you'll have to see it once, but that will probably be enough.
|
negative
|
Yes AWA wrestling how can anyone forget about this unreal show. First they had a very short interviewer named Marty O'Neil who made "Rock n Roll" Buck Zumhofe look like a nose tackle. Then it was Gene Okerland who when he got "mad as the wrestler" would say either "Were out of time" or "Well be right back" acting like he was mad but actually sounding forced. After he went to the WWF Ken Resneck took over even though his mustache looked like week old soup got stuck to it was a very fine interviewer who "Georgeous" Jimmy Garvin called mouse face which made me fall off my chair laughing. After he jumped ship then Larry Nelson came on board which he was so bad that Phyllis George would of been an improvement! Then there's Doug McLeod the best wrestling announcer ever who made every match exciting with his description of blows! Then he was offered more pay by the Minnesota North Stars hockey team. At ringside who can forget Roger Kent who's mispronouncing of words and sentences were historic Like when a wrestler was big "Hes a big-on!" punched or kicked in the guts "right in the gussets"or when kicked "He punted him" or "the "piledriver should be banned" after Nick Bockwinkle used it on a helpless opponent.(Right Roger like you care!) After he left to greener money(WWF) they had Rod Trongard who's announcing style was great but different. Like when a wrestler scraped the sole of his boot across another guys forehead he'd say"Right across the front-e-lobe" or when a wrestler is in trouble "Hes in a bad bad way". He also would say AWA the baddest,toughest,meanest, most scientific wrestlers are here right in the AWA!(No extra money Verne Gagne!) After he left(WWF) Larry(Wheres Phyllis?!) Nelson took over and I would talk to someone else or totally ignore him.(WWE wisely didn't take him!) Also Greg Gagne had the ugliest wrestling boots I ever saw a yellow color of something I don't want to say.Also when hes looking for the tag he looks like he wants to get it over with so that he can run to the nearest restroom! Jumpin Jim Brunzell was such a great dropkick artist that you wonder why Greg was ever his partner. Jerry Blackwell(RIP)was also a superstar wrestler but you wonder why Verne had himself win against him.(Puhleeeeze!) Then when Vince McMahon would hire Gagnes jobbers, he would make most of them wrestle squash matches. I like to see the Gagne family say wrestlings real now!
|
negative
|
saw this in preview- great movie- wonderful characterizations- witty and intelligent dialog- actors were fantastic- Peter Falk will be up for an Oscar- Paul Reiser was charming- photography was marvelous Reiser was at the theater when we saw the film, and he gave a vivid account about the making of the film- it had been a long dream of his to write a semi-autobiographical account of relationships between sons and fathers, and more specifically between him and his father- this was achieved in a dramatic and entertaining fashion- the supporting cast was well chosen and gave the film a feeling of family- i recommend this film to anyone who is longing to see intelligent drama and wonderful performances
|
positive
|
A great film. Every moment masterfully conducted by Toyoda and his crew. The actors give credible performances all around.The visuals are haunting,beautiful and sometimes hauntingly beautiful shots of the Japanese country and city landscapes.The sounds,courtesy of Japanese band 'Dig', are never overly edgy as one would expect from band-made soundtracks. It's strangely atmospheric and well suited to the scenes they're on. <br /><br />All in all, they worked everything out perfectly....Well, if they were to give any justice to the story, perfection is the only thing anyone could have accepted. <br /><br />The real greatness of 9 Souls is the compelling story. The prison break movie maybe something of a lost genre these days, and road trip movie losing it's appeal due to the way the world is getting smaller. But this story easily mixes something fresh to those two genres.<br /><br />9 convicts are given freedom and possibly the opportunity to regain their places in society. will society accept them? will they be truly free of their dark pasts? and can they stick together long enough to stay alive and find out? <br /><br />Each convict has an interesting history. Their crimes are as varied as their apparent fates. A sense of brotherhood among them keeps the story high on drama and supplies it with hilariously comedic situations. And due to the nature of their backgrounds, violence is always something waiting to happen.<br /><br />After all that, all i can say is go give it a watch.
|
positive
|
I enjoyed this movie,and after watching it,it made me wonder just how many 'Caitlin Rose's' exist in the world.How many other girls have been subjected to this sort of sexual abuse,and torment by classmates and have been too frightened to open their mouth about it? Just how threatening and cruel can teenagers be towards one another,because as this film demonstrates,who's right is not foremost important,its who is popular,and feared which manipulates the minds of youths,and influences them to allow this sort of immorality to happen.Tiffani Amber Thiessen gives a powerful performance as the rape victim,and Brian Austin Green is convincing as the guy torn between the girl he thought he loved,and his best friend.This is the kind of film that doesn't get the exposure it deserves.Remarkable,and brilliant,too good to be just a film made for TV.
|
positive
|
After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.
|
negative
|
Sensitive, extremely quiet paced love story between a married journalist and his young and atractive neighbor, she too also married. They lived their love for a time but the obstacles and the fear of hurting their families and children invites to a separation. A reflexive look on delicate question like love, friendship, honor and loneliness, always present in human lives, whether you are an American or a Chinese. I give this a 7 (seven)
|
positive
|
I'd love to give this movie a 10/10, but in its existing state I can only go to 8/10 tops. The post-Code editing (read: destroying) of this film warrants a 2-point demerit.<br /><br />From my very limited knowledge of film history, Baby Face was apparently one of two movies that finally broke the camel's back and brought the full wrath and enforcement of the Production Code into play in 1934. (I don't know what the other movie was.) As a result, the movie in its original incarnation was never allowed to be re-released after 1934. It was chopped and edited to bits, and no original version is known to exist today. The best that we can see today is the version that TCM (Turner Classic Movies) shows, but that is blatantly edited in several scenes, and has a really disappointing "happy ending" slapped onto the end.<br /><br />All the above being said, the movie is still pretty darned great and lots of fun to watch. Barbara Stanwyck is, as always, absolutely amazing and wonderful. She is so beautiful and powerful; she just owns the whole movie! She plays a woman who's been used by men her entire life, starting with her father who pimps her out to the local Erie, PA steel workers as well as to local politicians in a quid pro quo of 'if you don't shut down my speakeasy I'll let you sleep with my daughter'. When the father dies in a fiery explosion near the beginning of the flick, the smile on Stanwyck's face is priceless.<br /><br />After the fire, Stanwyck leaves Erie with her maid and heads to New York City. She sets her sights on a skyscraper and starts literally working her way to the top. Starting out with the personnel clerk in the HR department, she sleeps with him to get an entry level position at the bank. From there, she sleeps with man after man after man (including a very young John Wayne) using each new man to help her land a higher paying job on a higher floor of the skyscraper, with increasingly powerful male bosses cum sugar daddies. Stanwyck stops at nothing in her rise to the top. It is great fun to see her and her maid in increasingly fancier clothes and apartments as Stanwyck works her way up the corporate ladder. Stanwyck is the ultimate femme fatale, manipulating, she-vixen in this flick! If you watch this movie, I recommend stopping when you see the George Brent character (Courtland Trenholm) die in Stanwyck's arms. Skip the remaining 3 minutes or so! The "happy ending" slapped on to the end of the movie for post-Code audiences is insulting to the audience's intelligence and lame beyond belief: the bank board members are sitting around a table expositing about Mr. and Mrs. Trenholm's million dollar donation to the bank and how they are living happily but poor in Erie, with former VP Trenholm now working in the steel mills - cut to the exact same footage of a steel plant that we saw in the beginning of the movie - "The End". PUH-LEEZE - HOW LAME! The movie originally ended with George Brent succeeding in his suicide attempt. I think that ending fits the overall mood of the movie much better than the slapped on post-Code ending.<br /><br />I certainly hope that a print of the original pre-Code version of this flick is discovered during my lifetime (update: the original HAS been found and should be out on DVD and/or TCM in 2006!). Until then, I'll enjoy the TCM version and switch it off before the lame-o post-Code ending.
|
positive
|
As an old white housewife I can still appreciate that Laurence Fishburne is one of our finest actors. anyone who appreciates his work like in Deep Cover might enjoy watching the incredible acting range of this actor. Since I think this is his directorial debut it might prove even more interesting. All of the acting is quite good. If you can't take lower Manhattan junky worlds or the reality of crime life (not glorified action shoot-em ups) then this is not a film you would enjoy. It is Mr. Fishburne's usual contribution to incredibly subtle relationships. I would love to see Larry and Anthony Hopkins go at each other some day in a movie.
|
positive
|
I think it took a lot of guts for her to come forward like that. It is unfortunate that when a celebrity suffers that is what helps people most. But, in her case, what she did was remarkable. I have been in the mental health field for five years and I think it is great that mental illness is not a terrible word anymore and I believe she helped. I always thought she was great and always will. I am glad that she wrote this book and that the movie was made. She is a remarkable lady and I hope she continues to act. She has been through a lot and has faced it. I would really love to see her work more with children, especially child actors. Her ordeal should not have happened and I think she would be wonderful as a mentor to young people. The movie was so moving to me that I was very touched. Suffering a TBI which brought the onset of my disorder and having PTSD, it is good to know that someone has the courage enough to display her life as she did. I believe it helped this nation and people in general realize that there are others like them and that there is help. Thank you Ms. Duke, or Anna, which ever you prefer.
|
positive
|
The best film on the battle of San Antonio, Texas in March 1836, was John Wayne's 1960 epic THE ALAMO. In a one shot job as director producer, that temporarily financially strapped him, Wayne demonstrated that he was talented in movie making outside of his icon-like acting ability personifying the West.<br /><br />I have commented on that film in a review the other night, and I pointed out that Wayne and James Edward Grant (the screenwriter) tackled some points that were barely mentioned in earlier films about the battle. They did bring in the issue of slavery. They also finally discussed the contribution of local Mexican land owner Juan Seguin as an important leader in the War for Independence on par with Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Austin, and Houston. <br /><br />But there was one weakness (though well hidden) in the film. Wayne worked hard to cast it properly, thinking of many people for lead roles in it. But, he did not properly handle the leader of the enemy forces, General Antonio De Santa Anna. The role was played by an obscure actor, Ruben Padilla (on this board, his thread shows only three credits listed). Padilla did not have any spoken dialog (even in Spanish). And while he does have one of the last shots in the film, he just is shown as a silent tyrant, observing the burning of the bodies of the Americans and their allies.<br /><br />Despite several poor choices in the casting of this television movie (THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO CLORY), it is the best film in showing the man who was (from 1836 to 1854) a leading bogeyman to American policy makers. Raul Julia was a wonderful stage actor. I was fortunate to see him in a production (in the late 1980s) of ARMS AND THE MAN in Manhattan, as Sergius. He was never boring, and usually first rate in his acting.<br /><br />Here we see the egotistical monster at his worst. Nothing is acceptable that does not fit Santa Anna's wishes or activities. It can be the failure of an orderly in the army to bring some item he requested fast enough, or it can be the temerity of these "foreign brigands" (as he saw the Americans) in not knuckling down to himself, "the Napoleon of the West".<br /><br />Santa Anna was President of Mexico five or six times between 1830 and 1855. He claimed that he first got involved in overthrowing a President because that President did not live up to the country's constitution, but it was the power that kept him going year after year. It is a sad commentary that he was the leading Mexican historical figure in those two decades. No political figure or military figure would rise to override him until Benito Juarez did in the late 1850s. Initially he claimed great liberal ideals, but he once admitted that the people of Mexico were children who needed guidance for one hundred years before they could rule themselves (and thus he sounds like Gilbert Roland in CRISIS talking about the people he has helped lead against Jose Ferrer). The amazing thing about him was he managed to keep coming back. His policies were disasters. While we know about his attack on Texas (to put down a revolt there), he also tried to expand into Guatamala (and probably saw himself controlling much of Central America). He did win at the Alamo, but at great cost of lives. His massacre of Col. Fannin's men at Goliad was inexcusable (one might make a case for the destruction of the defenders of the Alamo who were fighting to the last, but Fannin had surrendered). Then came the disaster of San Jacinto, where his army was wiped out (he failed to take adequate precautions to watch for the American troops). He was captured, and humiliated, and forced to sign a surrender of Texas. Houston was kind to him: the troops wanted to string him up.<br /><br />Except for losing a leg in a battle against the French in 1838, he managed not to get wounded in most of his wars. He repudiated the forced surrender of Texas, but could not militarily undue it. Instead, he would lead Mexico into defeat in the war of 1846 - 48 against the Americans, leading to the Mexican Session. The U.S. was "decent" enough to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the Southwest, but Mexico lost half of it's territory. He would be President for the last time in 1853, in time to give Franklin Pierce's horrendously bad administration it's one moment of glory - Santa Anna sold the border of Arizona and New Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase") to the U.S. No other Mexican President (not even Porfirio Diaz) ever cost his country so much (Diaz did sell out to foreign business interests, but he built up Mexico's economic muscles doing so). He was exiled in 1855, and settled in Staten Island. There he managed to do his most creative work: he introduced chicle to the U.S., and it became chewing gum. Some achievement! <br /><br />Julia's Santa Anna is younger than the practiced cynic and schemer who became America's best land purchase agent. He is not going to stand for opposition and he jumps into furious tantrums at a moment's notice. Most of the time his chief aide, Col. Black (David Ogden Stiers, here a British born officer) holds his tongue - he does not wish to be in front of a firing squad as he could be. But Stiers is secretly less than enchanted by his boss. At the end, when alone with the newly widowed wives of the dead Alamo defenders, Stiers suggests that they tell the world what Santa Anna is really like. And they did!
|
positive
|
I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.<br /><br />Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.<br /><br />The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.<br /><br />A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other "Children of the Corn" aren't really all that scary.<br /><br />Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video
|
negative
|
They probably could have skipped some of the beginning - I'm not sure why this starts out in the Asian part of Turkey. If it was because starting in the Mediterranean, they could have gotten closer starting in modern day Lebanon.<br /><br />One the cameras and crews get to the Bakhtyari tribe, it's the beginning of an amazing 48 day journey. 50,000 people with about 250,000 goats, camels, cattle, and horses make this amazing trek across what seems to be a very fast moving Karun River. They use rafts that are kept afloat by inflating goat skins - you can see where the head and legs were removed. The other "bank" of the river was very steep - I'm guessing about a 60 degree rise.<br /><br />Just watching that was incredible, but there was much more to come. To get to the pastures, they also had to cross a major mountain that had about 4 feet of snow, if not more. Being able to climb this mountain was pretty amazing in and of itself, but they (and all of the animals) climbed this mountain barefoot! Yes, barefoot.<br /><br />The one drawback to this documentary were some of the inter-titles with poor attempts at humor.<br /><br />If you want to see a documentary from the silent era, or the incredible challenges that this tribe not only face, but conquer. This is just an incredible document of a little known group of people facing all kinds of challenges.
|
positive
|
This movie was filmed in my hometown and I was acquainted with many of the "actors" in minor rolls. Most of them were students at the local karate school and even at the time it was filmed we all knew what a stinker it was. It was interesting however to see it being made. Most of the places it was filmed at no longer exist, such as the nightclub, the pizza shop, etc. The "world premiere" was held at The Akron Civic Theatre and we all laughed hysterically at how inane it was. I personally believe it's the worst movie ever made but it brings back many fond memories for me. Watch this movie with a word of advice...enjoy it for what it is..a very low budget, poorly made , karate flick.
|
negative
|
This is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.<br /><br />The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!
|
negative
|
If there is one film which is the worst of this year- it's TASHAN The first promo gave an indication that the film will be a boring Dhoom 2 style film, and well i knew first only it would be a bad film whatever it maybe Because of it being a Yashraj film Or maybe seeing the cheesy promo But this film gave me a shock, it was even worst then Dhoom 2 and what i expected First Saif's introduction which is boring Then Saif- Kareena meet, Kareena is so artificial and then Anil Kapoor oh god, what he is doing in such a weird film? What kinda role it is? What acting is he doing? His first scene is alright but then his act gets repetitive and he overacts Then came Akshay who provided some nice scenes, but then the film became more boring and with all the outdated stuff Childhood romance, overdose of childish Rajnikant style action scenes and all boring scenes The ending is another joke<br /><br />Vijay Krishna Acharya would have got 3 films more to direct, if this film had worked, thats the strategy of yashraj, only money nothing else So Vijay is another addition to their list of crap filmmakers Music( Vishal Shekhar) is ordinary<br /><br />Performances Akshay Kumar comes in the film as a whiff of fresh air, he actually provides some engaging moments Saif Ali Khan is irritating, Kareena is equally bad Anil Kapoor hams outrageously and spoils the show even more Rest are okay
|
negative
|
Here's why this movie fell very short of its potential(I don't read much, so I don't care WHAT the novel was like). 1. I think Brendan Frasier copied his Encino man from Lambert's Tarzan. It was stiff, and while his Tarzan call was a little more realistic, he had no humanity. 2. They screwed with the story. Maybe that's how the book goes, but for as long as I can remember the first utterances of Tarzan were "Me tarzan, you Jane". Jane is the first human tarzan encounters. I did like the natives a bit more than the shoepolished midget pigmys in Weismuller's version, but those bows and arrows were a bit cheesy. 3. Tarzan is primarily a love story. I'm sorry, but the love interest enters over an hour into the picture. That qualifies her for a supporting role at best. Supporting roles and leads don't fall for each other, not enough screen time, sorry. Not only was Andie McDowell's vioce over pathetic(most likely because her strong southern accent couldn't be masked) the chemistry scale between Tarzan and Jane was a whopping 0. I never believed they loved each other, which made the Belgian dudes closing voice over, quite frankly, silly. When Tarzan sees Jane for the first time in the jungle, he feels an urge, if you will, a feeling he's never felt before. Jane brings out the humanity in him, and he brings out the untamed side of her. Its this chemistry that compells the story of Tarzan. Not that Lord Greystoke's dying wish is to keep his land whole and that johnny boy is going to do it for him. Even a good face lift couldn't help this movie. It needs massive internal reconstruction. Oh, and could we possibly shoot more in the jungle, or at least use camera angles that don't show off the sound stage like qualities of the place. Final judgement, 4 out of 10. Sorry Tin-man, and by the way, if you want to see real acting, drop Lambert and check out Leonardo Dicaprio.
|
negative
|
What is this ? A low budget sex comedy ? Anyway it describes perfectly the people in Spain. They could come up with a better idea, I mean they do this kind of movies since the 60s.. and people like them ! This is neither a teen comedy nor a family one (you can't let your 12 year old watch 2 guys in bed kissing, he'll never want to go to Spain). This should be rated "R", because only people 35+ seem to laugh watching :S I'm truly disappointed, maybe I don't like gays (which is quite an important part of the movie).<br /><br />Foreign humor is awful in films (except Kusturica), stick with doing dramas! If you want a new comedy try Talladega Nights
|
negative
|
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie because there was a genuine sincerity in the acting. The writing was top-notch. James Arness is a great actor and he showed it here. Brian Keith was too old to be Davy Crockett, and can anyone really play Davy but Fess Parker?<br /><br />Another great actor in this move was Raul Julia, who gave depth to Santa Anna, a vain and complex person who led Mexico through turbulent times.<br /><br />While some may think the movie was slow-paced, it captured the battle as it unfolded, lots of tedium followed by a couple hours of horrific terror.<br /><br />What impressed me most about this movie is that it made you think about a cause and how some people are willing to die for what they believe in. In this day and age when nobody stands for anything, I found it refreshing to think that there was a time when people died for freedom, no matter how you may feel about the politics of the time.
|
positive
|
I was given a DVD of Public Enemies and was expecting it to be the 2009 version but it wasn't - it was this! Sure, it wasn't the greatest movie I have ever seen - not by ANY means - but, heck folks, it was worth more that 2.8 out of 10! When I saw that abysmal rating on IMDb, I wondered what I was going to get but, since the disc was in the player, I settled down to watch it. As other commentators have pointed out, Public Enemies is NOT a historical movie per-se - and I noted that, unlike the 2009 version (which I haven't seen yet) IMDb doesn't categorise it as such.<br /><br />Come on people! It's a STORY based on some real people - that's all! If I wanted a history lesson, I'd sit at this computer and read Wikipedia or something. Ma Barker (actual name Arizona - or Arrie - Barker) was NEVER even charged with any crime and, as other commentators have already pointed out, she probably never even took part in her sons' activities. They sent her to the movies when they were "working"! (I hope she wasn't as critical as some of those who watched this movie!) <br /><br />Theresa Russell had the never-too-easy task of portraying a woman from the age of 17 right through to her death at the age of 52 - from a young girl running from home to the hardened mother of four hoodlum sons. I think she did it pretty well. The cheeky little smile she used in more than one scene was classical! OK, I will agree with some of the critics that the direction of this film was below par and I sympathise with the actors over that. Theresa should have told the director to forget the topless shots - they didn't contribute to the story. Maybe some bigger-name stars would have managed to inject some of their own expertise into overriding the poor direction whereas the second-graders weren't quite that brave. Who knows? <br /><br />But, whilst this was certainly no block-buster, it WAS worth more than 2.8!! I have all my DVDs on a personal database where I score them BEFORE looking at the IMDb score (although that sometimes influences slight changes later). I take what I get on it's own merits rather than holding one movie up against others of the same genre and this one I felt was entertaining enough to get 6.8. (Yep, I'll accept that such a practice does tend to depend on my mood at the time, but then isn't that also true of those who vote on IMDb?) However, you may imagine my surprise when I looked at IMDb and saw the pitiful score it got here.<br /><br />Given the surprise, I decided to read a few of the other comments in the hopes of understanding the low rating and I noticed that they are quite polarised. I agreed with those who said the movie was worth watching and came to the conclusion that some people are just hard to please. Well, since some were absolutely scathing, why don't THEY get out there and make some better movies? I will look forward to the gems they must be able to turn out! On the other hand, if they can't do that, then why don't they just shut up?
|
positive
|
I have only seen the minimum wage episode yet i have no intention of watching the others, how can that be? Morgan starts theatrically complaining about his awful situation living on minimum wage right at the beginning of the episode and the complaining never stops. Ever. Luckily for the viewer, his skinny girlfriend is just as annoying as Morgan (if not even more annoying).<br /><br />And then to top it all, they go to the movies and buy bottled water for 2,50 and after that go to a restaurant to eat out all the while they naturally *drumroll* complain about being poor.<br /><br />I don't care if the other episodes may or may not be better than this. No one should be forced to watch this crap.
|
negative
|
I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say rude things. It's not that I think "oh poor children, they're being exploited" - it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do, therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time. <br /><br />By far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my opinion. <br /><br />You should watch this show though because all in all it's very funny, even if it is stupid at times.
|
positive
|
Late one night on Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow" Show, I watched Tom ask his guest Henry Morgan what he considered to be 'perfect.' Morgan responded, "Anything with Glenda Jackson." And although I wouldn't consider this film to be perfect, it does bear out that notion very well. I was about to use the cliché' about Hollywood not making pictures like this anymore, but then I just saw, "Up in the Air," another intelligent film about 2 people over the age of 35 who fall in love. That's where the similarities end, though. "House Calls" is just sheer fun watching 2 pros like Matthau and Jackson hit it off and seem completely natural while they're at it. I saw this film in the theater in 1978 (at the ripe old age of 18) and it took me another 20 years to get all of the jokes. Any film that can make punch lines out of 1920's tennis great Bill Tilden, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wouldn't play too well at the megaplex these days. One other thought: the original theatrical release featured a 'walk on the beach / fall in love' montage set to The Beatles/George Harrison tune, "Something." It seemed a bit forced at the time, but that song has since been swapped out for a rather generic Henry Mancini music cue for subsequent home video and cable release. Too bad, because that scene just lays there now, another victim of music licensing Hell.
|
positive
|
After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.<br /><br />We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo! <br /><br />Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel. <br /><br />From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this!
|
negative
|
The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.<br /><br />The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom
|
negative
|
This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.
|
negative
|
i was part of the cast of Space Odyssey, playing FIDO in mission control. i just want to say that none of us actors, specially those in mission control who had to react to a green screen most of the time, had any idea how amazing it would turn out to be. i knew it was going to be good, if only for the sheer camaraderie and professionalism that the production team at Impossible Pictures provided for everyone involved. but when we all saw it for the first time at the screening at the Curzon Mayfair, well, i for one felt very proud. I was so glad that none of us looked like we were in Star Trek. Joe Aherne, the screenwriter and director, is the most amazing man to work for. He pretty much gets a good team together and then just trusts them implicitly to freely do what they do best. I'm really lucky to have been part of this show. Who knew something this epic and complicated to understand would turn out to be so enticing to watch. and my god it's a beautiful universe out there.
|
positive
|
If you really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.<br /><br />After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.<br /><br />OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.<br /><br />The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.<br /><br />Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO SO!
|
negative
|
This movie was beyond awful, it was a pimple on the a*s of the movie industry. I know that every movie can't be a hit or for that matter even average, but the responsible parties that got together for this epic dud, should have been able to see that they had a ticking time bomb on their hands. I can't help but think that the cast would get together in between scenes and console each other for being in such a massive heap of dung. I can hear it now, "You getting' paid?" "Nope, you?" I understand that this flick was more than likely made on a shoe string budget but even with that taken into account, it still could've been better. You wait for the appearance of a monster/creature and when you finally see it, it's a big yawn.I'm so mad at myself for spending a 1.07 on this stinker!!!
|
negative
|
Despite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: "so what?". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.
|
negative
|
Dreadful film about a doctor who goes fishing and winds up catching a mermaid when he is thrown overboard. She traps him into bringing her back with him.<br /><br />Glynis Johns, in the title role, is really a silly individual with a tail hanging out.<br /><br />Margaret Rutherford is the nurse who is supposed to be so eccentric but we see no eccentricity here. In fact, Miss Rutherford was not allowed to use her true comedic gifts.<br /><br />Nice to see David Tomlinson in the film. He would get together with Johns in the far superior "Mary Poppins," 16 years later.<br /><br />Miranda causes mischief in that two guys, a neighbor's fiancée and chauffeur (Tomlinson) fall for her.<br /><br />Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what's the best tuna, Chicken of the Sea! As for this film, forget it.
|
negative
|
Howling II (1985) was a complete 180 from the first film. Whilst the first film was campy and creepy. The second one was sleazy and cheesy. The production values on this one are pretty bad and the acting is atrocious. The brother of the anchorwoman werewolf from part one wants to find out what happened to his sis'. The "scene" from the first film was badly re-created. A skinny plain looking woman accompanies bro' (Reb Brown) to the old country (Romania) to uncover the mystery to her sister's murder/transformation/death. Christopher Lee appears and disappears over now and then as sort of a sage/guide to the two. Sybil Danning and her two biggest assets appear as Stirba, the head werewolf of the Romania. She also suffers from a bad case of morning face, ewww!<br /><br />Bad movie. There's nothing good about this stinker. I'm surprise Philippe Mora directed this picture because he's usually a good film-maker. The film is so dark that you need a flashlight to watch it (no, not the content but the film stock itself). To round the movie off you get a lousy "punk" performance from a Damned wannabe "Babel". Maybe if they forked over a couple of extra bucks they could've got the real deal instead of an imitation.<br /><br />Best to avoid unless you're desperate or you lost the remote and you're too lazy to change the channel.
|
negative
|
This movie is a true reflection of the Australian resourcefulness that has been required to make this country what it is over the last 200 years. Not pompous like the British, not Gung-Ho like the Americans. If either of those countries had attempted what this crew did, it would have failed dismally. Either due to ignorance on the British part, or too much faith in superior firepower on the American side. "True" Australians (i.e. non-imports) are the only ones who can excel in modern military conflicts because they have had to improvise most of their adult lives. Just look at examples like Gallipoli; Paschendale; Tobruk; New Guinea and Vietnam.
|
positive
|
From the moment the film begins, already there is a discrepancy. As this film takes place on the borders of Normandy and the middle East, and is also an international film, one would expect proper accents portrayed. This is not done as the majority of the cast sound American. Also, I find the acting to be rehearsed at best, the story line a little difficult to follow from the beginning. Who is who? Otherwise the film is very accurate in costume and scenery. If you want to see a movie to get a feel of what it was like in the past (albeit the lack of accents) then this movie is worth a rent. If you're looking for a movie as epic as Kingdom of Heaven, then look elsewhere.
|
negative
|
Boy oh boy oh golly gee,<br /><br />The most interesting thing in the movie was the hilarity of the bluescreen effects used to create Mom's "invisibility." They looked like they were shot on cheap video, and it looks totally unreal, and not even in a good way where its so funny that you end up loving the movie...<br /><br />I did NOT end up loving this movie. The attempted "steadicam" shots were really pathetic as well. I mean, hey, if they had a low budget flick, that's fine. You can still make a great movie with a low budget. But, a BAD movie and a low budget AND effects. That makes for a bad combination. In this case, such a doomed combo created the craptastic film, "Invisible Mom." If you have kids, and your kids have no taste, perhaps they will stay awake through all of this one.
|
negative
|
I just finished watching this movie and I must say that I was so impressed.Everything about it was superb. The acting the characters, the story. A believable child who grew into brave, always willing to help others. His mum must be proud. I could not take my eyes off this film for fear of missing something. It is the prefect fable/tale with morals, cute and scary sprites and 'monsters' but nevertheless heartwarming folk. A child poked and bullied at school who becomes a hero. Picked to be a rider at the local village festival and a journey to the Goblin Mountain where he discovers the Yokai, who are amazing creations that Brian Froud would be proud of. And the evil Kato and his off sider who definitely needed a hug. These evil people capture the Yokai and throw them into a red pit along with unwanted objects, like motorbikes and other mechanical things and these meld into one horribly violent robotic monsters whose only job is to kill. Takashi a young boy is the one to become their saviour, alongside a red man/dragon a turtle man and a River Princess as well as a cute little creature that, if it had been America they could have turned it into a cuddly toy and sold it at all good toy stores. The lines are good especially the Don't try this at home kids and other gems that bring a smile to your lips. Suspend belief and watch this with a child or on your own and enjoy! Though I must admit that the end was a wee bit sad. And not necessarily so. Cheers Furdion
|
positive
|
I happened to borrow this movie from a friend knowing nothing about it, and it turned out to be an outstanding documentary about a journey on an ancient vessel across vast expanses of the ocean. Thor Heyerdahl had developed a theory that the ancient Incas in Peru managed to travel thousands of miles across the ocean to Polynesia, based on certain relics that are found in both places, certain types of ancient sea-going vessels that we know they had available, analysis of ocean and wind currents, and the knowledge that the Incas did, in fact, travel in some undetermined amount at sea.<br /><br />In order to test his hypothesis, Heyerdahl and his crew construct a vessel as closely as possible to what the ancient Incas had available, using only balsa wood and other materials available at the time, and set out from Lima, Peru's capital, to try to reach the islands of Polynesia, some 5,000 miles away.<br /><br />His theory, like so much about ancient history, is impossible to prove with 100% certainty, but the coverage of their journey provides for strong support that he is right. The film is really little more than narration of footage taken during the 100+ day expedition, but it is a very detailed description of what it was like and the trials and tribulations that they faced. I often wish that Academy Award winning documentaries were easier to find, and this one from more than 50 years ago is still as interesting and informative as I am sure it was when it was first released.
|
positive
|
Seagal fans beware- He does no action scenes until almost an hour into this mess. Instead, Seagal RUNS AWAY from numerous fights, letting Ja Rule convincingly lose every battle. Actually, Ja Rule could be an up and coming action star, but Hollywood needs to let him at least hit puberty (which should happen in a few more years...) Also, what sort of commando/terrorist wears a bare-midriff outfit? The chick in this atrocity looks like a backup singer for Christina Aguilera.Back to Seagal- When he finally does cut loose, it's his stunt double (HEAVILY PADDED to resemble the bloated Seagal) doing a lot of the work & taking the falls. I don't remember any aikido, either. It's just your standard kicks & punches you'd see in any straight-to-video martial arts turkey. Not even "so-bad-it's-funny", either. Just plain dull...
|
negative
|
Devin Hamilton is probably better known as the new name in legendary Full Moon entertainment. Sadly, his arrival to this independent studio happened in a time when budget and production values are at its lowest in years. However, in his short career Hamilton has established himself as a creative director that manages to make inventive and original stories. Now, this doesn't mean that his movies are good, but at least they are different to the usual in the horror genre.<br /><br />In his debut, "Bleed", Hamilton presents us a creative twist on the slasher sub genre. Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a young woman that finally gets the job of her dreams. Not only that, but it seems that she has also found a boyfriend in Shaun (Danny Wolske), it seems that life finally smiles for Maddy after many sad events. Until on a party with Shaun's friends, they tell her that they created a "club" where members have to kill somebody to enter.<br /><br />Obviously they are joking, but Maddy wants desperately to fit in, that she actually murders someone. After that event, someone starts to kill the rest of the members of the "club" one by one. it is up to Maddy to figure out what is going on as anybody could be the killer, including her.<br /><br />Maddy is a very interesting character wonderfully played by the beautiful Debbie Rochon. It is a very interesting twist on the genre to have the lead actress as part of the suspects. The concept is so original and Rochon's performance is so good that it is a real shame that Hamilton didn't develop the whole story a little bit better. The movie feels quite slow at times and overall the feeling is the one of a good idea wasted on a bad movie.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is weird in the sense that all the female cast is very good, while the male cast is painfully bad. Danny Wolske is terribly wooden and his performance as a yuppie is quite stereotypical. Julie Strain, Brinke Stevens & Lloyd Kaufman appear in small cameos and are wonderful in their small roles. Also, there is lots of nudity (both male & female) and the cast is very good looking, so it is really a plus.<br /><br />The low-budget hurts the film in the effects department, as there are very few gory scenes and are not really graphic (probably because they would look bad); nevertheless, considering the budget, the film at least looks good.<br /><br />Hamilton's more recent effort, the sexploitational venture "Delta Delta Die!", is a better crafted and overall funnier film. While this one is not as bad as other better known films, it still has a lot of flaws and may be interesting only for fans of Debbie Rochon or fans of independent no-budget films. 4/10
|
negative
|
Judith Ivey as the scamming old whore is awesome. Emily Grace the young girl. Is innocent and exciting as she learns whats going down. Excellent direction and camera. Story is dark and disturbing.Supporting cast is good. Shows what happens and can happen with a run of bad luck. Great independent film. Small cast. Pace is slow at first and then moves good. A good movie to show your teen age daughter who has aspirations of leaving home early, for the open road and adventure. This movie, film has a low budget feel to it, but it works because of the low lifes and areas that these people move in. I will never stop a rest stop again with out thinking of this movie and checking my tires before I go.
|
positive
|
Story of a wrongly executed prisoner who haunts the prison he was electrocuted in and kills random prisoners while waiting to take revenge on the man who framed him.<br /><br />Viggo Mortensen is great, and the acting is pretty good overall. Lane Smith is deliciously wicked as the guilty warden. Also, this film has some great gore, including death by barbed-wire mummification.
|
positive
|
This is by far probably the worst film Al Pacino could have starred in. The movie had no real plot. It kind of careens into 24 different directions. It seems that the target audience for this film are people from gambler's anonymous.Mat Mcconaughey's character is not believable enough to be Pacino's protégé'. So he won a few bets for some degenerate clients as a sideline to a shitty job recording on a 900 service. Does that automatically supposed to convince an audience of his skills? It was just plain stupid to think of. The trailer did promise to show us how he makes his sure-shot picks but after going through the whole film I have yet to see what skill if any he ever had. If you want skill try looking at Robert de Niro's character in Casino now that is showmanship. At some point in the film, Mat's character picks his winning bets at a flip of a coin. Anybody could do that. Al Pacino seems to talk a lot and I mean blabber mouth in your face dialog. I think that style started with Scent of a Woman and worked for him because he finally won an Oscar but now I think its just irritating. He seems to be always sermonizing. He does do a mean act of portraying a man having unstable angina (that's an impending heart attack) its typically reminiscent of his acting in Godather part 3 which he plays the aging,diabetic mafia don corleone but other than that Pacino's talent is wasted on this film. Rene Russo is just plain eye candy for this film. She's kept in shape and shows it off in the tight clothes she wears throughout. This film is plain crap. Do not waste your money on it. It is much worse than the gambling picks of Mats character in the film.
|
negative
|
Like many people in my general age range, I remember going to see this movie as a kid in '98 and coming out of the theatre practically in tears. It seemed, at the time, to be one of the most important, awe-inspiring cinematic experiences of our generation. At once riveting, action-packed, funny, heartbreaking, and truly inspirational, Armegeddeon really did have everything going on, right down to the catchy Aerosmith theme song and sappy tear-jerker of an ending.<br /><br />Sweet Jebus. What were we smoking? I watched it for the first time in years last night on one of the movie channels, and... I cannot even describe it. This is, truly, one of the worst movies ever made. Where to even begin? Leaving aside the plethora of LAUGHABLE scientific errors ('personnel trackers' on astronauts? yeah, sure, thanks for that, Billy Bob), I'd have to say the worst thing about it was the remarkable - dare I even say unmatched - way in which it combined crappy writing with crappy acting. There are too many examples of this to even begin listing here, but one in particular springs to mind - the scene where Bruce Willis is telling the Feds exactly where to go to track down each of the oh-so-charmingly-roguish members of his oil drilling team ('check every bar in New Orleans', 'the craps tables in Vegas', 'the only black guy on a motorcycle in Sturgis'... all to the tune of 'Come Together'... it reminded me a bit of the "NEWS TEAM! ASSEMBLE!" scene from Anchorman, except serious). Ben Affleck proves, once again, that he is by far the most overpaid actor in Hollywood, having less depth, range, and overall talent than anyone else in the business. Not that Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS GODFORSAKEN PIECE OF GARBAGE was much better.<br /><br />(I have to say, though, I got a kick out of seeing a pre-stardom Owen Wilson get killed off half-way through... is this the only movie where his character dies?) <br /><br />Peter Stormare is perfect as THE MOST STEREOTYPICAL UNSHAVEN Russian COSMONAUT YOU HAVE EVER SCENE. (Then again, Peter Stormare does seem to have a talent for playing over-the-top Eurotypes.) It really was quite amusing how, almost IMMEDIATELY after the Americans dock with the Russian Space Station (which is actually called that in the movie), Ben Affleck succeeds in singlehandedly causing the whole joint to explode in spectacular Hollywood fashion. I also love the fact that, in the end, Paris is the only place on Earth to get destroyed, and that absolutely no one seems to care. And on top of all that, it at points literally turns into simultaneous ads for Lockheed Martin AND Kerr McGee. Oh how proud I am to be an American.<br /><br />There's plenty of other stuff to rant about, but I won't... suffice it to say that this is a really, really, REALLY terrible movie, that I feel ashamed to have ever genuinely liked.<br /><br />I give it two stars just for the mockability factor.
|
negative
|
OK, maybe it doesn't deserve an Oscar. Or a Golden Globe. Or any award, for that matter. The acting isn't outstanding, there's no reason to give credits to the directing, and its really just another semi-gory 21st century slasher flick that MOST people will consider just decent. Or maybe even dreadful. But in my opinion, all of this doesn't matter a bit. And thats because i had a great time watching this movie.<br /><br />Sure, the first 40 minutes are pretty slow, but as the movie progresses, something in it you will like, if you are like I was, and anybody else should be when watching this movie. And that is: looking for 2 hours of fun, mindless violence. (And a kick-ass ending, which i won't spoil.) Yes, there are many flaws in this movie, but don't let the cast list on the front cover fool you. Hilton delivers a decent performance that nobody saw coming. Even her greatest haters like me and my friends had to agree that she surprised us greatly with her barely believable acting skills and a strip-tease that wasn't as nasty as anything an online pop-up would promise of her, but still not so unbearable as to fast-forward or turn off the DVD.<br /><br />The violence in this surprised me; nobody at school or on the horror board was talking about it like they were about "these new movies called 'Saw' and 'Hostel'" but I could safely say that "Wax" was more graphic than Saw, and some death scenes were actually quite disturbing.<br /><br />In conclusion, I'm not surprised House of Wax didn't make a place on the IMDb Top 250, but it is definitely worth a look.
|
positive
|
Rosie wasted a lot of TV time talking about the Tainos as if they were super influential in the dynamics of the modern day Puerto Rican. They were not. The truth is that the Africans and the Spanish were and she knows it. What kills me is that she is standing on the screen looking like some average light skin black chick ( with an obvious black daddy, cousins and auntie)pretending to truly acknowledge the real essence of what makes them the modern day Puerto Ricans,but barely mentioned how Africans influenced the way their Spanish is spoken, the food and music. She is so typical and I lost a lot of respect for her and will not support anything else she does. Also, since she wants to dance around her African-ness then she need not take more roles associated with blackness (i.e. Lackawanna Blues). We can find a prideful Black Latina next time (thank you Zoe Saldana,Gina Torres, Gina Ravera and Melissa DeSousa).<br /><br />To the Puerto Rican on here that said they are African and not "black"....thank you. We "blacks" certainly do not have anything in common with "you" so there is no love lost. But, since you are probably in the States and have benefited from the Civil Rights movement we would like for you refuse any decent human treatment you received courtesy of the blood ,sweat and tears from the backs of the "blacks" you share nothing with.<br /><br />If I am correct Puerto Ricans have a terrible image in the media, but we blacks do not spend our time trying to disrespect you because we know that the media loves to exploits the low points and behaviors of all minorities to maintain mindless generalizations. However, you evidently have fed into the hype that one you are somehow white or superior...you are not. Also, you somehow feel compelled to believe that black culture is BET...again you are incorrect and need to take a vacation out of the hood. Try visiting Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Texas, Charlotte, N.C. Trust me none of those blacks want to claim your "culture" either.
|
negative
|
Quite possibly. How Francis Veber, one of the best comedy directors in the world (at least when sticking to his native France), managed to turn in a film so completely unwatchable is beyond the reason of mere mortal man to discern. It's not just that the characters are so unlikeable or that the film is so utterly devoid of even the lowest form of wit: it's genuinely physically painful to watch, such an endless parade of inept writing, acting and film-making that you cannot believe this is the work of experienced - and talented - filmmakers. For once the near-eternity spent in the cutting room and on the shelf before its blink-and-you'll-miss-it theatrical release tells the whole story. What were they thinking?
|
negative
|
I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these. <br /><br />I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.<br /><br />One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.<br /><br />IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one.
|
negative
|
What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.
|
negative
|
***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.<br /><br />Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!<br /><br />Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic "The Searchers" in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.<br /><br />The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.<br /><br />Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.<br /><br />***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good!
|
positive
|
It's only 2 episodes into a 5 part drama, but I can already state that this is one of the best things I've ever seen. That's on TV, silver screen or even in real life.<br /><br />As a writer, it's so good it's almost demoralising! As a viewer it's so entertaining that I'm annoyed the episodes are over a fortnight instead of Monday to Friday. It's clear that all these negatives are actually positives.<br /><br />I'm a modern guy who previously turned over from TV dramas. In comparison to movies, TV dramas always seemed to be dated, quite tame, and well, generally boring! "Five Days" has really brought TV drama into the 21st Century, so for me at least, it's mind changing. Go watch it.
|
positive
|
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. What were they thinking. Stop preaching to me already! This is why all of us watch Walker Texas Ranger and wont admit it to our friends. Terrible acting and a extremely phony plot. While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience. The director somehow believed the two meshed well. It looked like crap! When I saw the title at my local blockbusters it looked interesting. Their should have been a warning on it saying it was religious instead of the false advertisement of an action / adventure. First time in a long time I stopped a movie and couldn't tolerate finishing it.
|
negative
|
E. Elias Merhige's Begotten is a one of a kind, surreal depiction of the mankind's treatment of religion. There are a couple of different ways you can interpret things, but the plot itself is simple: A god disembowels himself, and out of his corpse springs mother earth. Mother Earth then felates the god's corpse post-mortem, and then impregnates herself with what remains of his seed. Following this, she gives birth to a messiah figure who quivers, presumably in infancy, but possibly with terror at being brought to life on earth. This all takes place in the first 15-30 minutes, and after that, the rest of the film consists of robed figures dragging the messiah (who is incessantly quivering, or seizing) across a desert landscape. The robed figures pause only to brutalize the messiah, then continue to drag him around.<br /><br />There are a couple of ways to interpret this, depending on your level of optimism and your world view. It can easily be interpreted as a bleak nihilistic atheist allegory about the total lack of apparent power that Christian "deities" can be perceived as having in a modern society that only invokes their names to advance its own selfish goals. Or you can interpret it as a postmodern pro-Christian allegory, in which you view the film as being about how mankind has twisted Christ's message around so much that it's original purity and innocence can no longer have relevance in a world where that message and image are inappropriately used to endorse everything from interpersonal violence, to war, to totalitarianism.<br /><br />The visuals of this film are phenomenal, and you will not see anything like it, period. If you can, watch the original VHS release, I recommend it. I'm not sure if the visuals are changed on the DVD, but I have seen clips of this streaming on you tube and the effects are seriously diminished. On the VHS version, Merhige achieved TOTAL BINARY CONTRAST. Meaning, there basically aren't any mid-tones except for some grain in some of the shots. Other than that, this film offers the rare opportunity to see PURE white and PURE black, and the result is stunning, hallucinatory, and quite unsettling. This film makes Film Noir look positively washed out and mediocre. The shots fade into each other in a surreal manner that recalls Un Chien Andalou without completely aping it, for an effect that has been called a filmic Rorschach test.<br /><br />That being said, the film can certainly try a viewer's patience and commitment. There isn't any dialogue for starters. The only sound throughout the film is a fairly constant loop of crickets chirping, peppered occasionally with the gurgling and death rattles of the dying deities, and an amelodic droning synthesizer texture. Personally, I find that the film is best enjoyed listening to experimental industrial music like the instrumental NIN remixes from the Downward Spiral era, more abstract noise/experimental music like F*ck Buttons and Odd Nosdam. It also works quite well with apocalyptic black metal. Basically any music with extreme textures and/or hypnotic rhythms. That's one of the most amazing and versatile aspects of this film, it is PRIME for postmodern re-contextualization, like projecting it during a performance of avant-garde music, or composing avant-garde music to accompany it.<br /><br />Once the messiah figure is born, there really isn't much change for the rest of the film, meaning that you are basically sitting through at least 45 minutes or more of the messiah figure being drug around the desert and beaten. It looks bleakly beautiful, but there isn't really anything new unfolding. It helps to cement the filmmakers intentions of communicating that for thousands of years now people have been using Christ's name and image for personal benefits, but can be tiresome to a casual viewer or someone with a short attention span. Basically, if you are looking for a modern horror film with suspense, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a unique film experience, and you aren't particularly fond of mainstream Hollywood cinema, this could be your quivering messiah.
|
positive
|
H.G. Wells in 1936 was past his prime and the books of his that will survive were long gone by. He was coming to the end of his life and he was confronted to his dream gone sour. At the very beginning of the 20th century he defended the idea that the world was doomed because the evolution of species, natural biology, on one side, and Marxism, market economy on the other side, were necessarily leading to the victory of the weaker over the stronger due to the simple criterion of number. The weaker were the mass of humanity and the stronger were the minority elite. He defended then a strict eugenic policy with the elimination of all those who were in a way or another weakening the human race. First of all the non-Caucasian, with the only exception of the Jews who would disappear thanks to mixed marriages. Then, within the Caucasian community all those who were not healthy, the alcoholics, the mentally disabled, all those who were genetically disabled, etc. That was not Hitler. That was H.G. Wells and that was not after the first world war. That was more than ten years before. And twenty years before the first world war he had published The Time Machine that defended the idea that the human "race", left to its own means and due to the vaster cosmological evolution of life on earth, would see the differentiation of the human "race" into two "species": the working class would become a subterranean laborious species and the bourgeoisie would become an idle surface species. The point was in the novel that the surface sophisticated and weak idle species was the prey of the other species who were the predators. Wells was convinced humanity was in danger and politicians were supposed to stop this evolution by imposing a strict eugenic policy. The first countries to follow this injunction were the Scandinavian countries who were also the last to drop it only very recently for some of them. The film here proposes a vision of 2036 with a world government that is absolutely dictatorial in the fact that there is no election, no parliament, no really democratic institution, only peace imposed by military conquest, and the government is dominated by one man or at the most one man and his few councilors. And in that future world all, absolutely all human beings are Caucasians. Wells was able to imagine humanity being completely white by 2036. Amazing. Wells envisaged some kind of a rebellion but that would be short lived and lead to nothing at all. The last sentences are the vision of this white civilization conquering the whole universe when contemplating the sky and its stars and planets. Frightening. And that was produced in 1936. All the more frightening since nowhere the slightest mention of Hitlerism, fascism, Japanese imperialism or Stalinism can be found. But it is essential to have that film in a good restored edition because it is crucial to have a full vision of H.G. Wells. We are obviously very far away from the Brave New World of absolute "democratic" social selection, or the Animal Farm of the dictatorship of the porcine proletariat, or the 1984 of the abstract mediatic dictatorship of Big Brother. This vision is at least just as much frightening as the three others. And I only want to compare Wells with the British science fiction writers of his days. It would be unfair to go beyond. This reveals that in England in these first three decades of the 20th century there was a tremendous fear among intellectuals: the fear that the future would only be somber, bleak and in the form of an impasse of some kind.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
|
positive
|
This is the thirteenth Falcon film. Tom Conway has lost none of his humour and style, and is not showing signs of getting tired. The film has a very satisfying story, with lots of red herrings, suspects, and dames. Madge Meredith is the good girl of the story, she plays it adequately but by no means sets the screen on fire. Myrna Dell is a bad girl, and she puts on an excellent face of stone, with eyes of agate, and you are just waiting for her to kill as many people as possible to cheer herself up. Edward Brophy is back as Goldie the sidekick, but surprise surprise, his manic over-acting has stopped, and he is actually under control. This is a fine tribute to the directorial skills of William A. Berke, who had done so many Westerns he probably was not prepared to take any nonsense from a Brooklyn dummy. The result is that for the first time, possibly in his career, Brophy was toned down enough actually to add something to a film rather than try the viewer's patience with the irritating behaviour of a retarded but unruly six year-old. It all goes along very well, and is thoroughly entertaining.
|
positive
|
I really hate this show! I had watched one episode, and I knew this show is really terrible. The story lines are both poorly written and executed and the jokes are really bad...I mean it is just a sh++ty rip-off of Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Quest, 'bout an obnoxious boy with flamed blond hair with his twin genius sisters and talking dog; a stay-at-home dad and a smart, super-busy mom...Like oh-my-flippin'-God! Their dad is a mother-f**kin' crazy home-maker, isn't that so gay! If my dad is a home-maker, I would personally die! Of shame that is...Really I would.<br /><br />I have nothing else to about this...this travesty but only 3 word; count them 3 words to describe it:<br /><br />· Lame, · Stupid, and above all... · F**K UP! That's all I could say folks, it is definitely making my list of worst animated series EV-ER! If I had one that is.
|
negative
|
Writer/Director Peter Greenaway cements his title as the High Lord of Art House Pretension with his latest exercise in obnoxious self-indulgence, 8 ½ Women. The film follows a wealthy Englishman and his son on their mutual quest for sexual satisfaction, as they lure and blackmail women (guess how many) into joining their personal collection of concubines.<br /><br />Think of any possible way that this premise could be offensive, and chances are Greenaway's done it. The female characters are little more than a catalogue of fetishes for the two protagonists to partake of. There's the Kabuki-obsessed Mio, the ever-pregnant Giaconda and Beryl, who's got a thing for farm animals. Giulietta has no legs and uses a wheelchair, she's the "half woman," get it? Greenaway vehemently denies all accusations of misogyny, but if this isn't it, then what is?<br /><br />The film goes on to eroticize anything and everything having to do with Japan, a continuation of themes from his snore-worthy (but less sexist) 1996 film, The Pillow Book. But where the The Pillow Book was erotic and graceful, 8 ½ Women just gets horny and exploitative. Greenaway's work is tasteless and arrogant in its fetishism, and the only person likely to enjoy watching it is the auteur himself.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.