review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I didn't mind the film that much, but it was incredibly dull and boring. A few laughs here and there but nothing to go crazy for.<br /><br /> You should give it a go if you like silly, stupid humour because this is the film for you.
|
negative
|
Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael!
|
positive
|
I guess it's Jack's great empathic ability that makes him the powerful performer that he is, but empathy comes at a price like all things-when he's surrounded by mediocrity he instinctively lowers the standard and becomes one with it. He is a joke as a mafia-hit-man(also because the part doesn't suit him one bit, him being so extroverted)and just grazing avoids making a fool of himself in this.Kathleen Turner had a much tooooo long career just by being tall and blonde, because her acting ability is limited to that thing she does with her eyes, when she opens them wide which she's convinced is sooooo damn sexy and Anjelica Huston is the absolute same(granted interesting) in everything, just like Robert Loggia. <br /><br />The movie is a lame draft(and this will be the only mention of the rag they call script) of a gangster-movie, with a cast that was probably only interested to get to the after-party faster(they certainly gathered the party-going elite in this). What, did they shoot it in 1 day?-cause that would be the only explanation.
|
negative
|
"Blind Date" is one of three stories-made-into-movie by author Vida Hurst. Lots of familiar faces in this oldie from 1934. Mickey Rooney as a mouthy little punk. He seems to be in the film for comedic and homey "family values". Jane Darwell again plays the strong-willed mother, just as she had in Grapes of Wrath and the Oxbow Incident. Ann Sothern is Kitty, who has been dating Bill (Paul Kelly), but meets up with rich Bob Hartwell, played by Neil Hamilton, who may or may not be better for her. You can certainly tell that this was made at the very beginning of the Hays production code -- at one point, Kitty says she can't be up there alone with him if there isn't anyone else in the house...what a change from just a year or two prior, when anything and everything was OK. Good solid plot, but a whole lot of conversation and mushy love talk. It raises the question over what a girl should be searching for in a man; should she hold out for a man with integrity who treats her nice, or just find a man with big bucks, as most of the movies from the previous 20 years had advocated...? and how do men change when their situation changes ? watch out for some violence in the strange dance marathon scene. TV viewers from the 1960s will recognize Hamilton as Commissioner Gordon from Batman..... Also some weird drama in the off-screen lives for some of the cast in this one --Paul Kelly had gone to jail for being accessory to murder in a love triangle. Mickey Rooney had an affair with Norma Shearer, who was 20 years older; Rooney ended up being married eight times. Tyler Brooke (Emory) and Spencer Charters (Pa) both knocked themselves off in real life. The title "Blind Date" has been reused many times, for films, TV series, and even cartoons, but none of them seem to have the same plot as this one.
|
positive
|
This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that
|
negative
|
This movie, I would like to say, was completely great. I can see how many people would think that it's just a shocker film. This isn't completely untrue, but it's as much of shocker fiction as Chuck Palahniuk's books are. One of my favorite movies of all time, Bijo no Harawata is a certain type of crudely made movie that you can have just about any reaction to. It's scary, funny, silly, gross, full of off-the-top material and to some people, arousing. The fist time I saw this, it was with my friend, and his mother had brought it home for him to see it. He said it was just some screwed up Japanese movie, but I saw so much more of it. It's badly made, yes, but it has a certain type of poignancy as to be beautiful, too. As the Director says himself, this is a shocker movie made for a certain reason. Its like atrophy. If you leave audiences soft, then the entire human race is going to be soft. I think this is a good philosophy, and I agree with it one-hundred percent. Bijo no Harawata is the type of movie that gang rapes the hell out of fitness, yogurt, and all of this new-wave stuff.
|
positive
|
My 3 year old loved it. I loved it, my wife loved it. So 10 out of 10 from our family. As for violence level? Not really that violent, mostly of the slap stick variety. Nobody truly dies, no gore, no blood, no torture, so it certainly is appropriate for children, much more so than many Saturday morning cartoons.<br /><br />This movie really takes the idea of CG movies where it should go.<br /><br />First of all beautiful graphics, textures wonderfully done, with true depth, not trying to be realistic, but forming an artistic whole. The moss on the stones, the rust on metal, the reliefs on the wood and the stone, everything adds to the whole.<br /><br />Character modeling, unlike many contemporary CG movies, is quirky, not cute, again within an artistic whole. The faces may look less malleable than in some other movies, but the characters are more puppet-like than human-like. I think that is a good thing, it lends veracity, how strangely it may sound, it is easier to suspend your disbelief.<br /><br />Hair, fur, clothing, on par, at least with the likes of Pixar. Just note in the opening scenes when Lian-Chu is fighting the giant slug; Gwizdo is in front of some farmers, and all of them have detailed clothing which caused me to pause the movie just to admire it.<br /><br />The setting. Far beyond the likes of Cars, and even WallE. Space has been done many times, but the fantasy environs of Dragon Hunters are only comparable with some scenes in Never Ending Story and Lord of the Rings, but again it is an artistic whole, and with lots of good ideas thrown about effortlessly. Magnificent vistas like the scene in Monsters Inc. where they ride all the doorways through its storage facility, or WallE where we see the immense trash towers he made, abound in this movie, everything is grand, yet never dwelt upon; it is just the background the whole way! The interlude where they walk through the area with the fantastic falls. The Chinese wall, the islands floating in the sky. The Broccoli in the sky? That is truly where I believe CG should go, make something which takes your breath away, and do it again and again.<br /><br />The sound is good, the music is varied and not only epic, and thankfully without any vocals, and purely original for the movie.<br /><br />Animation is quite good. Lending its inspiration to cartoons, especially some good use of stretch and squeeze. Sometimes not that realistic, but the 3d models are not realistic either.<br /><br />Characterization is well done too. Lian-Chu the gentle and uncertain giant is gradually growing in confidence basking in the attention of little Zoé.<br /><br />Gwizdo the wily manager of Lian-Chu redeems himself in the end, while Zoé isn't really changed at all, but who wants that cute child to change anyway? I at least loved Lian-Chu more than any other recent character since Sulley in Monsters Inc.<br /><br />The internal strife in the group gets ironed out by the external pressures, just as it should in a proper fantasy story.<br /><br />The story is mostly reminiscent of the Never Ending Story, especially how the world brakes apart. The monsters are pretty standard fare, except the flocking one. It lacks the emotional impact of WallE, which is the really strong point of that movie, but it is a much more fun ride, and lacks the annoying musical scene replaying in the former one, and has action from the first scene. This movie is what you want to watch for a fun and exciting time.<br /><br />The whole movie has, as I've mentioned a whole vision, which seems to have been followed rigorously throughout.<br /><br />It seems, that the setting is ready for more adventures, and I for one would hope so.<br /><br />One side note, the French actor doing Lian-Chu sounded a bit like Jean Reno at first, but I'm happy it wasn't him, though he is one of my favorites. Nice to hear a new, to me, voice.<br /><br />I give it a max rating, a bit surprised at the mediocre and low ratings by some; I have tried to address some of the concerns made by two of the reviews with the lowest vote. Approach this movie as an adventure, and as a European movie, not opposed to Hollywood, but different.
|
positive
|
What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.
|
negative
|
Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Sid Caesar, and Yvonne De Carlo star in this funny, funny movie. The late Fred Gwynne is truly wonderful as Herman Munster who lives with Grandpa Munster (Al Lewis), wife Lily (Yvonne De Carlo), and his son and daughter. Sid Caesar is hilarious as the owner of a wax museum that has a whole section dedicated to the Munster family. When the wax figures of Herman and Grandpa begin to terrorize the town everyone blames the two. The two now have to clear their names before it's too late. You'll laugh out loud just like I did.
|
positive
|
As has already been noted, the short film "Every Sunday" (1936) could be considered the first music video. This was a happy accident resulting from MGM's need to crank out a variety of short films for exhibit with its feature length material. They had a couple fresh young singing talents (Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin) available and essentially slapped together a blend of music styles in a kind of Norman Rockwell concert in the park setting. <br /><br />Who would have dreamed at the time that they would capture the best collection of images since Eisenstein's "Odessa Steps" sequence. <br /><br />It's Sunday with some inattentive folks sitting around a small wooden band shell in the park while a tired looking ensemble play Strauss. Events unfold and the next Sunday Judy and Deanna save the day. The operatic Deanna sings "Il Bacio" (The Kiss) and Garland follows with the contrasting "Waltz with a Swing". The climax nicely blends the two styles into a duet of "Americana". <br /><br />A must see.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
|
positive
|
One of the dumbest movies in the history of cinema. Wait, I take that back-- this movie can't be included in any category related to "cinema"; it belongs in categories like "waste", turds, or similar categories. Ironically, it's even _about_ two garbagemen. The movie is "Men At Work", a lightweight crime comedy starring the Estevez (Sheen) brothers from 1990. Setting aside the asinine and implausible plot line, bad acting, bad dialogue, poorly executed stunts and slapstick, continuity errors, and high rate of no-name actors never to be seen again, all in all it was a pretty bad movie anyway (at its core, I mean). It was the kind of movie that might be good for one thing: you can watch it about 200 times, learn every line, and in a campy kind of way repeat them back and forth in public with your *wasted* friends, thus securing your status as the biggest dorks in your tenth grade class.<br /><br />To make matters worse, I actually submitted an IMDb trivia entry (along with this bad review) to the movie's IMDb web page, if only because I spotted a silly little punk music joke that apparently nobody else spotted yet(about the Butthole Surfer statue). I'm so conflicted about why I should even *waste* my time submitting what looks like a supportive trivia note, when what I really want to do is blow up Emilio's acting career (no, wait, he's already done that himself. Thanks, dude!) I'm so glad I *wasted* only time on this, not real money. For that matter, can I maybe have at least one tenth of their budget? Anyone other than this director (Emilio) could have made two or three much better movies with just what they spent blowing up cars, carefully placing bikini-clad bimbos in the background, and beating up useless extras (henchmen) in haz-mat suits. I'd mention Emilio's writing credit, but it would be a stretch to call this screenplay "writing" -- it's more like crayon-scrawled cartoon ideas. And Charlie Sheen, if you're reading this, I assume M.A.W. must have been made during the part of your career in which you were a coked-up, hooker-loving Hollywood brat who had not grown up yet. (Oops! Sorry, I guess that part of your life isn't over yet. Get well soon, you "half a man". Such a promising talent, so *wasted*
oh look, there's that word again.)
|
negative
|
(I'll indicate in this review the point where spoilers begin.) My dissatisfaction is split: 30% tone-deafness, 70% lackluster writing.<br /><br />The 30%: I agree with the first commenter's synopsis about the lack of diversity in the characters and scope of the stories. I was surprised how, this film, at best, woefully shortchanges the real NYC by presenting a collection of people and relationships so narrow as to come across as if it's inhabited only by the cast of Gossip Girl (this is coming from someone who likes Gossip Girl). A few minority characters are written into the stories, but they are included by obligation, while we can see the gears under the film so clearly, striving to "be diverse" but falling ever-so-short.<br /><br />The 70% is why everything falls short. All characters, white plus a few token minorities, are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts of people concepts. Worse, their interactions with each other are scripted in such a way that for each vignette in the film the audience is treated to what I'd say is a "gag": we get a basic conceit, then some punchline intended to be a clever twist. But even if we suspended cynicism for a moment to say, "Okay, that was a surprise"...the stories are still not that interesting, because they, too, are shallow. When you fashion stories so that their existence hinges solely on the unexpectedness of the ending, you're writing jokes.<br /><br />Spoilers below...<br /><br />The movie primarily tries to tell romantic stories. That's fine. But romance is amazing, deep, sometimes complex. These "romantic" stories each feature a girl and a boy who at some point share the same location and get to look at each other. Words exchange, thoughts are projected through voice-over, but they too only manage to communicate to the audience merely that one person is attracted to another.<br /><br />Meaning, there is no seduction (in the broad sense), no tension, and neither confrontation nor communion between the wills of two different people trying to reconcile their existence to accommodate the Other. The only story involving a superficial "seduction" is told just so the audience ends up being surprised that the guy (Ethan Hawke) gets outwitted by the girl he's hitting on, who unexpectedly turns out to be a hooker. Sure, his words when trying to pick her up are interesting to hear and we are amused as we'd be if we were next to them, but there is nothing of substance to this story outside of "A then B". So it unfolds, if something like a postcard could "unfold", with all the other tales as well: A then B--That's It, the only point being that these happen to occur "on set" in Manhattan. By the way, the only Brooklyn we see is the Coney Island sketch; the only Queens is the flickering of a train ride taken by a character traveling to the West Village.<br /><br />It's easy to pick at movies that play into all the common stereotypes of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. _New York, I Love You_, however, deserves to be held to stricter scrutiny because of its title. We expect to see the real New York, and real New Yorkers, but instead we have paraded before us the selected slice of a demographic, its characters flown in from The O.C., plus a few others to make it SEEM as if we are paying attention to diversity. But when we look closer at who those characters are, the whole sham becomes an affront to the very notion of diversity and the ethnicities and cultures the movie shamefully fails to represent.<br /><br />For example, the story with the Latino man with the little white girl in the park, who gets mistaken by two ladies as her manny (male nanny) when in fact he's the father. Notwithstanding the last scene of this part was unnecessary from a dramatic-construction point of view (it would have been far more interesting to end it when the mother and boyfriend/stepfather are strutting the girl away), it is frankly a bit disgusting that the scene where we learn for sure that the girl's father is Latino ALSO must inform us that he is a sexually desirable dancer. What, the dad can't be just some guy from South America? Now that he's obviously hot, is the audience better prepared to accept that he had a kid with a middle-to-upper-class white woman? Are we that naive as to require such? As if a Mexican construction worker would obviously be too unpalatable.<br /><br />It's not my place to dictate where the movie should have gone. But in every conceivable set-up and plot twist, the direction taken screams status quo, appeals to safety. All these stories could have been made more interesting, even if we were forced to keep the single-dimensionality of the characters inhabiting them, at the very least by not choosing from standard and obvious stereotypes. Asian girl living in Chinatown being leered at by a scraggly old white guy? How 'bout an Asian cougar pursuing a white college kid instead. Again, I'm not saying the entire conceit has to be changed. It's just that every. damn. story premise. is so hackneyed--and thus they fail to convey anything about why one might love New York, outside the trite. The real way to have improved the film would be to have written a script worth reading.<br /><br />I will concede the pleasantness of the soundtrack, the good pacing of the movie (even if what was being paced was, well, dredge), and the general feel of many of the scenes. The movie was just fine to sit through, and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from doing so. However, it is telling that the most significant homage paid to non-superficiality is when the old opera singer says (paraphrased) "That's what I love about New York: everyone's from a different place." Well, you wouldn't know it from watching this one.
|
negative
|
What we have here is a film perfect for anyone that participates in the world of post-industrialism: those who sit in their privatized home, earning money by buying and selling sensual-less commodities and perpetuating a system that values little other than the preservation of self.<br /><br />The beautiful filming (I always appreciate fix 35s and soft boxes) makes it an even stranger place to travel through, both enjoyable to look at but frightening to comprehend (perhaps that's overly dramatic, but its true).<br /><br />Andreas' journey through his hell is overwhelmingly tragic. His quest is honorable, laudable, and precious. The conclusion is necessary and we are left not sure if he's better off, which is the perfect conclusion.<br /><br />Breve! Highly recommended to all people who view their world with a critical eye and especially to those who don't (perhaps it will encourage a reflection or two).
|
positive
|
This horrible action sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some "ten stars" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of "L.I.N.X.") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "L.I.N.X. Conexão Letal" ("L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection")
|
negative
|
Natile Portman and Susan Sarandon play off of each other like a symphony in this coming of age story about a young girl, who is sentenced to life as the daughter of one of the nuttest women you will ever encounter. Sarandon has this ability, call it talent if you will, to play some of the most off-beat characters and bring their humanity to forefront of any film she makes. As the mother of this obviously brilliant and muture beyond her years young girl, Sarandon alternates between being the mom and being the child with the ease of a ballet dancer. More importantly she does it with strength and flare without stomping all over Portman's portrayal of the daughter. The question is always asked when we deconstruct the film plot, who changes? This film is certainly about the daughter, but if you look close at the dreams and sacrifices that Mom makes you come to understand that she changes in step with her daughter. I am willing to bet this makes all of us in the audience change also. The hallmark of fine drama
|
positive
|
Anyone who has seen 'Shine',Scott Hicks film of the heartbreaking yet ultimately joyful life of the pianist David Helfgotts; will I am sure realise that 'The SOLOIST' is very poor in comparison.It is as slow as a lullaby( I took five breaks answering emails just to wake up). The depiction of the homeless area way over the top and extremely self indulgent, on a par I fear with the awful beach battle depiction in Joe Wrights other disaster Attonment. .J Fox performance was an extremely poor example of acting and lacked credibility from the offset.Downey on the other hand; although struggling with a badly paced film, still manages to charm,9Is it me or is he turning into George Clooney in more ways than one?). Comparing both these well known so called 'STAR'actors though is unnecessary as the light that shines brightest as far as acting is concerned must be that of 'shine's' Geoeffry Rush who's brilliant performance definitely SHONE far brighter in my sky. With both 'Attonment' and 'The Soloist' the written word wins far more prizes for empathy of subject. Read the book and articles or wait for the DVD its bound to be in the bargain basement soon.
|
negative
|
It is the best film i have seen in the last 5 years. Surely, it will be in the same row with such masterpieces as The Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Doors, The Dog's Heart (Russian film). Really, the play of the boy and his parents is so good that you can't even say that they "play". No, they LIVE as if it was happening to them. Notice the smile on there faces when the main hero agrees to go for a walk with them. The hate and love in one piece. And the final scene!<br /><br />Really, i'm still under impression of that film. It's very hard, even impossible to combine the humor and the tragedy, but if you succeed (and Frederikson did) the impact would be twice strong.<br /><br />I compared it with "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST". I like this film either (and the novel itself is good, too), but after Frederikson's movie it seems simple. (the same difference I noticed after i watched the film "American history X" and "ROMPER STOMPER" - the latter is deeper). I mean Milos Forman only showed the material point of view of the problem. You watch it, then you say Yes, it's a good film, i like him, i don't like her, and that's it. But "Angels" leave you a wide base to think. There are no bad and good boys in the film. Cause each of them have the right to behave in the way they do. Like the girlfriend of one of the patient. Of course she's young and is pregnant and that is a problem for her that his husband is in the clinic, but the feelings and emotional experience of her exfriend are even stronger (the result is his suicide). Why ask him what have he done? Aren't you insane yourself to ask? Why do not support him, help him, understand him? Finally, it is even funny when those people talk to each other. They say genius things! There are a lot of things I would like to say about this film, but i'm not so good in english. But i'm sure, those of you, who have watched the movie, understand me.<br /><br />Good luck!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
One of the finest movies I have viewed...Good script, original plot of a man who is haunted about JFK's assassination when he was assigned to protect him on that Cold November day in 1963. Thirty years later another anti-social lunatic wants to assassinate the current president. The secret service agent loses his partner along the way,to the crazed gunmen who schemes,lies and murders anybody in his path who'll stand in his way of his mission. <br /><br />The movie accompanies with a great memorable score,and a restrained but meaningful romance between Russo and Eastwood....which displays how difficult it is to have a romantic life in that kind of work. Malchovich is great,sure many other candidates could have played the role that he played,but how many could acted with such craftiness,and intellect that he displayed in the movie?<br /><br />Needless to say,I thought this was a great movie...everytime it's on television I have to watch it..and I own it on dvd! I'm a big Eastwood fan,this only boosted his already fabulous career,and Malchovich's best role to date!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Okay, I sensed that a film by Mormons, about Mormons, for Mormons would be a disaster waiting to happen, but little did I know how so very painful it would be. A little known fact is that Mormons have always made exceptionally fine propaganda films. The Church's official cinematic campaign has produced rare and lasting gems that transcend the Mormon community, including the wonderful short film "Cipher in the Snow" which ended up making the rounds as an educational film in the late 70's. Then there's Neil LaBute's disturbingly masterful ouvre....<br /><br />However, the success of these films depended largely on the fact that they didn't focus on Mormons or any specific Mormon theology. Instead they opt to focus on a universal theme and deal with it on a basic human level. "God's Army" abandons any pretext of universality and runs headlong into the stilted and myopic world of the orthodox. While this might be enough to alienate anyone but the most devoted Mormon, director Richard Ductcher's ineptitude as a filmmaker and his juvenile approach to storytelling are sufficient grounds to judge "God's Army" unwatchable by almost any standard.<br /><br />Dutcher's own appallingly wooden acting sets the tone for his army of the least interesting Mormons you're ever likely to meet. Of course the cast's sorry performances aren't helped any by Dutcher's pathetic script. He should be given credit for not avoiding some of the more controversial aspects of the Church, but, as can be expected, he conveniently frames these controversies in a sympathetic light. It should also come as no surprise that most of the answers to the Church's darker side are addressed with little other than faith. At one point an African-American missionary is scolded by a black couple for joining a church that was segregated up until 1978 (some ten to twenty years after nearly every congregation in the most degenerate parts of the deep South had already done so). Instead of addressing the Church's actively racist history, perhaps the sorest spot in Mormon theology which even Church leaders don't defend anymore, Dutcher's troubled character instead ponders Joseph Smith's murder--an obvious and perhaps outrageous allusion to lynching. Top off this syruppy milktoast with third grader leper jokes passing as comic relief and you have a strong case for the revival of silent films.<br /><br />If you knew little about Mormons before watching this film, you might become prone to avoiding them at all costs. If you are Mormon, this film offers absolutely nothing to be proud about.
|
negative
|
"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />This said-to-be follow-up to "The Thirteenth Guest" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.<br /><br />*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark
|
negative
|
First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.
|
negative
|
This was such a funny movie, which was soon forgotten about, probably because there are so many teen and young adult comedies, such as this. The movie is not quit as predictable as one would think. Crawl is an unattractive, but fun and caring and most importantly a very devoted friend. Still, an unlikely match for Rebecca, who has an attractive and seemingly kind boyfriend back home. When he helps feel more at ease at school, by showing her around the neighborhood and encouraging her to socialize more, they become buddies, but it is completely platonic. When she realizes her boyfriend might propose, she does not feel ready, he seems to like her boyfriend, but she seems to be enjoying her free laid back party life at college is not yet ready to live a life of marriage and responsibility. You kind of learn what a good friend Crawl is when he tells her he will help get her out of getting married. When her boyfriend proposes to her, in front of the whole family, she kicks Crawl and puts him on the spot. He tells the whole family that he proposes to her, and gives her his diamond ring, which it tunrs out was his the whole time (he must have come from money or something. Well they never really show a close up of the ring). The message of the movie seemed to be not to judge people by their looks and not to judge people before you get to know him. Rebecca's boyfriend, who her parents love, turned mean when we find out he druged his new girlfriend after Rebecca,(Amber Thesan) and Crawl, so that Rebecca would have broken up with Crawl, thinking they were a couple. Although they were not, Rebecca was mad at him, which when you think about it, was kind of unfair, since they were not a couple, but I think they were starting to like one another. And I think she thought there was more. The movie never showed them actually become a couple, they left it open for the viewers to decide. They never even actually kissed at any point, although there was one part where they almost did. That was one thing most viewers seemed to misunderstand. Many people saw it and said, that he would be a nightmare for fathers to see their daughters bring home or a shock, but they were just friends the whole time, even towards the end. And she did not introduce him as her boyfriend; still they never told her parents they were not engaged. Rebecca almost did. Even if he would never become her boyfriend, they could have still been friends. In the 90s for some reason femanin men were in, and there was this big stereo type that woman liked femanin men (not that there is anything wrong with that), think it came from the fact that women like the kind sensitive type, which Crawl proved to be, through his friendship with Rebecca. but when I saw the movie, I must admit, if I went for looks, I thought I would have gone for the first boyfriend. Still it was a creative movie, that tried to teach a lesson on friendship and judging others.
|
positive
|
Big rock candy mountain is amazing. i watched it when i was little, and still do to this day.(senior in high school). if i could imagine heaven, that is what it would look like. i wish i could live in big rock candy mountain where candy grows on trees. Zach Hyman is profs, and my best friend. little bunny foo foo is the man. it is so fuzzy and colorful that i dream about it at night. in fact, my friend who is 18 recently watched it for the first time and absolutely loved it. i recommend that people of all ages watch this movie. i am having a huge party this weekend with all my friends to watch this incredible movie. we are going to order pizza and watch the teddy bears giggle. i constantly find myself watching clouds and wishing i was that little girl that got to visit. thanks. bye.
|
positive
|
I gave this two stars for the awesome DV shot clarity, which lends to the cold and dark sterility of its character. That was being generous, I know.<br /><br />This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.<br /><br />Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.<br /><br />Thank you.
|
negative
|
If you`re not old enough to remember Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan here`s the rundown : They`re a couple of film producers and finaciers from Israel who set up the Cannon film company in the early 1980s . The only Israeli to get a worse press than these two was Menachim Begin . Begin probably deserved the bad press but Globus and Golan were a god send to film makers because no matter how bad your script was they`d happily fund your movie and would normally employ directors who couldn`t direct and actors who couldn`t act . In fact you often got the impression that people would just walk up to Yoram and Menahem ask them for some money and they`d oblige without seeing the film maker`s resume . If only producers nowadays were so trusting.<br /><br />THE YOUNG WARRIORS isn`t a Cannon film but Globus and Golan did finance it and it has their signature all over it . It`s badly directed , badly acted , badly edited but it`s the script that jumps out and attacks you with its awfulness . It starts with a bunch of high school jocks getting involved in all sorts of zany pranks , in fact the first 20 minutes of the movie plays out like a sex comedy and it`s something of a shock when THE YOUNG WARRIORS turns into a vigilante movie . But it`s not just any type of vigilante movie like EXTERMINATOR 2 or DEATH WISH 3 ( Notice a connection ? They`re both sequels and they`re both vigilante movies made by Cannon films ) , no siree this is a laughably bad vigilante movie about pretty boy high school jocks and their poodle going on a mission to wipe out scumbags . This film is proof that Globus and Golan were giving money to people regardless of their film making abilities and you have to worry about people who seem to spend their entire reserves on making movies set entirely around vigilantes
|
negative
|
If there's one thing you can count on Disney to do, it's their uncanny ability to take a story and tell it again and again and again. Even watching the commercial for Lady and the Tramp II was a horrible experience. Disney's going to ruin one of their most awesome classics ever. It even had that spaghetti meatball scene. It's been done before! And that's what I say to this sorry direct to video(the entire concept should be banned). Everything is just a rehash of the original movie and even several of Bluth's really bad movies. The penguin and walrus duo(I've even forgotten their names) are just a really poor carbon copy of Timon and Pumbaa. Morgana is another Ursula. She even repeats practically all her old lines. The songs are pathetic, really abysmal. I've never heard songs so bad from them before until now. And the dialogue is atrocious. It's pathetic and simplistic. On the plus side, at least they took the time to make the animation somewhat decent. All of the usual characters aren't as annoying as they used to be(or maybe that's a minus for Little Mermaid fans). Back on the negative, Melody is just so sickeningly cute you just might vomit. I almost did. Do yourself and your Little Mermaid fan a favor. Don't waste your money on this. True, it's not as horrific as Return of Jafar or Pocahontas II, but that's little consolation.
|
negative
|
I wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night.
|
negative
|
Is there anything else on earth to be more enticing than to learn what expects our frail bodies after, um, death. Spanish director Ignacio Cerdà (a soul-mate of his German colleague Jörg Buttgereit) provides blow-by-blow answer to our curiosity and invites us to an exciting journey in the world of preparation tables, scalpels, surgical saws, human entrails and warped minds.<br /><br />Welcome to the autopsy room!<br /><br />I don't know which facets of the film, apart of its notorious reputation, may have helped it to acquire sufficiently high rating.<br /><br />Storywise it's fairly simple and straightforward - a day in the life (actually half an hour) of a troubled coroner (or, perhaps, assistant pathologist or whoever he is) that is fed up with his routine morbid duty and discharges his psychological tension in a non-traditional fashion, right at his workplace. I'm perplexed of what particular message the authors tried to deliver with this one-note plot. I suspect it may be somehow inspired by Udo Kier's character's quirky demeanor in Andy Warhol's Frankenstein.<br /><br />Artistic values of the film are also questionable. It's hard to evaluate the performance of the actors that don't squeeze a single word. Their emotions are concealed behind the medical masks. There's also not enough room for great camera-work - basically, the entire action unfolds mostly within four walls.<br /><br />Authenticity - effects and makeup are impressive and the setup looks very plausible, but only a handful of medical/forensic experts can judge how truthful and anatomically correct the dissection is carried out here (if anyone cares). Honestly, I used to think that the autopsy is done to examine the condition of particular organs and to ascertain the cause of death. Now I know that dead bodies are severed, raped and humiliated, intestines are ripped apart, brains are retrieved from the head, stuffed into abdomen and mixed with guts, then the body is stitched back and washed - nothing personal. And what are these poor lads expected to write in their deceitful autopsy reports afterward?<br /><br />Shock and disgust factor - it's much unlikely that an unsuspecting viewer would discover, to his horror, that the disc he was intended to watch with his wife and kids beside a Christmas tree turns out to be a graphic video manual on vivisection. This obscure item is barely available, sought by people well familiar with the subject and not easily offended. Hence it would be pointless to warn anyone to sabotage this film. They are well aware what exactly they are watching and what they want to see.<br /><br />Cerdà is really gifted and stylish director, which is clearly obvious from at least two other parts of his "trilogy" - preceding 'The Awakening', amazing black and white short, and 30-minute 'Genesis', visually stunning and moody piece with an off-beat and interesting concept. And I'm pretty sure that one day he will conquer the hearts of moviegoers with his new, more mainstream oriented, material. And sooner or later 'Aftermath' would become a rarity for the meticulous collectors of his "early" "warm-up" works.<br /><br />But in the meantime, I'm afraid, it may be recommended strictly for medical students or specialists that study mental disorders and sexual deviations.
|
negative
|
There was a time when Joel Schumacher was ranked quite high on my list of favorite directors. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, when his name was attached to several great films like "The Lost Boys", "Flatliners" and "Falling Down", he truly was one of the most gifted directors in Hollywood. Then came the stupid "Batman" sequels, unfortunately, and after that it seemed as if every potentially sublime screenplay turned into a gigantic mess in Schumacher's hands. Both "8MM" and "Phone Booth" could have been much better films and even the incredibly imbecilic concept of "The Number 23" should have been processed into a slightly more compelling and entertaining movie. Literally from start to finish, "The Number 23" desperately attempts to be a mysterious and uncanny thriller and therefore uses all the dreadful clichés from the big book of cinema history, including heavy-voiced narration, flashbacks, disorderly structure, characters with multiple personalities, numerous plot twists that grow increasingly absurd and sinister asylum settings. Nothing helps, however, simply due to the sheer silliness of the basic formula and the clearly uninspired engagement of cast & crew. As much as you try to associate with the lead character and be open-minded regarding the insane theories, this still remains a movie about a two-digit number and two-digit numbers aren't scary. Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey in a rare non-comical role) is a bored animal trapper whose wife Agatha gives him a bizarre book on his birthday. The book tells about all sorts of devilish theories and strange coincidences that are linked to the number 23. Walter almost promptly identifies himself with the book's protagonist (a sleazy detective investigating a grim case of suicide) and begins to spot copious examples of the 23 enigma in his own private life. I did some research on Google and Wikipedia and, apparently, this whole 23 numerology nonsense really exists and certain people honestly believe that most catastrophes and accidents are directly connected to this evil number. Well, that's just
crazy! But hey, I'm not here to judge people's beliefs and fears, regardless of how demented they are, and I can only share my humble opinion on a movie that is based on an out-and-out berserk enigma. "The Number 23" is not suspenseful, in spite of several gloomy set pieces and nasty make-up effects, and never at one point manages to make you contemplate about the role of numbers in your own life. All cast members perform below their normal capacities, but it was still nevertheless a joy to see the lovely Mrs. Virginia Madsen in a relatively big production again. Definitely not recommended in case you're looking for a solid and creepy evening of thriller fun, but endurable and not entirely without merit.
|
negative
|
Governments are elected for three year terms, as Reg Whithers said in 1973, the Liberals were determined to continue forcing Labor to the Polls until they were defeated. If you ask me, this is portrayed in the docudrama, but, anyone who says Kerr acted properly in this fails to acknowledge the self-serving and costly strategy of the Liberal Party of Australia. On the series itself, I though Max Phipps was a poor Whitlam, his voice was too ghostly. Also, more of the key political players on both sides should have been used, though this may have been a reflection of budgetary constraints at the time. Nevertheless, I recommend it, with caution.
|
positive
|
Oh, man, I hated this movie. Granted, the site locations were great, but that's about the ONLY positive thing I can say about it. Now, I'm going to state right at the beginning that I am VERY critical of the way weapons, especially firearms, are both portrayed, and handled, in movies. Being a war flick, portrayal was fine, but the shoddy weapons handling in the movie would have NEVER been tolerated by a real SEAL Team. The acting was more wooden than my first sailboat, the equipment carried (or lack of it) was laughable, and the dialogue was, shall we say, lacking in ANYTHING interesting. Well, with the exception of the journalist, which was actually prescient. Watching this movie was comparable to watching "Palmetto" with Woody Harrelson, where each scene was so bad you just couldn't turn it off, because you had to see if they could get worse with the next scene. Like Palmetto, they certainly did. The scene in the water, where, after shooting the first of the enemy, they BLOW THE DAMN BOAT UP, thereby having to face possible drowning, made me laugh so hard, that for a millisecond, I almost thought it was worth waiting through the movie for. Then Charlie Sheen decided to drag the surviving enemy down to the depths of the ocean (the way it was filmed, with the many camera cuts, it looked like they went down about 80 feet. Nice continuity there....) before slashing his throat was so damn stupid, I was stunned. Then again, so was the whole damn movie. I enjoy action movies, but not this one. NOTE: The version I watched was a TV version, pan & scan. I can't imagine that made a difference, except for making the whole thing blessedly shorter!
|
negative
|
Was convincing the world that he didn't exist...<br /><br />This is a line that is probably remembered by a lot of people. It's from The Usual Suspects of course in relation to Kaiser Gold..I mean Sose..<br /><br />I got another one like that: -The dumbest trick a director ever pulled was trying to convince an audience he actually had a storyline-<br /><br />This movie is one of the saddest pieces of film-making I have seen in a long time. It starts out so well, with really fantastic cinematography, great acting and a very smart premise. But alas, the only way this movie is heading is on a course of self-destruction. And it does so, not by a single blow but with nagging little wrist-cuts.<br /><br />Pay no attention to the comments here that marvel at the fact that they found a way to explain this donut. With enough booze in my brain I would probably be capable of explaining the very existence of mankind to a very plausible degree. I have seen and read about a dozen totally different ways people explained the story. And they vary from a story set totally in someones head, playing chess with himself, to a cunning way for a criminal to play out his enemies by means resembling chess gaming.<br /><br />And that's all jolly swell. But at the same time it is a painful giveaway that there is something terribly wrong with this story. And apart from that, it is in any case a blunt rip off of a score of movies and books like "Fight Club, Kill Bill, Casino, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Magnolia and Shachnovelle. And we are not dealing with kind borrowing here, it's a blatant robbery.<br /><br />What ultimately goes wrong here in this movie is that the storyline swirls like a drunk bum on speed. If this movie was a roller-coaster ride, you'd have crashed into the attraction next to it shorty after take off. There are so many twists in this movie which will never be resolved, that if it was a cocktail, you'd be needing a life supply of hurl-buckets to work of the nausea after drinking it. Nothing is ever explained and when you finally get some grasp of the direction you think it's going, you get pulled in yet another one.<br /><br />I guess this story wasn't going anywhere on paper and Ritchy must have thought that is was awesome to make a movie out of it anyway, being the next David Lynch or something.<br /><br />1/10 for totally violating one's own work (Ritchy: seek professional help). What could have easily been a gem instead becomes a contrived art-piece, food for pseudo intellectuals to debate on at sundayafternoon debating-clubs. <br /><br />Spare your soul and stomach, avoid at all cost!
|
negative
|
My daughter already wrote a review of this movie in my sign in...but I want to add a few words. <br /><br />National Velvet' was one of my two favorite movies as a child. (The other being 'The Wizard of Oz.) The cinematography, the acting, the script, and the music all came together is such a wonderful little heart felt drama that it can still bring tears to my jaded eyes. Based on a book by Enid Bagnold, the script followed the book quite well. The characters are so thoughtfully created. It's easy to become emotionally involved with the entire family and the quaint little Irish village in which they live. The premise...complete outsider believes in her horse and herself enough to chance a try at the greatest horse race in the world...is awe inspiring to any young person, especially a young girl in the 40's...a time when girls were sometimes ignored as humans beings let alone athletes. You would have to be terribly hard-boiled not to appreciate it's merit. <br /><br />But the perspective I cherished most about this movie is the unabridged innocence in it's moral message.. It's almost magical how 'mom and apple pie' the movies were back then. I was really taken aback by the IMDB reviewer who asked...'Was the world ever really this trusting?' and then proceeded to chastize the director for his complacency regarding unchaperoned' overnight travel involving the two main characters. My answer to his question is an unequivocal YES!!!! The movie going world was that trusting in the 40's.<br /><br />My grandparents remember taking my mother to this movie when it was released. Then my mother took me to see it when I was young, and my daughter was lucky enough to be born at a time when she could watch it repeatedly on video tape. Now we have it on DVD. It's been a family favorite for generations, albeit generations of horse lovers. It was never about sex...it's about coming of age! It's about believing in yourself and working hard to reach your goals. Also, so old fashioned it wasn't even about the prize money! It's about the girl child who understood her horse had what it took to be the best'. And yes, the director was indeed concerned with Elizabeth Taylor's lack of physical development because the book made a big deal about Velvet Brown (Liz Taylor's character) having to cut her hair and bind her chest so that she could pass as a male jockey when she went to the Grand National Steeplechase. This was a guys only sport back then...I think there have only been 12 women ever to compete in this race. It's almost insulting that anyone would bother to think the Lolita thing about this particular movie...besides, anyone having had anything at all to do with an adolescent girl and her horse would know that the only thing they ever think about with stars in their eyes have four hooves and a tail.<br /><br />And now for a great bit of trivia...the stunt riding was performed by the now famous Horse Whisperer', Monty Roberts. I believe he is given mentioned for his riding in the movie credits.<br /><br />I give this movie a 10 out of 10! I never get tired of watching it again.
|
positive
|
The Wicker Man Has Done The Impossible! It replaced Cat Woman as the worst recent movie in my steel trap cinema mind. YES it's really that bad. So bad that when sitting down to write this review I thought to myself "If I had a choice to either see this movie again or to have red hot needles shoved in my eyes" I might actually go for the red hot needles.<br /><br />Neil LaBute created a rare movie where Joel Schumacher could sit back and say with comfort and a guilt free mind "Yeah that's some bad direction right there".<br /><br />I think the first clue for myself should have been the tag line: "Some Sacrifices Must Be Made". Sure it might sound sort of cheeky ominous line to intrigue you but the sacrifice will be all on the audience side of the screen. Trust me on this the people responsible for this movie should be charged with a hate crime..or at least fraud for trying to pass this off as anything resembling entertainment. Seriously! The movie is about an island where men are just there for breeding and I would still rather with be stuck on Gilligans Island with only pictures of Condoleezza Rice then find myself stranded there.<br /><br />The most entertaining part about this movie was the guy who ripped the loudest fart I've ever heard in a movie theater. That's not a joke nor is it fictional. I've never been to a "thriller" and heard so much laughter through out the entire film. I can't tell you with an certainty if the laughs were intentional in some effort to lighten the cinematic tension or if they just really thought this crud would actual fly. I honestly found myself routing for a power outage or a perhaps a fight to break out in the movie theater, anything to make this more interesting which is pretty sad since Deez, Powder and I pounded 2 beers each before the film just for a little mental anesthesia (soon to be a law before all Nic Cage films, write to your congressman today, don't delay). At one point I actually thought perhaps this movie is really a spoof and Anna Ferris is going to show up
oh how I wish.<br /><br />Nic Cage throws out so much ham per frame I'm thinking of having a cholesterol test done today. To think that I ever thought Sean Penn was a d*ck for slamming Nic's acting, oh he's still a d*ck just lesser of one
yes Sean Penn's d*ck was lessened because of this film. Do us all a favor Nic play your strengths and stick to being pathetic losers and drunks. You cannot play superman you do not get to play strong hunky roles go straight to jail do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. His best moments in this film are when he finally comes unhinged and actually punches out a burly woman to steal her bear suit (like the fart, not a joke or a functional moment during this review) then proceeds to run amok like Conan O'Brian's masturbating bear, but with half the hilarity of a bear knocking his junk around. Thankfully he meets his end shortly after when it turns out he's to be a sacrifice to the crowd at the new tour hybrid show of Burning Man and Lilith Fair. Yes!!!! I just spoiled the ending for you
and if you knew any better you'd build statues of me in worship and sing songs of my legend. I sat through this crap-fest so you don't have to.<br /><br />About half way through this little misadventure I kept thinking to myself Jack Bauer would have wrapped this case up in 20 minutes of real time..OK 35 minutes if Kim gets attacked by a mountain lion first. Even Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau could have figured this out in under an hour
and you Sir are no Inspector Clouseau.<br /><br />If for some reason you are taken captive and you have a choice to see this film or take a bullet, take the bullet.<br /><br />Somewhere Uwe Boll is laughing at us all.
|
negative
|
Wow, I knew this film was going to be bad but not this bad. Spoilerific comments ensue.<br /><br />Roddy Roddy Piper is sickly sweet retired cop (cliche!), helping out everyone - smiling like a post-op lobotomy patient through-out and lamenting over his dead son. His adopted son returns from Armed Forces "Special Ops" and because he's "seen things" - portrayed by clenching his teeth if anyone mentions anything about the past. Time to clean up the streets from another guy who once knew Piper and his dead son (who the bad lad killed) and his adopted son.<br /><br />Oh, the love interest is a pretty young lady who decides for no reason that she wants to jump the bones of the ex-Army bloke. This happens in about 2 minutes of 1 scene.<br /><br />The action could have saved this film, but it's even worse than the storyline and acting. It's all been done before, it's all been done much much better (Ong-Bak is a prime example). This is the worst film I've ever seen - and I've seen Waterworld, twice.<br /><br />Erm, the film is called HONOR (Spelt Wrong for the Americans) and the tag line has "from the makers of Bloodsport and Kickboxer" - check out Director David Worths other films and you'll soon realise why they put these 2 films on there, even though they are over 10 years old. Such classics as "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" - says it all really.<br /><br />I'll give you £10 if you don't go to see this film.<br /><br />PS - Apologise for not know character names, tells you something though.
|
negative
|
After 30 seconds, you already realize that there was no real budget for this cheap knock-off. The story is taken from great movies like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Hills have Eyes". I like those kind of movies, even if they're duplicated well (Wrong Turn, Timber Falls, Carver). <br /><br />But "Side Sho" is hard to watch: the actors are really bad, the dialogue is cheesy and the music is stupid and totally misplaced. You do not care at all what happens to the characters. The so-called bad guys are also not interesting at all and rather stereotypical. So how about the blood and gore ? Well there is some, although it is rather cheap and the action is executed very poorly. 2 Points, just for the gore and blood but do understand that this is hardly worth a look, even for the gore-hounds..
|
negative
|
I liked this film very much. The story jumps back and forth quite a bit and is not easy to follow. There is no resolution to the story whatsoever, and you are left to wonder what really happened. Since I like that sort of film I enjoyed this. I especially like the "dating" scenes between the boys and I was drawn into their lives. And of course any film with a naked Staphane Rideau will get a couple of extra points. ;-)
|
positive
|
I regret that I've seen this movie. Can't believe that the creator of Best Intentions and Pelle the Conqueror could make such a bleak and boring film. What a waste!
|
negative
|
I, like many other Bachchan fans, having been eagerly awaiting the remake of Sholay. This movie was not it. Thank god they didn't let them use the name "Sholay" in the movie title. Ram Gopal's remake is not worthy of the title. The camera work, the locations, the costumes, the totally out-of-place dancing, the dialogue all combined to make the worst movie I have ever seen. You wonder if the cast of actors agreed to make this movie because they needed money and Ram Gopal was paying a lot of money for the cast. The only non-paid actor, the ant, was the only resemblance to the first movie. Abishek's role was totally ridiculous, did he need money to pay for the wedding to Ash? Save your money, your mind and your time, don't bother with this movie or the DVD when that comes out.
|
negative
|
A couple of farmers struggle in life in a small village in China. Wang Lung (Paul Muni) buys O-Lan, his future wife, who becomes his slave (Luis Rainer). American stars appear in the leading roles, talking with fake accents and emphasizing old stereotypes and patriarchal ideology. A good wife, many children and land are the best things for men to have. They are seen as property and investment. Because it is a big budget movie, in which many extras cooperate, big sets are built and special effects take place, the movie makers could not take the risk of hiring less popular actors. Luise Rainer won an Academy Award for this performance, which is definitely the worst in the movie. Her immutable face builds a barrier between her and the audience. O-Lan is supposed to be the heart of the family and the best character to sympathize with. On the other hand Paul Muni gives a better performance, showing his talent ones again. Another problem with the movie is the ending. It seems like Franklin did not know when to end the picture. This film could be dangerous if it is taken as a truly example of Chinese culture and traditions.
|
negative
|
"Hitler, the rise of Evil" is clearly produced by people emotionally unburdened by the horrors of World War 2. Which makes watching a refreshing experience.<br /><br />I think its greatest value lies in its crystal clear revealing of the Nazi-mechanism. Of the utterly corrupt ways Hitler used to make it to the top. Having arrived there, this film ends.<br /><br />When on top, the 'Fuhrer' (= German for 'leader') led his Germany to the biggest & most devastating war in history of mankind. Ending six years later in Germany's utter defeat. As a result, Germany lost its eastern provinces (= about 35% of its prewar soil), and was forced to accept a 44 year-split of its remaining territory. Both West and East Germany had to be rebuilt from scrap, their reputations severely damaged by the many Nazi-atrocities inspired by racism.<br /><br />As I said, "Hitler, the rise of Evil" makes an good watch. Set in an acceptable thirties-environment, with (more than) competent acting. In particular Peter O'Toole's role as the aged president von Hindenburg stands out, even adds an extra dimension.<br /><br />My copy of "Hitler, the rise of Evil" also provides a second DVD with two good documentary films. One is about Hitler's personality, the second deals with the forgery of the Hitler-diaries. In 1983 this forgery caused a hilarious scandal in England and Germany, damaging the reputations of several historians and journalists.
|
positive
|
Though not a Greek I have had a lifelong interest in the Eastern Empire. Its fall in 1453 was the Greatest loss to Christianity in its entire history. Yet while the Easter Empire is not a topic much discussed in American intellectual circles, the US did not merely mimic Golden Byzantiums public architecture, the US is much absorbed in the fated Byzantine historical cycle and now has faced many of the crises involving certain people of a middle eastern extraction about whom it is said that there is a slight tendency for excessive exuberance on religious matters which humbled Great Byzantium. I wonder if the loss of the ability to speak plainly was the first sign post on the road to disaster.<br /><br />John Romer is to be credited not only for his excellent production but also for his joyful enthusiasm for the subject which is most refreshing.<br /><br />Not recommended for Americans who like political correctness.
|
positive
|
I come from Bangladesh, and here, C.C.Costigan is a goddess of awesome sex. All kidding aside, a friend and I were awake in the middle of the night, watching movies on the Encore: Action channel, when we came across a series of sci-fi-esquire flicks. There was RoboCop 2 (not bad,...not bad at all) ... then Judge Dredd, (Stalone almost ruins his career) then a movie called Lethal Target. One would think the title "Lethal Target" could only be awarded to a really cool, and really cheesy Rambo knock-off. But nay, what is delivered is what I would like to call a "Semi-softcore, semi-pseudo action, semi-sci-fi film" ... actually, I think I can say that this isn't even a film at all. If it wasn't for the main character's sheer hotness, my friend and I would've turned off the movie as the opening credits rolled.<br /><br />I have a few questions to the people (I wouldn't even dare say "professionals") who made this film. -One, In the future, why are they using the weaponry we used in 1999? Oh, wait, I get it, it's all that they could get their hands on,... right???... well then,.. why is the main character wearing what looks like a normal everyday linen shirt and a vest, kinda like what people wore in the late nineties? .... oh ... I get it ... in space, it MUST have been a fashion statement.... well, then... WHY,OH, WHY does the main character pull out a 3.5 floppy disk at one point in the film so that she can upload some bullshit ?! wtf !? ...we've progressed so far that we have space travel, but we still haven't progressed past 1.44megabytes of space..?<br /><br />I guess I'm just asking for too much.<br /><br />Question two, Let's just say...that yes... this is a softcore porn. Then why is there only ONE real sex scene, and why does it last for 2 minutes?<br /><br />I mean, you're taking the REASON people are staying up in the middle of the night to see this crap (dare I say 'movie' anymore?) ... and whittling it down to 2 minutes. Hell, they should've just taken that sex scene and sold it to another porn movie, and they would've STILL made more money off of this "crap" than they did.<br /><br />C.C.Cortigan is hot. And no offense to the actress, but she acts about as well as I do. and I'm mentally retarded, and only have one testicle... (C.C. Cortigan,...e-mail me ...we'll have lunch) I would write more, but I've run out of space.
|
negative
|
This movie is just too funny, a totally non-PC gangster romp. If Mel Brooks made a picture about the Mob in the 30's, it would probably look like this. Too many great one-liners to to remember, and while its not for everyone, anyone who DOESNT laugh a whole bunch of times doesnt have a pulse. So, put it on and LAUGH you Iceholes!!!
|
positive
|
This movie is not only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with him.
|
negative
|
They give you the set up then bore you to death with a constant cat and mouse chase. The main characters are involved in one constant stand-off where they threaten each other, every five minutes or less. And I'd like to see the police force that would let one of their cops pull off the A. Garcia bit. It's like some local cop walking Charlie Manson out of prison to go get a cup of coffee. Get real!
|
negative
|
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I feel greatly touched by the theme the movie intends to convey. One sentence that keeps coming up on my mind is that "history repeats itself". Life is what it is shown in the movie: when people are young, they seem not to understand their parents, their own spouses; people have every excuse for not sharing the dearest time with their children until too late; people always have to work hard to support the whole family but are just liable to neglect the subtle feeling of their partners; people always change their perspectives at different stages of their lives; people can always be forgiven if their heart is full of love for their beloved; nothing is more important than the blood relation people share in this world, and one is never too late to talk with their folks about what they feel at the bottom of their heart so as to achieve a better understanding between themselves, so that when life has to end some day, people should not feel sorry or regretful since they have kept their words and there is always hope ---a new life. The actors and actresses are fantastic. They have understood the director's intention perfectly. The movie's charm lies in, to me, the effect of bringing a skillful and splendid fusion of cheers and tears to the audience.
|
positive
|
I just got back from seeing, "Comedian". It was...alright. It kept me looking at the screen. Its just not the type of thing I like to go pay $7 to see.<br /><br />Now don't get me wrong, it'd make a great HBO feature. If this were something I was watching on TV, i'd be hooked right in. It gives an amazing look at what comics go through before and after getting on stage. It will interest anyone who likes watching comics.<br /><br />But when I go to the movies, I like to be entertained. I'm not there to be educated. Now I know what its like for Jerry Seinfeld before he goes out on stage....great. But truthfully, I'd rather just laugh at his jokes than worry about any of that.<br /><br />One more thing: With the bad attitude Onry Adams has; I'd expect to see him taking my order from Burger King before I see his HBO special. He wasn't funny. He's the kind of person that you love to hate.
|
negative
|
This is one of those movies when you are watching it you wonder whether it is documentary or fiction. After the movie, Ramin Bahrani answered many questions and we learned that the movie has a script.<br /><br />Bahrani's camera is silent, he is not judgmental, he almost erases director from the movie by purpose, background is not organized to make the picture pretty, however don't get me wrong; there is a lot of preparation for this movie. Starting on personal level, being the part of environment, being to be ignored when you film.<br /><br />Main character is a 'real' actor in every sense.<br /><br />I would like to thank all crew for this movie, showing us another country within NYC. I strongly suggest it if you like stories of others.<br /><br />Bora Kizilirmak
|
positive
|
I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half "intellectually" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their "intelligence" or mastery of "history" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.
|
negative
|
Horrendous "comedy" in which a beautiful, crazy woman (Liv Tyler) "comedically" destroys the lives of three men (Matt Dillon, Paul Reiser and John Goodman). Dillon hires a hit man (Michael Douglas) to kill her. What is happening to comedy? The year 2001 has produced some of the worst comedies ever (Saving Silverman, Sugar and Spice, Freddy Got Fingered, Tomcats, etc etc). This is one of the worst. There's not one, repeat, not ONE funny moment in it. The jokes are either stupid, unfunny, smutty or real sick. Also there's a strong hatred of women in this garbage--the only main female character (Tyler) is constantly used as a sex object. Also extreme, bloody violence is thrown in at the end. The only bearable moments come from Reba McEntire as a psychiatrist and Andrew Dice Clay in two roles--both psychos. Dillon, Goodman and Reiser have hit an all-time career low with this--the only way to go is up. And poor Tyler! She quit doing intelligent, gutsy independent films for THIS? And DOUGLAS???? What was he on when he agreed to this? An utter piece of crap--to be avoided AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!
|
negative
|
I really looked forward to see Planet of the Apes, but it was a huge dissapointment.<br /><br />The settings and masks are great, but that is the only good aspect of the film. All other things are really annoying. Mark Wahlberg is not acting, he is just in the movie, looking stupid. The other actors are also not very good.<br /><br />But the worst point of all, is the story. It is absolutely ridiculous! For example: the apes are lying unconsiousness on the ground, but the humans don`t attack them, no, they wait until they are up again! This is just one example for the stupid story, but it would take too long to tell them all.
|
negative
|
I thought I had seen this film before as the plot summary sounded familiar. However, when I watched it one afternoon (in need of some mindless-but-amusing entertainment), I didn't recognise anything - if I had seen it before, I must have blocked the horror of it from my memory.<br /><br />This film is dreadful, and it shows its age. In fact, it looks older than it is: more like a mid-80s moronic comedy. Whilst I am a fan of toilet humour and can see the funny side of many things, this is "comedy" at its most puerile and homophobic. The plot is as thin as a Supermodel, which wouldn't bother me if only the film were funny.<br /><br />There is only one amusing line in the whole film, spoken by the character Louis: "Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!" In fact, Louis is the only likable character (and that's not saying much). James and Carl are the type of irritating, immature men that a sensible woman would run a mile from, their practical jokes about as humorous as the war in Iraq; the character of Susan Wilkins is colourless (looks like Julia Roberts, but lacks her charisma) and there is zero chemistry between her and Carl - though it may be unfair to blame the actress, as I don't know what she could have done with such a poorly written part; and the villain is neither funny nor scary nor memorable.<br /><br />There is good trash and bad trash. This is trash that definitely should not be recycled.
|
negative
|
This movie might not put the Catholic church in the best light but it is telling a story based on true events. Unfortunately not everything in life, including religion, are all nice and rosy. Sometimes people and groups do things that at the time seem like the right thing but in retrospective do not look as great as they once did. "A Love Divided" tells the story of a family, yes it does incorporate religion, but really the story is about a family, and that family's ability to stay together no matter what is thrown at them. This film is also based on true events which is not to say that this story, scene by scene, is true, but if you were to look at news articles from that time period you would be able to see that neither churches handled the incident in a way that was helpful towards the family. Both churches are at fault here, the Catholic church for forcing such a regulation on the family in the first place and not responding to the violence that came with it and the Protestant church for telling the mother that she should just obey her husband and his priest and not put up a fight. In this case both let this family down. I believe that the film does a good job in showing this struggle in both the church and the family. It in no way shape or form is putting down the Catholic church, just the opposite, it shows how one incident can change the course of that religion's ideas and how one person can have an effect far more reaching then just themselves.
|
positive
|
A must for any die hard Carpenters fans!<br /><br />Cynthia Gibb does the role of KC a huuuuuge amount of justice, and although the 'story' isn't 100% factual, is still a good insight into the lives of both Richard and Karen and worth a watch just for the soundtrack.<br /><br />Makes me cry everytime!!!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Ying, a Chinese girl who speaks Czech, invited us to screening of a Czech movie (with English subtitles) in the Department of Visual and Environmental Studies (VES). It was the first time I saw Samotáři (Loners, 2000) and it was pretty good.<br /><br />Much like in many other Czech movies, the seven central characters seem to have a pretty difficult, dirty life; the web indicates that this theme was popular among the U.S. movies in the early 1990s. Their relationships are breaking up, combining, and recombining. Another typical feature of the Czech movies is that neither of the characters is designed to be a universally negative one and neither of them is a permanently positive character either. Also, you can see how the characters judge the features of others depending on the context; that's a very realistic feature of the movie's psychological analysis.<br /><br />Ondřej is a talented and married young surgeon who has two daughters. Nevertheless, you learn that he has only studied neurobiology to prove how much he loved another woman, Hanka. He is so obsessed that he repeatedly dresses up as a plumber to get into Hanka's parents' house - a house that he repeatedly burns.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Hanka has a very mixed relationship with her parents. She just decides - by tossing up a coin - to break up with Petr who works in a private radio station. Hanka does not view her parents' bourgeois life as a good example but seems rather unsuccessful in creating a better environment. But she is a very flexible figure, as far as the type of her boyfriends go.<br /><br />For a while, Hanka seems to have serious plans with Jakub, an innocent drug addict whose memory seems to be rather devastated by the drugs. However, the friends from his band inform Jakub that he already has another girlfriend. Hanka is disappointed and returns to her parents.<br /><br />When Hanka and Petr break up, it is organized by Robert, a matchmaker who also works for a travel agency where his job is to show the life of ordinary Czech people to Japanese tourists. Robert - who also provides Jakub with marijuana - is never serious about anything and he usually sleeps with many different women; eventually, his mother dies in a hospital and he has his own ways to deal with the depression.<br /><br />Vesna (a Slavic word for "Spring") who came to Prague from Macedonia works as a barmaid - and you won't learn whether she came to Czechia in order to see her dad or UFOs. She seems pretty confused but sometimes helps the other characters from their problems.<br /><br />Petr works in the radio station and he is the only one who likes his job - a job that he eventually loses. He announces to his audience that he broke up with Hanka - which is how Ondřej learns about the news that make him very happy.<br /><br />Finally, Ondřej's wife Lenka is always ready to forgive him and stabilize their marriage - even after Ondřej asks a magician to make him disappear so that Ondřej can try to capture Hanka again. (The magician pays his debt because he is a brother of a victim of an important car accident - Jakub and Hanka bring the victim to the hospital and Ondřej saves his life.) Lenka also works for the travel agency - as a translator - and eventually she has to translate some hysterical scenes for 20 or so Japanese tourists who are shooting their movies during Hanka parents' dinner.<br /><br />The seven characters interact in interesting and exciting ways that would be natural if Prague were smaller by four orders of magnitude. Given the actual size of the Czech capital, it looks a bit unlikely that all these events would take place among seven people, but it is fun.
|
positive
|
Sometimes good things happen by accident.<br /><br />I'd never heard of "Silverwing" until late 2005--I was flipping channels and happened to see something on Toon Disney with bats in a sawmill being attacked by owls. I had no idea what it was, but I was motivated to stay tuned--it was hard waiting for a commercial so I could find out what it was called!<br /><br />Part of what intrigued me was the looks of the bats--first of all, they didn't use the popular convention of giving the bats "extra fingers" where their thumb claws are supposed to be. Rather, they have palms like human hands, but the fingers are longer and have webs of skin between them.<br /><br />Also the faces--they look like human beings (in fact, at one point I wondered if they had once been human but were transformed INTO bats). Ordinarily I don't like this in cartoon animals, but it worked here--the story is a human story, even though it's about bats and other animals (not unlike The Lion King).<br /><br />What I saw on TV were the last two parts of the "trilogy." I'd missed the very beginning of the first one, "Towers of Fire" (the second overall), but for the most part I saw all of each of them. However, I found myself wanting to understand what was going on, since the first part hadn't been on and I wouldn't have caught it anyway.<br /><br />But I saw that it was based on a book by Kenneth Oppel. How fortunate that I paid attention and wrote it down--I was very disappointed when I learned that the series WASN'T AVAILABLE! It wasn't even that recently made that it made sense for it not to be available yet.<br /><br />However, I did find not only the book Silverwing, but also the two sequels Sunwing and Firewing. When I read the first book, I was left wondering "Is that it?" Not only because a lot of what's in the series isn't in that book, but even had I not seen the animated version, the book Silverwing (otherwise a good story) doesn't end so much as it stops. Only one loose end is tied up--Shade and Marina meet the Silverwing colony at Hibernaculum.<br /><br />In fact, Silverwing and Sunwing should have (in my opinion) been published in a single volume, because they make for a complete story together, but not separately.<br /><br />Actually, the animated version takes some elements from Sunwing (e. g., Orestes, the lifting of the ban from seeing the sun) and some were completely original. It's not perfect, but it's definitely very enjoyable. I enjoy both versions of the Silverwing saga.<br /><br />Which is why I'm glad it's finally going to be available in June. It was a long time coming, and it's well worth the wait.
|
positive
|
As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...
|
negative
|
Warning,contains spoilers!<br /><br />This is one of the best Italian sleaze films I've seen.<br /><br />The plot has a teenage girl who is interested of occultism and has supernatural powers.Her mother is a member of satanist group and is afraid what influences it'll have on the girl.No need to worry, the girl knows just what to do and there's no return,she belongs to Satan..<br /><br />During the film odd things happen in typical italo way,there's not too much logic,but that's only good thing.It's amazing how entertaining these films are.. On the final battle we see her and her mother fighting each other (nude off course) and doing some mysterious rituals,you might guess who wins... The films final pictures leaves your mouth open and wandering why can't there be more films like this?<br /><br />There's superb music through the whole film and the actors are quite good,better than usual in these type of films.Specially Anne Heywood looks and acts good.It also has some unusual camera angles and stuff like that, so it's not boring at all.My rating is 10.<br /><br />Hopefully someone releases this on dvd.
|
positive
|
This film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed.
|
negative
|
If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.<br /><br />I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.<br /><br />Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.<br /><br />Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.<br /><br />The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.<br /><br />There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.<br /><br />This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much.
|
negative
|
A woman as rich as she is insecure has a history of alcoholism and nervous breakdowns, helped no doubt by a smooth-talking gigolo husband who openly cheats on her. Naturally nobody believes her when she claims to have been accosted by a giant man who stepped out of a giant satellite. Much to the delight of her husband, this could be the incident which finally puts her away for good. <br /><br />From the very opening scenes, with it's ludicrous news broadcast and ridiculous satellite encounter, you'll probably be convinced that the only redeeming value of this movie is that it is so bad that it is funny. Although not too far off the mark, this is most definitely not true.<br /><br />Unlike most movies of this genre, this is not really a sci-fi or a horror film, but actually a serious drama which intelligently incorporates a sci-fi scenario into the plot. It's not a good or even mediocre drama, but it will exceed your expectations if you weren't expecting any legitimate drama at all. The acting is surprisingly good for such a low budget effort and, most importantly, it is well edited and excellently paced. It is never boring and manages to generate more than a little interest in seeing what will come next. Nevertheless, this is still a movie strictly for those who can't pass up the chance to see a 1950s film with a title like "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"!
|
negative
|
Well, I couldn't even enjoyed this movie much for its cult values. It's a B-movie action-flick, by the director of "Commando", that is however far too lame and silly to consider it a good B-movie with enough entertainment value in it.<br /><br />It's an '90's flick but foremost the movie should remind of an '80's action movie, when these type of B-movies were at an all time high. These movies always went over-the-top and never paid much attention to its story or acting. It was all about blowing stuff up, big muscle heroes and bullets flying around. This movie has all of that ingredients in it but yet I really didn't liked watching this movie as much as I like watching some similar type of movies. Hard to say why really, since the story and acting and such are just as bad as would be the case in basically any other genre movie from the same era.<br /><br />It's probably because the movie is being often far too silly. All these type of movies have its silly moments but this movie is just filled with it. The fighting, Dolph Lundgren running around shirtless, the characters, the story. It all just isn't very good because it's often just too lame for words. The story at times isn't even trying to make a bit sense and what's even the main plot-line of the overall movie? Its story is all over the place really and seems only to be written to create a movie out of with fighting sequences, gun fights and such. And those sequences aren't even much good to watch really. The moments are way too short and quite disappointing to watch really, from the man who brought us "Commando".<br /><br />It's foremost a Dolph Lundgren, in which he gets to play the big action hero star, who kicks butt with seemingly relative ease, knows how to handle guns and other weapons and of course also gets the girl, played by Tia Carrere. This all also brings us one of the worst montage sequence in action movie history and also definitely one of the worst sex sequence I have seen in any movie really. Both are just too lame for words and just very poorly put together.<br /><br />None of the characters work out really. The good guys are cops but they never seem to behave like one. They simply kill around without having to face responsibility to anyone and they are not very keen on making any arrest, or to inform anyone about their discoveries. Not even when they find out a big Japanese crime syndicate is trying to take over the streets of L.A. and a beer brewery is working as a cover for a drugs factory and large scale drugs smuggling. And also just think about it for a moment, what is Brandon Lee's overall purpose in the movie? The movie could had easily done without him and the girl as well.<br /><br />Too silly, lame and simplistic and just not entertaining enough.<br /><br />4/10
|
negative
|
This film deals with the Irish rebellion in the 1920s and more specifically one man's life after he informs on a friend for the bounty on his head and the subsequent consequences. Watching the film, I got the feeling that you could take the script and with just some minor updates, do it again and it, sadly, would still fit contemporary events. But te remake wouldn't be nearly as good. A magnificent performance by Victor McLaglen (for which he deservedly got an Oscar) and a fine ensemble cast that includes most, if not all the actors with brogues in Hollywood at the time, most of them recognizable character actors either established at the time or just starting out. A very good film well worth watching. Highly recommended.
|
positive
|
Don't be taken in because the premise of this film is a good one. It is, but that, does not a good film, make.<br /><br />Comedies require a well-honed script and masterful direction. Sadly, this poorly executed film has neither. Leconte, a good director in other genres, does not deliver in his comedic farces (Les Bronzes series being another example).<br /><br />The comedic timing is terrible. Some jokes are telegraphed. Some are re-hashed from other movies. Others just sit there as if they were giving you time to laugh. The plot has messy subplots (the allergic daughter, the lesbian co-owner) and just does not develop or envelope the viewer. It isn't funny and it isn't believable for a second.<br /><br />Compare this to any comedy by Billy Wilder (Some Like it Hot, A Foreign Afair, etc.) or by Leconte's compatriot, Francis Veber, a true GENIUS at French comedy (Le Diner de Cons, Le Placard, Les Comperes, La Chevre, La Grande Blonde, etc.) and you'll see the difference in their tight scripts, great comedic acting and timing, with each joke leading to the next one.<br /><br />Watching Mon Meilleur Ami twice would be cruel and unusual punishment, not a good sign for a comedy.
|
negative
|
It's Saturday, it's raining, and I think every movie should have at least one comment... so I just watched "The Crime Doctor's Courage" all the way through. It's a murder mystery with a typical cast of characters, and a couple of the usual suspects -- each with their own possible motive for the crime. The story starts abruptly and the viewer is thrown into the plot with no character development or storytelling whatsoever. I guess that's not too surprising for a B movie of this period. There are also some moments which look and feel like this is pre-WWII, but perhaps that is due to the writer's background in radio shows.<br /><br />The "Crime Doctor" is the sleuth who happens to be visiting California for some R&R from his psychiatry practice on the East coast. He hooks up with a mystery novelist friend with whom it is implied has been along for one or more previous mystery solving capers. The novelist occasionally fills the role of sidekick to our sleuth (AKA Dr. Watson), and also occasionally lightens things up with a bit of comic relief (sort of).<br /><br />There is also a somewhat simple, but not quite bumbling police captain who at times is annoyed by the meddling sleuth. And then there are the mysterious Braggas, a brother and sister who are dance artists at a night-club. The dance is sort of an interpretive dance that happens to be one of those moments which feels more like the 30's than the 40's. Though the story location is California, the Braggas appear to live in a castle!<br /><br />There was one plot element which managed to keep me somewhat amused, but I won't divulge any more than that because I always enjoy movies more when the story is discovered, rather than known in advance. (even though I can think of many, many, B films which would rate higher and it is difficult to say that watching this one is time well spent) I have not seen any other movies from the "Crime Doctor" series, so I can't make any comparisons.
|
negative
|
That pretty much sums it up ... corny. MacDowell's inability to act is at times painful, and Hurt must need money to take such muted roles, but I still enjoyed it.<br /><br />Why? In a single word, Travolta. He is GREAT in this movie. Still, I can't give the movie too high a score, but it certainly deserves better than it seems to be getting.
|
positive
|
Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame "Jaws"-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. "Krocodylus" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the "specialist" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that.
|
negative
|
A teenager who seems to have it all commits suicide. It leaves his family and his best friend (Keanu Reeves) asking a lot of questions...and blaming themselves.<br /><br />Good idea, badly handled. For starters this HAS been done before 1988--mostly in TV movies and After School Specials. Aside from some swearing and dialogue (hence the PG-13 rating) this added nothing new. The outcome is predictable and Reeve's attempts at acting were truly painful to watch. He's good NOW but not in 1988. Aside from that his character was dressed like a slob and always looked so dirty is was hard to build up sympathy.<br /><br />That aside the movie is dull. I saw every scene coming and every "surprise" was telegraphed. I basically couldn't wait for this thing to get over.<br /><br />I have a vague recollection of seeing it in a theatre in 1988 and hating it (it bombed BADLY). It still looks lousy almost 20 years later. The subject is worth handling but it's been done better (with better acting) in countless other movies. "Ordinary People" comes to mind. You can skip this one.
|
negative
|
Low-rent version of Ashley Judd's Double Jeopardy. Sutherland is too professional to be bad, but what was Brigit Fonda thinking?!? The Penelope Ann Miller curse continues (Think about it--when has she EVER been in a good movie other than Other People's Money? And I'm not saying she's bad, but all of her movies fail in some way).
|
negative
|
"Alexander Nevsky" marked director Sergei Eisenstein's return to film-making after a period of exile, and what he produced is a bald-faced propaganda film proclaiming Russia's superiority over Germany.<br /><br />There's very little plot: Russians unite to battle Germans; Russia wins. The film is really an extended montage of mostly battle scenes, mixed in with some moments of German brutality (like a rather shocking scene that shows German soldiers throwing Russian children onto a raging fire). This was Eisenstein's first sound film, and it's clear that he had no idea what to do with the medium. Indeed, this film really looks more like a silent film with some sound added. There are some dialogue scenes, but they sit rather lifelessly on the screen, and the pacing is all off, as if the actors weren't actually on the set together at the same time when they were filming them. Eisenstein mostly uses sound as an excuse to overlay a rousing Prokofiev score over the proceedings, and indeed, that's one of the film's biggest assets.<br /><br />Say what you will about Eisenstein's ability (or lack of) to direct actors or tell his film in a more narrative format, he certainly knows how to edit images and music together for maximum effect, and "Alexander Nevsky" over all shines through its deficiencies.<br /><br />Grade: A
|
positive
|
well,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and time.
|
negative
|
The book that this movie is based on seriously changed my life. But saying this movie was a disappointment is an understatement. The acting, directing, cinematography, and storyline were all horrible. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. I've told countless people about the book but will now be telling them all that they should definitely not see the movie! I did not expect the plot to follow the book exactly, but they have left out too many key components of the book. The movie tried, but failed, to deliver a powerful and inspiring message and only demeaned the central theme of the prophecy. While putting myself in the position who had not read the book, I saw the Celestine Prophecy as a bunch of hoaxy B.S. I am thoroughly disappointed with Redfield for the way this movie turned out.
|
negative
|
Ronald Colman gives a terrific performance as a stage actor who really gets into his work. When he plays Othello on the stage he takes on the persona with dire results. Good film with a great supporting cast. Well worth watching.
|
positive
|
a real hoot, unintentionally. sidney portier's character is so sweet and lovable you want to smack him. nothing about this movie rings true. and it's boring to boot.
|
negative
|
I have seen and enjoyed all of the Chameleon movies and I must say they keep getting better & better with each one. Bobbie Phillips is Fantastic and my granddaughter wants to be just like her. I'm glad they brought in a "Brother" character for Bobbie (Kam) so we can expect to see more exciting shows. Bobbie is beautiful, sexy, and sweet, and independent at the same time, and everything any female could desire to be!
|
positive
|
Definitely one of funny man Eddie Murphy's lesser films is this nonsense about a kidnapped mystical child, three hundred year old dragons and a "Chosen One".<br /><br />Murphy is the "Chosen One" in question, and as the opening song suggests, he is "the best man in the world". A finder of lost and missing children, he is approached by a mysterious Tibetan woman (Charlotte Lewis) who tells him he is "The Chosen One", and that it is his destiny to find and rescue "The Golden Child". For if the child were to die, compassion would die with him, as he is the bearer of compassion.<br /><br />If all this hocus pocus rubbish hasn't ruined it for you now, it surely will once the movie begins. Suffice to say the plot is abominable and destroys the whole film. Meant to be another vehicle for Murphy's egotistical brand of humour (the comedy isn't so great mind you), the movie fails on many levels. Even Charles Dance as the evil Sardo Numspa can't do much for proceedings. Very silly and disappointing.<br /><br />Sunday, December 12, 1993 - T.V.
|
negative
|
Meatball Machine is an amazing splatter film, it has an original plot with young love, buckets of blood, and weird alien creatures that mutate people into freakish robotic war machines.<br /><br />Now the film isn't for everyone, people who love splatter films or the movie Tetsuo: the Iron Man will applaud it.<br /><br />The special effects can be cheesy at some points of the film, but your not exactly suppose to take the film very seriously.<br /><br />Yet, all in all it's a lot of fun, well if you find budding romantics infested with slimy tumor like gobbles who seek to destroy each other in bloody alien oozing battles.
|
positive
|
When a stiff turns up with pneumonic plague (a variant of bubonic plague), U.S. Public Health Service official Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) immediately quarantines everyone whom he knows was near the body. Unfortunately, the stiff got that way by being murdered, and there's a good chance that the murderer will start spreading the plague, leading to an epidemic. Enter Police Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas), who is enlisted to track down the murderer as soon as possible and avert a possible national disaster.<br /><br />While Panic in the Streets is a quality film, it suffers from being slightly unfocused and a bit too sprawling (my reason for bringing the score down to an eight). It wanders the genres from noirish gangster to medical disaster, police procedural, thriller and even romance.<br /><br />This is not director Elia Kazan's best work, but saying that is a bit disingenuous. Kazan is the helmer responsible such masterpieces as A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954) and East of Eden (1955), after all. This film predates those, but Kazan has said that he was already "untethered" by the studio. Taking that freedom too far may partially account for the sprawl. The film is set in New Orleans, a city where Kazan "used to wander around . . . night and day so I knew it well". He wanted to exploit the environment. "It's so terrific and colorful. I wanted boats, steam engines, warehouses, jazz joints--all of New Orleans".<br /><br />Kazan handles each genre of Panic in the Streets well, but they could be connected better. The film would have benefited by staying with just one or two of its moods. The sprawl in terms of setting would have still worked. Part of the dilemma may have been caused by the fact that Panic in the Streets was an attempt to merge two stories by writers Edna and Edward Anhalt, "Quarantine" and "Some Like 'Em Cold".<br /><br />The gangster material, which ends up in firmly in thriller territory with an extended chase scene near the end of the film, is probably the highlight. Not surprisingly, Kazan has said that he believes the villains are "more colorful--I never had much affection for the good guys anyway. I don't like puritans". A close second is the only material that approaches the "panic" of the title--the discovery of the plague and the attempts to track down the exposed, inoculate them and contain the disease. While there is plenty of suspense during these two "moods", much of the film is also a fairly straightforward drama, with pacing more typical of that genre.<br /><br />The dialogue throughout is excellent. The stylistic difference to many modern films could hardly be more pronounced. It is intelligent, delivered quickly and well enunciated by each character. Conflict isn't created by "dumb" decisions but smart moves; events and characters' actions are more like a chess game. When unusual stances are taken, such as Reed withholding the plague from the newspapers, he gives relatively lengthy justifications for his decisions, which other characters argue over.<br /><br />In light of this, it's interesting that Kazan believed that "propriety, religion, ethics and the middle class are all murdering us". That idea works its way into the film through the alterations to the norm, or allowances away from it, made by the protagonists. For example, head gangster Blackie (Jack Palance in his first film role) is offered a "Get Out of Jail Free" card if he'll cooperate with combating the plague.<br /><br />The technical aspects of the film are fine, if nothing exceptional, but the real reasons to watch are the performances, the intriguing scenario and the well-written dialogue.
|
positive
|
Hercules wound up falling into the same category as many promising television productions that could have been a really great classic, only to become a sad joke.<br /><br />I really like Kevin Sorbo and his supporting cast, but I didn't care for the direction the show took since their movie equivalents either. I believe the show would have had a much more successful run if they had kept the same format they did for the movies.<br /><br />I watched in the beginning and lost interest along the way. I did encounter the odd episode afterwards, but my attention span towards it was lucky to make it to commercial break.
|
negative
|
"The Student Nurses" is an excellent film that deals with four women bonded by friendship and career. For the first time, one is able to see a realistic portrayal of relationships inside the work place, outside the work place, the risks of those relationships, and the consequences. This film also offers a rare chance to see veteran stage and television actress Katherine "Scottie" MacGregor as the nurses' instructor, "Miss Boswell." Ms. MacGregor is best known for her performance as "Mrs. Oleson" on the television series "Little House on the Prairie." The direction, music, and print color are very good as well as the opening theme song performed by Clancy B. Grass, III. This film offers a rare opportunity for those who enjoy themes centered around the late 1960s and early 1970s, which offers a "softer side to life" while appreciating the beauty of the female sex.
|
positive
|
Every time I watch this film, it just really makes me wanna go out and have a good night! My mate uses "the weekend has landed" speech to psyche himself up before going out! and so do I...sometimes. <br /><br />This film is a great debut for the writer/director - well done mate!<br /><br />The acting is great, all the characters are believable and are larger than life! The 'weird' scenes are a joy to watch, Jip's running Mr floppy flashbacks/explanations/visualizations are all great! The scene in the huuuuuuuge pub when everyone stands up and starts singing the mock national anthem is a laugh too. There's loads of comedy here - Howard Marks' 'spliff politics' speech is hilarious!<br /><br />Oh god, you just need to see this. Mind you, I felt the film did somewhat glorify the use of ecstacy, but hey, that's the truth of the matter eh? At least the film doesn't shy away from this fact. I suppose the film does carry a decent message to it as well - don't take life TOO seriously, you have to let you hair down sometime. And of course the chat in the pub when Moff tries to explain to his mates that he's coming off the drugs is a sure reminder that when the come down's out-way the good times, you know the party's over!<br /><br />This is at times a very clever film in it's use of the camera, lighting, etc. It was a realised piece of cinema, and a great feel-good tale of mates, love, clubs, and drugs.<br /><br />Get outta the 'rat race' people!!!<br /><br />8/10<br /><br />Enjoy!
|
positive
|
I liked this movie, Although halfway through it, I was able to tell who the secret admirer was.<br /><br />I am also wondering if it was based on a true story since it told about the "real" people at the end of the movie. I guess I will have to research it and let ya know.<br /><br />Does anyone remember what state this happened in? I believe they moved to North Carolina if I'm not mistaken.<br /><br />Of course the states could have been changed to protect the innocent.<br /><br />You would think that this man could have figured it out as easily as I did. Was he stupid or what?
|
positive
|
Fido is a story about more well mannered zombies who have been trained to serve the human race. All falls apart though, when young Timmy's zombie Fido eats the family neighbor. From then on, disaster (well, maybe not disaster, but to some extent, chaos) occurs. Most of the people treat their zombies with fairness, and one such character sleeps with his zombie (very funny part of the movie, if not also very disturbing too). And we find the loving Fido whatever he may do. This is a very funny and unique film, especially for the zombie genre. It is also probably one of the least violent of zombie movies (no negativity in this statement). I very much recommend it to people who are looking for something funny and different. I rate this 8/10. Rated R for zombie related violence
|
positive
|
1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version I watched titled "3 Days of the Condor"- So so CIA drama full of laid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premise of the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research group being killed with Robert Redford's character, codename = Condor, being the one that was left. Who killed them and why? That's what Redford tries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the same time. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway's character involved involved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then she eventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is one of a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn't have a lot of suspense. The flat performances don't help and the finish doesn't seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having a good director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, the story and the performances are not what they should be and therefore the movie is not what it should be.
|
negative
|
Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) is wrongfully accused on sabotaging a hanger making aircrafts for the war. He goes on the run, meets Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) along the way, and she joins him to find and bring the real criminals to justice.<br /><br />There are a lot of things wrong with this film. Robert Cummings was a good actor but he's totally miscast in this role; Priscilla Lane is pretty but was never a good actress; the story doesn't make a whole lot of sense (and rambles on longer than needed); it wears its patriotism a bit much (but this WAS made while WWII was in full swing) and there's no ending. It shouldn't work but it does.<br /><br />It's full of bizarre lines and characters that certainly hold your interest.<br /><br />For example: Lane says to Cummings (while they're falling in love), "I wish I could have met you a hundred years ago" (????!!!!); Lane PAYS a villain for getting her lunch and Cummings and Lane join a circus troupe briefly while on the run. Also Hitchcock's direction was (as always) just great--he throws in some truly amazing shots and sequences--especially the Statue of Liberty climax. <br /><br />This is not one of Hitchcock's classic movie but is still very good and worth catching.
|
positive
|
A strange relationship between a middle-aged woman and a transsexual who gonna be a woman soon. Charlotte and Venorica, both trapped by their inanimate lives and don't know how to get out of them. Charlotte is an owner of a beauty clinic, she has broken up with her aggressive ex-husband, moved into an apartment alone with all the furniture packed except her big bed. Veronica lives downstairs with her poor dog, She's sensitive and desperately bothered by her mother's visiting and the bad relationship with her dad. Her only hope is that the upcoming transsexual operation will turn her into a real woman and then everything will be fine. All she can do now is waiting for an approval certificate.<br /><br />Then these two individuals meet by chance and gradually they are all involved into other's lives, there are some sparkles between them, but no one is brave enough to face the truth because they are not willing to accept the change as most people do. Eventually the ending is quite satisfying and leaves some imagination for us to think about it.<br /><br />The director's great work gives me an great impression, she handles the development of characters very well, the emotional atmosphere is quite full and intense. Also I am so obsessed with the gloomy lights all over the apartment, Delphic but full of desire.<br /><br />Two main characters are played by Trine Dyrholm and David Dencik, they are amazing in their roles, a very impressive performance and the chemical reaction between them is genuine and convincing.<br /><br />This Swedish indie film is about encountering and change, no matter you're homosexual or heterosexual, male or female, the oddness of life exists everywhere, whenever you fall across it, you'll be hesitate and bewildered, but at least don't be afraid, follow your heart and choose the right way.
|
positive
|
Ohhh the brutality, ohhhhh the dying breed, ohhhh the sense of loss, ohhhh the prejudice! Jeez, when are all you whiney revisionists going to stop analyzing Westerns for crying out loud? S**t happens. If it offends your socially engineered sensibilities then go back to the comfort of your Meryl Steep collection.<br /><br />Boring, tedious, and very tiresome waste of celluloid-particularly in light of Coburn/Hackman/Bergen's presence. Nothing interesting or intriguing here, unless you are obsessed with 19th century desert dentisty. May have been a little better without the constant diversion of the out-of-place mexican guy with the bad tooth. A monument to the stupid ultra-left creeping sensitivity of the 60/70's. Virtually impossible to sit through the entire film. I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for the entire Lucky Luke/Trinity series. 4 Horses/10-all deader'n hell.
|
negative
|
This is one of the most predictable movies I have ever seen. And this supposed to be funny..... Boring, boring, boring. Find the fast forward button at your remote and use it... I can`t say I laughed once, and the only good feeling this movie gave me was relief when it ended.
|
negative
|
With Matthias Hues on the cover and only $3.00, i had to buy it. I enjoyed some moments, like Hawks annoyance with the pleasure droids, but i only really watched to see Matthias Hues' scenes. I particularly enjoyed the showdown at the end. It was a cross between Clint Eastwood's "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and "For a Few Dollars More" (a 3 man quick-draw showdown, with a musical pocket watch used as the countdown timer). Apart from that, there's really nothing more I can add. The actors gave good performances, (all except the "Assassin Droid" whose performance was nothing outside of comical) but the movie really lacked depth and purpose; simply not enough to fill up 1hour and a half of standard movie time, so we're stuck with the main characters aimlessly wondering around from place to place for an hour or so, until the ball gets rolling. For example, the main character returns to the same strip club about 4 times, taking up two-fifths of the movie.<br /><br />The scenery really lacked depth and creativity, probably due to the films budget. I don't think we ever did get to see this "perfect city" of New Angeles that was always talked about, in fact, when the main characters finally reached New Angeles, its set in a factory or warehouse full of pipes and walkways; hardly the kind of "kingdom" the owner/creator of an entire city would dwell in. The "super-high security" of New Angeles was also always talked about, but only a total of 15, maybe 20, security guards were counted, even when the alarm went off; not even close to Matthias' approximation of "at least a hundred men out there".<br /><br />If you are a fan of any of the actors/actresses in this film, then you may want to watch it, simply to "add it to the list". However, if you value 1 and a half hour of your time, or $3.00 of your money, you may want to give this one a miss.
|
negative
|
UNCONDITIONAL LOVE is surprisingly entertaining. While the plot goes off in perhaps too many directions, making for an overlong movie, it never fails to charm and ingratiate itself. The several plotlines, one warmly reminiscent of SHIRLEY VALENTINE, provide ample smiles, laughs, wisdom and tenderness. It all shouldn't work, and at times it certainly bumps along, but forgive its inconsistencies, sit back and have a good time. It's a charmer!
|
positive
|
If you don't like Italian horror, you won't like this film. On that note...<br /><br />"Overall... it was a terrible experience... Many things happened. Vanessa Redgrave was scheduled to be in the film, and she pulled out. One of the actors was crushed by a car. I was engaged to be married, but by the end of the picture that was finished. My father died during the shooting... all kinds of things." -Dario Argento on the making of "Opera"<br /><br />I was truly impressed with Argento and the film he made here-- especially against such harrowing circumstances. The whole mystique of "Macbeth" and its curse on those who attempt to stage the play adds untold volumes to "Opera."<br /><br />Throughout the film, Argento imploys some of his most clever (and audience directed) tricks. A young opera singer, Christina, is stalked by a violent psychopath who forces her to watch a series of brutal murders. By taping several sharp blades to Christina's eyelids the killer makes it impossible for her to close her eyes, "Take a good look. If you try to close your eyes, you'll tear them apart. So you'll just have to watch everything!"<br /><br />It is clear that Argento put great care into constructing the faux "Macbeth" opera on-screen, and his hard work pays off. Add to this several unforgettably brutal murders, an incredibly tense chase sequence, and the genius use of POV to portray a certain character (the role Vanessa Redgrave pulled out on, thank god) and you've got one of the best Italian horror films ever created.<br /><br />That said-- it's still Italian horror. Why Christina never seems to tell anyone about this brutal murders is beyond anyone's comprehension. Some scenes might be difficult for certain viewers to stomach, but personally I felt more tension towards Christina and her eyes than any of the brutal slayings in the film. The finale to "Tenebrae" had my stomach churning more than anything in "Opera," but that's probably just me.<br /><br />And the last five minutes... Argento wanted it, he filmed it, and he's fought to keep it in the film. Absolutely no one likes it, myself included, but it's not enough to ruin the rest of the film for me. It remains one of Argento's best films to date.<br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.<br /><br />It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.<br /><br />The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.<br /><br />The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.<br /><br />The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. <br /><br />More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.<br /><br />Really not worth your time.<br /><br />4/10
|
negative
|
Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?<br /><br />There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.<br /><br />Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.<br /><br />If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)
|
negative
|
Keira Knightley and Sienna Miller stars in the story of two of the women in the life of Dylan Thomas. Knightley is Thomas's boyhood sweetheart he re-encounters during the Blitz. Meeting at a bar they reconnect, however things become complicated when Thomas' brings his wife (Miller) along the next time he meets her. The women hit it off and things proceed at pace until the trio are joined by the man who will become Knightly's husband. This further complicates things as jealousy begins to show its face.<br /><br />Beautiful to look at, extraordinarily written and wonderfully acted (everyone disappears completely into their roles) this is a sumptuous feast for the eyes and the ears. It's so nice to see a film about adults being adults. On a purely visceral level I really enjoyed watching the film because the film is so artistically pleasing. Rarely have I ever seen a film that is this beautifully crafted.<br /><br />The trouble with the film is I'm not entirely sure of everything that happened. Something seemed to be missing and a couple of times I had to replay the film to see if I missed something. Its not bad, but its not completely satisfying as a result. (I tried to look up on line to see how much of the film is true but I couldn't find anything) Still I think this is a film worth seeing. It's a beautiful film for adults with probably the best acting the leads have done.
|
positive
|
This is the Columbo that got directed by Steven Spielberg at an early point in his career. It's nothing sensational but some small hint of great things to come for Spielberg can be seen in this movie. The movie is basically in the same style as most of Spierlberg's '70's movies and TV works. So that means that some characters tend to show some quirkiness's and no I'm not just talking about the Columbo character alone. The kind of character quirkiness which perhaps can be best seen in the 1975 Spielberg movie "Jaws". But other than some small hints of typical early Spielberg elements, you can't call this movie the work of- and fine example of a rising director star. Not that its bad, of course it isn't but as I said earlier, it also isn't anything too sensational.<br /><br />This movie began really well and very promising but after it's fine opening, in which as always the murder occurred, the movie became sort of more slow and also dull to watch. Dull because it's mostly a Columbo movie by the book that doesn't have real memorable moments in it, not dull because it's a boring movie to watch.<br /><br />The murder itself was quite ingenious and the concept of having a crime story writer murdering his writing partner showed some great and interesting potential. The story however didn't really explored all of its possibilities. At least that's the feeling this movie left me with.<br /><br />The movie was still a good one to watch nevertheless thanks to the character of Jack Cassidy, who thinks he's smarter then Columbo, due to his mystery/crime writing experience and tries to give him all kinds of possible hints, leading away from himself. But of course Columbo knows better and he is his number one suspect from the first moment on but he as usual plays the game along.<br /><br />The movie does have a good overall style and uses some fine camera position and editing. Funny to see that also most of this was all mostly consistent with Spielberg's later work, especially some of the camera-angles.<br /><br />A fine and perfectly watchable Columbo movie but don't let the name of Spielberg attached to it rise your expectations for it too highly.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
This movie had me smiling from beginning to end, partly at the humor, partly at Meg Ryan (this is the perfect character for her), and always because it's just one of the best feel-good movies I've seen. Hopefully the DVD will be out soon.
|
positive
|
In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.<br /><br />Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.<br /><br />The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.<br /><br />But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.<br /><br />So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie.
|
negative
|
This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor and truly awesome as Corby/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over and over without tiring.
|
positive
|
5 minutes into this movie I was hyperventilating, shaking, and writhing in pain. And not in the good way. The story is about a troupe of idiotic children making prank phone calls to a psycho which is always a good idea. Turns out psychos don't like prank phone calls because in 2 minutes time he's at their door killing poor Williams mom and dad. Well skip ahead 15 years and guess what? Still prank phone calling people. Yep you would of thought that a horrible murder would of deterred them from doing that ever again but no. So after about two hours later and way too many scream ripoffs I realized that this movie gave me nothing but a terrible taste in my mouth and a severe urge to take my own life. This piece of crap isn't even worth laughing at the shoddy production, the "acting", or Rutger haurs dwindling career. I love crappy horror movies but this is the most unsatisfying piece I've ever seen. Just don't.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.