review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.<br /><br />it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.
|
positive
|
What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain.." about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!
|
negative
|
This was an interesting movie...half-comedy, half-political thriller. It had a lot of good elements, although it was a little predictable. <br /><br />Robin Williams stars as Tom Dobbs, a popular comedian with a hit show in which he gives political commentary. Think Daily Show With John Stuart. During the taping of one of his shows, a female in the audience tells him he should run for president. That, followed by a few jokes taken seriously, were all that was needed to get the ball rolling and start Dobbs' political career. <br /><br />He runs independently, and opposes democrats and republicans equally. He is straightforward and honest, and becomes increasingly popular--but maybe not popular enough to actually win. He's clearly the underdog in this election. <br /><br />Meanwhile, a corrupt software company has created a program to make voting much quicker and easier for the common people--but there is a glitch. The glitch is discovered by a young lady named Elanor (Linnley) who is appeased by the software developer with a lie that he fixed the glitch before the upcoming election. <br /><br />Election day comes around, and lo and behold Dobbs is declared the winner. (Big Surprise!) Elanor knows that he is not really the president--he didn't win legitimately--She decides to tell the president...but complications arise. Her company went as far as poisoning her in order to silence her. In addition to that, she quickly takes a liking to Dobbs. <br /><br />The plot takes a few twists and turns, before reaching it's slightly predictable conclusion. But, it never got boring. Robin was great as usual, and Christopher Walken often stole the show as Dobbs' manager-turned-political-adviser and best friend. <br /><br />It's an entertaining film, and it has a good message. I recommend it if you're in the mood for dark satire, or something that makes you think. Overall I give it a 7/10.
|
positive
|
I am sorry but this is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I cannot believe that after making the first one in the series they were able to get a budget to make another. Not that the budget could have been much - this is the least scary film I have ever watched and laughed all the way through to the end (actually I can't believe we watched it to the end) but I think it is because we couldn't quite believe it.
|
negative
|
This is a documentary unlike any other. It has so many layers and shows us so much that trying to analyze it all at once is nearly impossible. Documentarian William Greaves shows us the process of film-making from a different perspective. We see the struggles of the actors, the director, the sound crew, and everybody else trying to hang in there and make this film successful. If this was just about a movie being made it would be ordinary. What Greaves does is make it more complex by having a crew film the actors, and then this will be filmed by another crew, only to have another crew film the whole thing. Three cameras, each with a different goal. It has an almost dizzying affect on you but at the same time is exciting. I like the parts where the crew organizes together and discusses what is going on. Even they are somewhat in the dark as to what Greaves is trying to do. Half see this as an experiment while the other half sees it as a chaotic and confusing failure. No matter what side you choose, you can't argue that Greaves doesn't get you involved in this process.
|
positive
|
There are many police dramas doing the rounds. I am not sure why. It's probably to do with the old basic theme of good versus evil.<br /><br />This film has a documentary style as we follow the difficult initiation of Anne, a raw recruit, into a police squad stationed in the Baltic area. No attempt is made to glamorise the police. They are truly down to earth, harsh at times and unforgiving, Anne on the other hand has a soft heart perhaps a little more understanding of the human condition. Against all rules she sometimes holds back incriminating information found on her strip searches and other investigations.<br /><br />This is not a pleasant film. Not one to relax you. There is not much feeling of optimism in it. The police seem to be involved in a losing battle. Tomorrow there will be more bashings, more murders, more family break-ups, and more distressed children. Let's face it. This is the world we live in.<br /><br />As days go by Anne becomes more intimately involved with the police and with the families they are investigating. The only real warmth in the film is that provided by the character Benny, a 12 year old from a broken family. Anne has her own way of patching things up. She turns a blind eye to Benny's shoplifting and tries to help him as best she can. I was surprised though that she went so far as to seduce Benny's father. It set me wondering if it was in consideration of the father or her own needs. After all, the film makes it clear that she was desperately in need of a partner and loving children.<br /><br />Well cast but not my idea of an evening's entertainment,
|
positive
|
Slaughter Trail is a B western with some grand pretensions. But it's come down in Hollywood history for a most ignominious reason.<br /><br />Watching this film with it's musical score which can only be described as overbearing, I have a feeling what Howard Hughes was trying to do is recruit a singing cowboy for RKO films. They already had Tim Holt who was as reliable a B picture cowboy hero there ever was, but he was not a singer. I guess Hughes saw what money Herbert J. Yates was raking in with Roy Rogers over at Republic and decided he'd get one as well.<br /><br />So Terry Gilkyson who was a very good performer and much better song writer got recruited and sang some of his material which was not his best and worse, looked like they were shoehorned into the picture. But worse than that, there's this annoying chorus which sang a lot of the story and frankly overwhelmed the actors, extras, even the horses. Needless to say Terry never got to be a singing cowboy. But he did write such classics as The Bare Necessities and Dean Martin's great hit, Memories are Made of This.<br /><br />The plot concerns an inside woman on a stagecoach jewel robbery. That's right, the outlaws who are Gig Young, Myron Healey, and Ken Koutnik plant Virginia Grey in the coach as a passenger which they receive word is carrying some valuable jewels. <br /><br />It's a great act Grey and Young pull off. Young takes her away from the coach to presumably a fate worse than death and they do properly act out the scene within earshot of the passengers, but what he does is slip her the swag. Last place the authorities might look, if she doesn't run off with it.<br /><br />But when they flee the robbery it's on tired horses so they stop at a cabin to take some replacement mounts and shoot three Navajos who object. That puts the Navajos back on the warpath, didn't help that one of the casualties was Chief Ric Roman's brother.<br /><br />That's the situation that Captain Brian Donlevy at the fort has to deal with when the coach and the outlaws arrive there for protection. How it all works out is predictable, but in a gaudy sort of overproduced way.<br /><br />In fact that's the problem with Slaughter Trail. It's a simple no frills B western that got souped up into something almost grotesque.<br /><br />But the real reason Slaughter Trail entered into history is that this film apparently marks the official beginning of the blacklist. Originally Howard DaSilva was to play Donlevy's part and may have in fact completed his scenes, when Howard Hughes officially fired him for Communist sympathies. His scenes were completely re-shot with Brian Donlevy in the lead.<br /><br />Considering what a fiasco this film turned into, I'm not sure whether Donlevy or DaSilva ought to have thanked Hughes or kicked him in his private preserve.
|
negative
|
The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.<br /><br />There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.<br /><br />There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Okay,I'm a history buff,and okay,I'm a action film junkie,so of course,this film is on my top ten of all time.I really love the action scenes,and the unique weaponry of the period.I sort of have doubts about fighting two-handed sword from horse-back,and the Raisuli sword seems more katana-like than scimitar-like,...oh well,I've never fought from horse back,either.<br /><br />I love the attempts at philosophic proverbs,too.The typical desert tribesman probably couldn't read the Koran,so they'd take his word for it.Several writers have criticized Connery's brogue;well,on vacation as a youth,I met a family of South Africans in our west,Dinosaur National Monument,and although they spoke Africaans between themselves(yeah,second generation Germans can hear the difference),they spoke English with a Scottish brogue.Seems that who teaches you affects your pronunciation.Scottish Missionary?
|
positive
|
Only after some contemplation did I decide I liked this movie. And after reading comments from all the other posters here, and thinking about it some more, I decided that I liked it tremendously. I love American films - probably because they are so narrative. They usually have a well-defined beginning, middle, and end. "Presque rien," on the other hand, makes no such attempt. I disagree with other posters that say it's 'too artsy.' In every way, this film is meant to evoke your sense memories. So often throughout the film you feel like you're there... you feel the summer sun, the breezes, the heat, the winter chill, the companionship, the loneliness, etc., etc.<br /><br />In every way, the director pulls you into the lives of the characters - which is why so many people feel so strongly that the movie disappointed them. After I finished watching it, I felt the same. But upon some reflection, I recognized that this is how the movie had to be: the 'story' isn't the narrative, it's the emotions you (the viewer) feel.<br /><br />The lighting, scenery, and camera angles immerse you in the scenes - they're rich, exquisite, and alive with detail and nuance. Although I normally cannot countenance films without a fully developed plot (after all, isn't a movie 'supposed' to tell a story), this film is definitely one of my new favorites.
|
positive
|
When the British Film Institute asked Martin Scorcese to create the American part of its Century of the Cinema series, he grabbed the opportunity with both hands. A Personal Journey through American Movies is a fascinating, wide-ranging and, as the title says, a highly personal look at Hollywood cinema.<br /><br />Scorcese's story is primarily about Hollywood's directors actors, producers, screenwriters and other collaborators barely get a mention. He states right from the beginning that for him the primary conflict within the film industry is that between the director's vision and the distributor's profit motive, between art and commercial viability. He even opens with a clip from Vincente Minnelli's The Bad and the Beautiful, one of the earliest films to openly explore this contradiction. This dictates the structure for the documentary. Scorcese looks at how genres have darkened and clichés have become challenged, how mavericks have challenged the production code, and how certain filmmakers fell from grace when they dared to be different. However, Scorcese never falls into the auteurist trap of dismissing directors who consistently pleased the studio bosses (he lavishes praise on Cecil B. De Mille), or those who had less of a recognisable style but were master craftsmen of the cinema nonetheless.<br /><br />Scorcese doesn't necessarily focus on his absolute favourite directors either (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, two of Scorcese's biggest influences, are only mentioned in passing). Instead, he looks at the individuals and the films that serve to tell his story. For example, he shows us a succession of John Ford films to show how the western evolved. He looks at the work of Vincente Minnelli (probably the most often referenced director of the documentary) to show how a supposedly wholesome genre like the musical could also have darker undercurrents. I can imagine that, had this assignment not been limited to America, Scorcese would have also loved to talk about, for example his Italian influences or his British hero Michael Powell. As it is, he stretches the definition of American movies to include both the Hollywood films of immigrant directors such as FW Murnau, Billy Wilder and Douglas Sirk, as well as the work of US-born filmmakers that was produced elsewhere such as that of Stanley Kubrick.<br /><br />Rather than simply tell the story of Hollywood chronologically, Scorcese compares films from various eras in order to tackle various subjects. In his section on the language and tools of cinema, he begins with DW Griffith, looks at the coming of sound, colour and widescreen and inevitably ends up going over computer generated effects which, although Scorcese is not keen on them, he is even-handed enough to include clips of George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola defending them. However, he doesn't simply finish the chapter here as if this is the end of it. Instead, he then rewinds back to the 1940s, to show how a low-budget horror like The Cat People can achieve effective results from the simplest and cheapest of elements.<br /><br />A Personal Journey through American Movies has to be one of the best film documentaries made. There were a number of outstanding directors and pictures which I would never have discovered without, and even the most seasoned of film buffs would be likely to find something new in its broad scope. Scorcese has also restored the balance to forgotten or undervalued pictures. I was pleased to see that, when he talks about Kubrick in his "Iconoclasts" chapter, he looks at Lolita and Barry Lindon, for me his two most underrated films. Scorcese's respect for the medium is on display in the way he allows clips to play out fully, rather than just giving us tiny bits, and he interrupts them with talking heads (a combination of archive and new interviews) only when necessary. There is a bit of bias towards the 40s and 50s, but that is hardly surprising since it is the era in which Scorcese grew up and discovered cinema. And after all, I don't think this documentary could have been achieved had it not been a personal journey.<br /><br />One word of warning though, in its in depth look at certain pictures, this documentary does contain a fair few spoilers.
|
positive
|
To be honest, I had to go see this movie backwards, didn't expect that much, but hey, I was not deceived, I had a good time.<br /><br />I would say this movie is way a fresh breeze, despite some facts that they tried to modernize Nancy Drew, but this made me remember these youth movies of the 60-70s from Europe and Quebec, where they manage to have children getting interacting with adults. In this case, a 16 year-old teenager tries to do justice by trying to solve a mystery concerning the death of an actress who died 25 years ago. Anyway, as her dad had business in Hollywood, why not rent a home with a mystery behind doors ? Well, at least Emma Roberts does a great job here. Kinda like the chubby kid, who at first is naively brought to support his sister's pranks to Nancy, but at the end, found Nancy quite cool enough to stick with her, even with her matters...<br /><br />Rest of the supporting cast is great, and was happy to see Rachael Leigh Cook in a different role this time: a single mother (she did it in Family Rescue, but this time, she plays a mature woman...) Anyway, don't dump this, it is fun !
|
positive
|
I saw this movie a couple years back. I could'nt sleep and there was nothing on. So I peeped it. What really gets me is it makes no sense and thats why its disturbing. Richard gets tied up in chicken wire and Jarvis starts making out with Richard's girl while she's unconscious. Then Jarvis's buddy Troubador is playing some stupid song on his guitar. By the next morning it shows Richard's girl talking to Jarvis and Trouby and then she walks back to Richard and looks at him while he's still tied up. Then they play some happy music and the movie is finished. I mean what happened? Did they brake up? And what was she saying to those 2 guys(Trouby and Jarvis)? Its to puzzling and to poor to. I can't stand movies that are disturbing and don't make sense. This was the worst film i've ever seen since the 90's version of Lord of the Flies.
|
negative
|
A brief history of time. The cosmological content of this documentary is fascinating, the thoughts provoking and the man... brilliant. Yet I had a hard time enjoying this documentary. <br /><br />The way the family members and professors are interviewed feels so unnatural. These members were interviewed on specifically built sets and were directed uncomfortably. Mostly, their accounts came across as very acted and forcefully directed. The (deliberate) non-inclusion of asked questions manipulates the given information into a very harsh and impersonal format. <br /><br />I do not know who are responsibly for the interviewing but they did a dreadful job and with that took away from the viewing experience.<br /><br />Overall still a fascinating documentary well worth seeing, if only for the interesting concepts presented.
|
positive
|
I was looking forward to Dante's contribution to this excellent horror anthology series from Showtime, but this was easily the worst of the bunch. It's really too bad. Part of this may be due to the poor, if odd, choice of source materials. Why Joe didn't just write an original, I have no idea. Instead, we get this soapbox episode where the "message" overwhelms the script, the characters, the staging, everything, and by the end I was just wondering whether it could get any worse, and I won't spoil it...but it ended up getting worse. What a stinker by such a talented creative team. Skip this one and buy the John Carpenter one instead. It manages to balance all of the elements: horror, humor, character, vision, and it's fun. Homecoming is about as fun as having a bear take a dump on you while you sleep.
|
negative
|
There is absolutely no plot in this movie ...no character development...no climax...nothing. But has a few good fighting scenes that are actually pretty good. So there you go...as a movie overall is pretty bad, but if you like a brainless flick that offer nothing but just good action scene then watch this movie. Do not expect nothing more that just that.Decent acting and a not so bad direction..A couple of cameos from Kimbo and Carano...I was looking to see Carano a little bit more in this movie..she is a good fighter and a really hot girl.... White is a great martial artist and a decent actor. I really hope he can land a better movie in the future so we can really enjoy his art..Imagine a film with White and Jaa together...that would be awesome
|
negative
|
I found this movie boring, monotonous and quite uninteresting with a hurried, shallow "upbeat" ending that didn't ring true to the overall story. Following these characters through a weekend of awful events, unfriendly attitudes and bad news just isn't my idea of a watchable, interesting movie and I got very tired of its "one note" theme and couldn't wait for it to end--in fact I almost stopped about halfway through. The whole movie just seemed pointless and wandering, and the characters were for the most part depressing and unpleasant, though the acting was good. A small movie with small ambitions and small appeal--sorry, but it just didn't make it with me, and I love good, small films! This one just didn't jell, though I kept watching it hoping and trusting that it would. I was disappointed, especially after two local reviewers put it on their "Year's 10 Best" list. I'd strongly recommend watching "The House of Sand" instead--now there's a good, small film!
|
negative
|
Chuck Jones's 'Odor-able Kitty' is the cartoon that introduced Pepe Le Pew to the world
sort of. There are a few key differences between the Pepe we know and love (or hate, in the case of some people) and the character in this cartoon. For one, the disguised cat who Pepe amorously pursues in 'Odor-able Kitty' is distinctly male. Also, Pepe is exposed as a fraud whose real name is Henry at the cartoon's climax, his French accent dropping away when his wife and family turn up. Pepe is not even the lead character here, the focus favouring the put-upon cat who disguises himself as a skunk to scare off his enemies. For the most part, the storyline largely follows the usual format of a Pepe Le Pew cartoon but Pepe's aggressive courtship is lacking the usual wisecracks and straight to camera addresses that make him such a great character. He is also not nearly as handsome as he would become and rather awkwardly animated. In fact, 'Odor-able Kitty' is a fairly ugly and clumsy looking cartoon all round. Its main source of appeal comes from its concept which was original at this stage before it became the template for every Pepe Le Pew cartoon that followed. This subsequent development has robbed 'Odor-able Kitty' of any impact whatsoever and to modern viewers it just looks like a rather dull Pepe Le Pew short with a weird surprise ending. As a child, I hated Pepe Le Pew. As an adult, able to appreciate his more sophisticated, verbal and risqué humour, I love the character and most of his cartoons. 'Odor-able Kitty' makes me feel like a child again!
|
negative
|
I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.<br /><br />Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way. <br /><br />Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.<br /><br />Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.<br /><br />Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.
|
negative
|
I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.
|
negative
|
A fine Martino outing, this is a spirited and enjoyable giallo with fine performances from good looking cast and principally the two leads, George Hilton and Anita Strindberg.<br /><br />For me the jig-saw puzzle of a plot is so convoluted and confusing you just sit back and enjoy rather than try to anticipate. Just when all seems resolved we are again taken on a further series of twists, enjoyable twists, it has to be said.<br /><br />Sexy with plenty of gory kills this a well paced movie with London, Athens and Greek coastal locations. A super finale set upon Aegean rocks wraps things up and much fun was had by all.
|
positive
|
Brilliant Biographic FILM
..<br /><br />Well this certainly is one of my very fav. Biographic movie. This movie came as a Total Surprise to me. I had been avoiding this movie for a very very Long time. Now that was because I am not a fan of Jamie Foxx. I still am not a Big Fan of him But I sure am a FAN now.<br /><br />Well He deserved every BIT of that Oscar. His performance is one of the BEST performances I have seen in a Long Long time. He is truly Sensational!<br /><br />Well the narration, or the Flow of the story is Brilliant for a Biographical movie. I am a DRAMA fan so I wasn't bored at all.<br /><br />I was way too much surprised to have being liking the movie so much that I did not see any flaws in the movie. I think there isn't any flaw in the movie. Maybe some Events errors But hey who Cares?<br /><br />The performance by the woman who plays ray's Mother was also really GOOD. And well Kerry Washington
she has so much Potential.. if given the right role She might just be the Next Oscar winner.<br /><br />Well the Story of them movie was so EMOTIONAL so TOUCHING.. I Cried
I Cried very Badly
<br /><br />I don't give a damn if the things were mad- up or not cuz this movie mad me cry
And that's a lot for me!<br /><br />All in all a SUPERB FILM
. One of the very best of this century!<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious "star" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The "special effects", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.
|
negative
|
Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen Check! Tasty looking love interest Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion Check! Corny one liners Check!<br /><br />Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!<br /><br />In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.<br /><br />Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.<br /><br />In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.<br /><br />Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.<br /><br />Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!!
|
negative
|
While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!
|
negative
|
It had its moments, but overall when I watched this cartoon as a child I was bored out of my mind. The only thing that kept me watching was the fact that it was a cartoon, probably my first exposure to anime. It is also one of my least favorite anime's, I remember others one involving a giant ship in space that made no sense, but was more enjoyable because they were in space. I also remember one with these people dressed like birds that was a bit strange, but more entertaining. I do not really like car racing though at all, did not then and still do not so that is probably one of the reasons I did not care for this show even though today I am an avid anime fan. The characters were a bit goofy too, and then there was the horrible scenes where virtually no action was taking place that was probably used to cut down on animation costs and to pad the show. The gadgets in the cars were cool though and provided some entertainment for me back then. Overall, I find this show to be rather unwatchable compared to newer animes and some from the same era, but this is just a personal opinion I am sure many other reviewers love the show which is cool.
|
negative
|
Even if it were remotely funny, this mouldy waxwork of a film would still be soberingly disrespectful. Stopping just short of digging up the boys' corpses and re-enacting 'Weekend At Bernie's' but only just producer Larry Harmon and the director of the frickin' 'Ernest' films use holding the copyright as an excuse to crap all over Stan and Ollie's legacy. Gailard Sartain does a fair Ollie impersonation but Bronson Pinchot wouldn't reach tenth place in a Stan lookalike contest; even if they were both spot on the film would be no less detestable. The less said about the surrounding catastrophe the better. Makes 'Utopia' look like a dignified swan song.
|
negative
|
At 2:37pm in a bathroom at an Adelaide highschool a student takes their own life and the different worlds of six teenagers are changed forever.<br /><br />2:37 is a brutal, honest and breathtaking film centered on the pain of being a teenager. The film follows one day in the lives of six teenagers, all intertwined, all dealing with their own personal dramas. While there are a couple of stereotypes in the mix the beautiful would-be popular girl dealing with body issues, the over-achiever obsessed with his grades, there are several horrors that are as far from main-stream as you can get, including a social outcast dealing with a brutal illness and a young girl trying to make sense of a devastating event in her past.<br /><br />The movie is mixed with documentary-style interviews from the characters, which some viewers may find a little out of place in the otherwise seamless narrative. The pace is also a little slow, but it fits with the feel of the movie. The young Australian actors are all stars in their own right, in particular Theresa Palmer who's heartbreaking performance earned her an AFI nomination.<br /><br />The film is very well shot, with terrific direction. Some scenes are a little hard to watch in particular the five-minute-long suicide scene, but overall it is a film that leaves a big impact on its' viewers. It draws you in right from it's shocking opening scene and keeps you guessing as to which of the six main characters is going to be the one to end up in the bathroom. Ultimately, it's a beautiful made, but slightly disturbing look at teenage life.
|
positive
|
The headline describes it exactly. This dribble of a film was nothing more than the typical 'group of teens killed someone accidentally now that someone is haunting/killing them off 20 years later' crap that has been shoved down our throats for decades. The only twist is instead of an angry ex-classmate or lovable psycho/loser, it was a nun. Nun wants to eliminate the sin from the girls, blah blah, girls accidentally/purposely drown the nun, blah blah, nun haunts the girls, people die, movie ends. The only thing that made this watchable were the death scenes, which were pretty cool (especially the one with the elevator door ripping off this fat lady's arms) but even they couldn't make this a great movie. Brian Yuzna should hang his head for attaching himself to this refuse. I'm sure glad I rented it and didn't buy it, or I'd be furious beyond belief. If you want a nunsploitation flick to please the senses, go watch Demonia or something. Stay away from this garbage.
|
negative
|
Based on fact, this is the story of a teenager named Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), growing up in a coal town in West Virginia where a boy's usual destiny was to "end up in the mines." But Homer had his eye on the sky and a love for flying rockets, to the dismay of his mine-foreman father, and the consternation of the townsfolk generally. A misfit for sure, he and three of his equally outcast buddies begin making rockets, which they fly from a patch of barren land eight miles out of town, so as to no longer terrorize the community with their oft-times errant rockets. Unfortunately, most of the town and especially Homer's father (Chris Cooper) thinks that they are wasting their time. However, the people become intrigued and soon start coming out in droves to watch the 'Rocketboys' send off their homemade missiles. Only one teacher (Laura Dern) in the high school understands their efforts and lets them know that they could become contenders in the national science fair with college scholarships being the prize. Now the gang must learn to perfect their craft and overcome the many problems facing them as they shoot for the stars. Director Joe Johnston has always been a famous name for his movies such as Jumanji & Jurassic Park 3 & "October Sky" surely stands above all of his other films. Without any doubts, "October Sky" is his best effort & obviously his best film. It's not only a true story filmed extremely well, but even as a movie, it has every single thing, which is required for a top level cinema. And along with Johnston's extra-ordinary direction, are some exceptional performances. Jake Gyllenhaal was around 19, when this movie was released & he gives a beautiful & natural performance. He is a perfect actor. Chris Cooper as his father, also gives a very fine performance. The same goes for Laura Dern & also she looks beautiful. Even the rest of the performances are extremely well. The background score was fine. Highly inspiring movie, which lifts up your spirit sky high. One of those movies which definitely inspires you for all of your life. An amazing inspiring movie along with loads of entertainment. Not to be missed.
|
positive
|
The only reason I saw "Shakedown" was that it has Erika Eleniak in it. She's sexy as always, but she plays second fiddle to leading man Wolf Larson. It's a pity, because she has more action capabilities than she's allowed to show here. The film largely consists of endless shootouts that quickly become monotonous - especially when most of the time you are seeing the bad guys armed with machine guns constantly missing Larson and him armed only with a revolver (that NEVER runs out of bullets) taking them all out rather easily. The earthquake effects are decent, but there is also a lot of blurry motion and poor CGI explosions. As the psychotic "spiritual leader", Ron Perlman tries, but the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo he has to spout is simply boring. Eleniak, Perlman or Larson (assuming he has any) completists might want to give this one a look, for others it is barely worth a rental. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
This 1931 comedy gets better with every viewing because of the comedic talents of Marion Davies and a terrific performance by C. Aubrey Smith. Smith plays a gruff old man who gathers his grown children (from his younger days as a rake) in his declining years. One is American (Davies), one English (Ray Milland who looks about 18), and one Italian (Nina Quartero). There are some surprises as the plot moves along with Ralph Forbes(was has no appeal at all) falling for Davies.<br /><br />Davies and Smith are just wonderful together and very touching. Davies also gets to do a few dances and make a few "big" entrances. And of course Davies is just gorgeous.<br /><br />Halliwell Hobbes, Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, Guinn Williams, Edgar Norton, and David Torrence co-star. Had they given out supporting Oscar awards in 1931, Smith might well have been nominated. He's just excellent in this this gem.
|
positive
|
My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it! <br /><br />
|
negative
|
As a kid, my friends and I all believed that Gymkata was the most violent, bloody movie ever made. I'm not sure who started that rumor. It was probably born out of the frustration of 10 year olds who weren't allowed to see it for one reason or other. Years after Gymkata was released, it became a perennial late night cable movie, and as a result, I've been able to make up for lost time. I must have seen scenes from this dreadful excuse for a film over a dozen times, and I can always spot it from 1-2 seconds of screen time. However, aside from the forced coupling of gymnastics and martial arts, the bad dubbing, the stiff dialog, and the outrageously difficult story-line, the film has some things going for it. With all that's bad about the movie visually, the sound is actually pretty entertaining. Never before has a punch or kick landed with so little force and so much volume! The canned kung-fu sounds are cheeky, but the slowed and pitched-down music, and the nearly 5 minute slow motion scene are truly weird. The chase through the city of demented, blood-thirsty villagers isn't really tense as much as it is irritating, and there are enough bad wigs and extras who all but look into the camera and wave to make this train-wreck a little fun. Could it be headed for cult-classic status? Where is MST3K when we need it?
|
negative
|
Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the "latin lover", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*)
|
negative
|
Witticisms, colorful characters, family relationships, coping with hardships, living with fun and humor. This film has it all and more. What a great 'every man (and woman)' story, with a top notch plot and script. It offers just clean fun, lots of laughter, many smiles and pure entertainment for the whole family. Other reviewers describe the story some. I'll just offer this comparison teaser it's part "Best of Show," "Grumpy Old Men," "Millions," and some other comedy and life flicks rolled into one.<br /><br />This gem of a film most likely had limited release and is probably not very available to rent. But, it's now out on DVD and I highly recommend it for purchase. If you like good old-fashioned fun and entertaining films for the family, you can't miss with "Manna from Heaven." This film is a sure fire cure for the blues or to chase the gloom away on nasty weather days or rough times.
|
positive
|
Although Embryo could have been a potentially thought provoking examination of bioethics, it degenerates into a stereotypical Frankenstein parable, putting across the by now monotonous lesson that there were some realms man was not meant to enter or study.<br /><br />Scientist Rock Hudson is experimenting with ways to prevent miscarried babies from dying. After success with a dog, he immediately jumps to humans-violating medical ethics and any sense of plausibility-with the equally unrealistic assistance of a hospital administrator. His experiment works too well, with some decidedly unpleasant side effects.<br /><br />Although Barbara Carrera is reasonably good in her role, and some of the animal training is spectacular, the film suffers from being too fantastical. Even though a message at the prologue assures viewers that this represents contemporary technology, the scientific work depicted looks far fetched even for the twenty-first century, let alone the mid- 1970s. Furthermore, the scene where Carrera is able to find a cure for the side effects of bioengineering simply by typing a question into a computer is laughable.
|
negative
|
wow, this movie sucked.<br /><br />This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.<br /><br />Everything about this movie was awful.<br /><br />The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.<br /><br />Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.<br /><br />This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.<br /><br />If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.
|
negative
|
I enjoy B movies. I think Bruce Campbell is a very watchable actor. I love how he delivers his lines. 'Evil Dead 2 and 'Army of Darkness' were great movies. I liked 'Running Time'. However, I don't know if I'll ever watch this movie again...and I bought it. Now, after saying that, I bet the commentary tracks and special features will be worth watching! This movie just has far too many holes for me to actually enjoy, even as a cheapo movie. First off, Ted Raimi was annoying, just flat out annoying. There was nothing to his badly acted / written character that hasn't been done better a thousand times before. The directing sadly was sub par and the choice of some shots...yikes. I don't expect Woody Allen or James Cameron here, but Campbell did not deliver.<br /><br />I did not purchase this thinking it was going to be an Oscar movie like 'Annie Hall', but still I'm disappointed. I would have been happy with 'Mallrats' or 'The Rhino Brothers'. I got much less. By the end of the movie there were no scenes that popped out to me, no dialogue that resonated within me. Even 'Hostel' had a classic line for petes sake! I do not recommend this movie.
|
negative
|
When HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN he discovers nothing but bad news for his little insect neighbors in the Lowlands. Can this honest, good-natured grasshopper save his sweetheart, Miss Honey Bee, from the machinations of the evil C. Bagley Beetle - and also lead his friends to a safe new home - before it's too late?<br /><br />While not one of the great animated features (a very new art at the time this film was created) HOPPITY is an enjoyable film which should bring pleasure to uncritical viewers. Technically it is well made, with animation of a generally high quality. The movie's main drawback is that none of the characters really have any `heart' - they don't come `alive' on the screen in the way Jiminy Cricket did a year earlier in PINOCCHIO.<br /><br />However, it is ultimately unfair to compare the Fleischer Studio output with that of Disney. Max & Dave Fleischer had their own star to follow; their contribution - and it would be a considerable one - would be in the realm of the one-reel cartoon. With their POPEYE and BETTY BOOP series they created alternate realities as viable as any produced by other cartoon studios. HOPPITY was their second experiment with feature length animation (after GULLIVER'S TRAVELS in 1939), and henceforth they would expend their energies again on the cartoon short subject. In fact, the first in the highly acclaimed SUPERMAN series was already in release.<br /><br />HOPPITY'S story owes a great deal to Frank Capra, with it's energetic, go get em hero up against powerful societal forces. Indeed, the film's original title was MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN, which immediately puts one in mind of Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart and their Capraesque adventures.<br /><br />Jack Mercer, famous as the voice of Popeye, here speaks for two very different characters, old Mr. Bumble & Swat the Fly. Movie mavens should be able to catch veteran voice actors Pinto Colvig & Mae Questel, both in uncredited roles.<br /><br />The film has some pleasant songs supplied by Hoagy Carmichael & Frank Loesser, of which `Be My Little Baby Bumble Bee' is the most familiar. `We're The Couple In The Castle' is a fine romantic tune which deserves to be rediscovered.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that the film's initial animation, with its sweep out of the heavens and past the in-depth New York skyline, is obscured behind the opening credits.
|
positive
|
In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).<br /><br />It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.<br /><br />However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.<br /><br />I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.<br /><br />One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.
|
negative
|
This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. If you know the Real World and the people from those shows, this movie will be top notch, if you have never seen the real world you will still think it is an extremely funny movie but you won't get some of the inside jokes about the actors and the tv show.
|
positive
|
Only the glandular secretions -- and please don't ask for any more details -- of young virgins can keep the rapidly deteriorating body and mind of the crazed old amateur horticulturalist's wife fresh and youthful. Since, like most people except those taking part in medical trials, virgins seldom give up their secretions willingly, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi) arranges for them to be abducted and preserved. He'll do the extracting himself. <br /><br />What a great cheese ball of a premise for a low budget horror movie. If The Corpse Vanishes turns out not to be the Havarti of horror, as a plain limburger it leaves an interesting aftertaste. <br /><br />Sure, the acting is almost awful except for the actors fortunate enough to be playing the crazed dwarf (Angelo Rossitto, who later played The Master in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome); his crazed brute of a brother, Angel (Frank Moran), who grunts a lot and has a fetish for the virgins' hair; the crazed mother of the two (Minerva Urecal); the crazed wife (Elizabeth Russell), who sleeps in a plush coffin and, of course, the crazed doctor (Lugosi). <br /><br />An enterprising young reporter, Patricia Hunter (Luana Walters) tracks down the doctor because of a strange orchid with a peculiarly sweet odor that had been worn by the victims. When the doctor and his wife invite Pat to stay the night, a raging storm immediately breaks out. That clue tells us some raging violence is about to erupt inside. Since it's well known that in Hollywood at this time all unmarried young women were virgins, Pat may have some unpleasant surprises to deal with. They include dark passages, a crusty laboratory where a near dead virgin is stored, a basement mausoleum and, later, a direct threat to Patricia's own glandular secretions. If she survives, what a story she'll have to give her editor. <br /><br />If you sample this moist slice of moldy Velveeta (and why not? Don't be superior), don't judge Bela Lugosi by the company he keeps here. He had a huge impact in Dracula (1931), but my favorite movie of his is The Black Cat (1934). As Dr. Vitas Werdegast he's a sad, ironic man protective of his two young friends. When he finally takes a scalpel to Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff) and begins to flay the man alive, ah, well, it's a great scene.
|
negative
|
Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.<br /><br />I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.<br /><br />I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.<br /><br />Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.
|
negative
|
The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.
|
negative
|
Greyfriars Bobby was NOT a westie - Bobby was a skye terrier. A highlight of my childhood day trips to Edinburgh was to go to the monument to Bobby. I grew up with the story of the valiant and loyal little dog, as every child in my generation did, and I remember lining up with my mum outside the cinema - with many, many other Dundee children and their mums - to see the wonderful Disney film. How could a movie based on such a wonderful story have been made using a Westie, for heaven's sake. That's like making a movie about the life of Robert Burns, for instance, and portraying him as an Englishman. I say,give Bobby back his breed!
|
negative
|
I've just finished viewing the 1st disc in a 4-disc (26 episodes) collection created in conjunction with the UCLA Film & Television Archive (S'More Entertainment, Inc.). So far (aside from the 1st episode), the image quality is quite good. The DVD box is shown on the title page here on IMDb.<br /><br />"Mr. Peepers" is just as charming as when I first saw it (5-years old at the time) and Wally Cox is truly endearing in this role. If you're in the mood for quiet comedy that sneaks up on you, as opposed to hitting you over the head, you'll treasure this chance to experience all the wonderful characters you might remember from your childhood. Although some of the gags are a bit corny, most are ingenious and well-executed...and even the corny ones are fun. This is one TV series that lives up to my early childhood memories of it.
|
positive
|
I can't even begin to imagine why everyone hates this movie so much. It had me literally crying with laughter several times ("I trust you slept well?" "actually, we had a bit of a rough night." "ah, the perils of adultery.").<br /><br />admittedly, the ending is a little flat, but still has its moments (the booger ball's obvious fake spalsh as flew into the ocean, "beach house paradiso").<br /><br />personally, i think this is the funniest movie i've ever seen.<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
Best of the Best 4, is better than 3, but just barely. Basically, I say this because part 4 doesn't contradict parts 1/2 (like 3 does), (ie. their is no reference to Tommy Lee having siblings).<br /><br />Anyway, I liked the Russian plot line of the story, and especially Sven Ole-Thorsen's bit part as Boris. Aside from that though and a few fighting scenes, the movie is nothing special. The limited budget is also very noticeable (especially in the airplane blow-up scene).<br /><br />Also, part 4 does not really have a moral or say anything like part 3 did, there are a couple of more better known actors (Hudson, Thorsen) in part 4, but alas nothing like the beginning of the series (and even these characters have very small roles).<br /><br />Alas, it seems Best of the Best is the Rhee show, and to be truthful, he cannot carry a movie.<br /><br />Saw on tape, Rating:4
|
negative
|
Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!<br /><br />Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.<br /><br />I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10
|
negative
|
Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.<br /><br />Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.
|
negative
|
When I was a kid of 8, I always watched movies and television that i wasn't supposed to, and this was one of them. <br /><br />It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and it has to be the funniest movie I have ever seen in my life, the acting is excellent, they Don't Make Comedies Like This Anymore these days (movies that are ACTUALLY funny and make you laugh without resorting to excrement or some type of vomit-inducing body fluid as in those retarded Judd Apatow movies starring unfunny non-actors like Seth Rogen, barf).<br /><br />This movie is a classic with actors who can actually act, and deserve all the accolades.
|
positive
|
The acting was horrendous as well as the screenplay. It was poorly put together and made you almost want to laugh at the several terribly acted out murder scenes. The ending was even worse. Everyone kept dying, but somehow the ending made it look like everything was perfectly OK! They did not give enough history about the obsession the teacher had, etc. The movie needed more time to perhaps develop a better storyline. The only reason I give this 3/10 is that I kind of feel bad for the young actors. They needed better coaching. They could have really made this an OK film, but the screenplay and acting failed miserably.
|
negative
|
This DVD usually sells for around $20. I wouldn't pay this much for the DVD if I had known what I was getting, but regardless this is a pretty good disc. It displays the Knot in all their glory, with footage from their concerts... playing Surfacing, Wait and Bleed and Scissors among other tracks, including the "Spit it Out" music video, which was apparently banned from MTV.<br /><br />Slipknot, for those who don't know, is essentially a symphony of the damned: nine masked men who display total chaos on stage, with machine gun drums, squealing guitar and vocals that will tear your face off and leave you wanting more. For those who've never seen Slipknot before, I cannot recommend enough you get this DVD... probably off eBay or Amazon so you can get a better deal.<br /><br />A short, though well made show of the Knot.<br /><br />Seven out of ten.
|
positive
|
This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity
|
negative
|
Last week, I took a look at the weekly Nielsen ratings, and there was Veronica Mars, supposedly "the best show you're not watching".<br /><br />Well, they're right that you're not watching it. It aired twice and was ranked 147 and 145 out of 147.<br /><br />Translation: this is the lowest-rated show on any nationally broadcast network... and deservedly so. I tried to watch it a couple of times because of all the press coverage hyping it as a "great" show, a "realistic look" at life and all such nonsense. The reality was otherwise. Veronica Mars is a bore. It's as unrealistic as it gets, and it richly deserves to be canceled.<br /><br />The only Mystery is why CW felt compelled to put on its inaugural schedule the lowest-rated show in memory, after two years of continued commercial and artistic failure.
|
negative
|
OK - as far as the 2 versions of this movie. There were 2 people involved in the making - John Korty and Bill Couterie (George was just the producer - he really didn't have any kind of say so in the film - just helped with money) - the 'Adult' version was made possible by Bill Couterie. John Korty didn't like or approve this version (as it was done behind his back). Thanks to Ladd films going under, they didn't advertise this movie and threw all their advertising cash for "The Right Stuff", hoping it would pull them through;... and it didn't. SO, this movie never really had a chance. When "Twice" made it to cable (HBO) - they showed the reels with Bill's version and John threatened to sue if it was shown anymore (did you notice how the 'adult' version wasn't on for very long?). Showtime got the 'clean' version. The version on the videotape and laser-disc is the version approved by John (who holds more power than Bill). It's a pity, really, as the 'adult' version is actually better and DOES make more sense. But it's VERY doubtful that it will ever be released in that version onto DVD (or any other format short of bootleg). Sorry to disappoint everyone. I know all this info as I used to be the president of the Twice Upon A Time Fan Club (still have numerous items from the movie - used to own a letter-boxed version of the 'adult' version, but it was stolen - only have a partial HBO copy of it now). 8 stars to the 'adult' version - 5 to the 'clean' version. Any other questions, just ask.
|
positive
|
Saw the movie today and thought it was a good effort, good messages for kids. A bit predictable. The book was better, gave more plot details, ore about the environment and how the kids uncovered the conspiracy. I think Hiassen's warped humor comes across better in the book than the movie, but there were lots of funny moments in the movie as well. It is probably a bit too slow paced for kids under 6 yrs of age. Loved the casting of Jimmy Buffet as the science teacher. And those baby owls were adorable. I wonder how they managed to film them. The movie showed a lot of Florida at it's best, made it look very appealing. Am I imagining it, or did the author Carl Hiassen make a brief appearance?
|
positive
|
I seriously don´t know why this movie got such a hostile reception when it was first released. Sure, it´s overlong and somewhat gratuitous in its depictions of sexuality and violence but so are lots of well regarded movies. I seriously don´t think that the people who hated "Heaven´s Gate" really understood it. "Heaven´s Gate" in its uncut form, much like "The Deer Hunter" shows the gross differences of living an insecure and dangerous life (like the immigrants and Averil in Wyoming) and living in comfort and privilege (like the settled "Americans" in Wyoming and Averil in the prologue and epilogue). Living a hard life is painful but it can also be invigorating as opposed to the dull life Averil leads in the epilogue. Also, as Michael Cimino took great pains to make the picture historically accurate , it is fascinating as a document of (and maybe indictment of) American life in Old West Wyoming. The dialogue is often genuinely clever and emotional. Combined with great music and cinematography, the movie works like a truly poetic work of art. Granted, "Heaven´s Gate", with its refusal to patronize the viewer, is not for all tastes. However, Hollywood turns out so much commercial dreck each year which is so much easier to dismiss as mindless eye candy (even when an example of it becomes a blockbuster) that "Gate" and Cimino really do deserve more respect. All people should see the uncut version at least once and then they should make up their own mind.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer) read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8 times.<br /><br />Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic. The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as people, not actors.<br /><br />This tale follows three distinct killers at different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside.<br /><br />Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12 year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on this. Great job.<br /><br />The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting. With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone, and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and horror above almost every other film.
|
positive
|
Weak, fast and multicolor,this is the Valvoline's movie in fact you can see always this brand of oil in a lot of scene. The real protagonist are the cars,weak performances of Cage and Duvall. A intresting Angelina Jolie is a unlikely mechanic. For the lovers of dream car(LAMBORGHINI and FERRARI over all).
|
positive
|
I cannot vote on this because I wouldn't watch garbage from these people. They got my money with another movie (Mr. Jingles) and I swore it would never happen again. I feel it's my civic duty to help people stay away from this trash. Go to the forums on this film and read where cast members try to act like they are seeing the movie for the first time. One guy even responds to himself ...using the same name! There are shills in the forum that say it's as good as Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane...Not even close (by no means). If this is the company's 2nd movie, it should be better than the first. That means the 3rd movie should be a lot better. Not so, I've seen it. All I want to know is how you distribute this trash using the same names all the time. Having fun with friends and making a movie over the weekend is fine...but don't try to market that trash!
|
negative
|
I thought it would be more fantastic a tale. But the subject is rather down to earth compared to the story about the Death carriage I was expecting. In fact there is much more of a social drama. As usual in the "European authors' movies".<br /><br />Actors are interesting, not overacting as in the average silent movie. Images are not so good as to be stuck in your mind as in Bergman's Smultronstället.<br /><br />This is true the comparison between the two movies is the main point here. Smultronstället begins with a vision of a Death carriage wherein Sjöström's character can see his own body. There are clocks without hands. He is compelled to look back on what he has done wrong. There is a vision of his happy family in the country. In Körkarlen Sjöström's wife doesn't cheat on him before his eyes but she wants to flee with the little children because it would never get any better with him. Eventually, Edit's confession is some kind of a live judgement.<br /><br />Well I would just add that Sjöström destroying the door with an axe because his wife locked it and plans to go away with the children reminded me of The Shining. Which was much more of a fantasy tale with Death hanging around.
|
positive
|
Pretty dreadful movie about several unbalanced young people in a car starts off reasonably well but becomes more bizarre and hard to swallow as it progresses. Rachel Leigh Cook is the sole highlight in a tender and sexy performance, but I would recommend this film only to die-hard fans of the actress.
|
negative
|
This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.
|
negative
|
This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.
|
positive
|
If you repeat a lie enough number of times will it become the truth? 15 park avenue is the story of an alternative reality of a schizophrenic (Mithi). The movie is about her search for her home at a fictitious address where her imaginary husband and 5 children live. Aparna Sen delivers yet another masterpiece. Each and every actor of the movie was better than the other. Konkona Sen looks unbelievably convincing as a schizophrenic. She pulls off the role with such ease and maturity beyond her age. Shabana Azmi is incredible as usual. She plays the dominating and fiercely independent elder sister of Mithi who takes care of her ailing sister and aging mother. She refuses to accept that in-spite of all her strength and courage, she still feels lonely at times. This should have been a very easy movie for Rahul Bose. The role was least bit demanding and anyone could have done the role.<br /><br />The ending of the movie was the most surreal part of the whole park avenue experience. It took me a while to digest that the movie had ended. It left me confused and maybe even a bit disturbed. But later on, it started sinking in. My eyes are black. But if everyone says they are blue, will I still believe that its black??!
|
positive
|
this movie is a masterpiece a story of a young woman during the war , and it really happen , not exactly as the movie , but it is a great story , i was impress by this film ,the acting and the story where great i like this film because it is a true story it's Giff me a feeling that i was there and i feel sorry for the ca-rector that Maruschka Detmers is playing because who wants to end here life that way. i recommend that everybody have to see this film , special the young ones and ma by the learn something from this film. This film you can compare whit the movie soldier from orange or any real story that happened in the WW2.
|
positive
|
A highly original film using a myriad of genres and film techniques to stunning and powerful effect. All people involved gave only their very best and it shows on screen. A committed film with a committed cast and crew. Simply Brilliant. Just go and see it NOW!
|
positive
|
To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?<br /><br />This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.<br /><br />Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.<br /><br />'nuff said?
|
negative
|
Okay I must say that before the revealing of the 'monster'. saying that he really didn't fit into that category, just some weird thing that had an annoying screech! And personally I think a granny could have ran away from that thing, but anyway. I actually was getting into this film, although having the main character a drunk and a heroine addict didn't come as an appeal. But such scenes as when she runs away from the train, and you can see the figure at the door was kind of creepy, also where the guard had just been killed and the 'monster' put his hand on the screen.<br /><br />But then disaster stuck form the moment the monster was revealed it just became your average horror, with limited thrills or scares. Slowly I became more bored, and wanted to shut the thing off. I like most people have said was rooting for the homeless people to make it, specially the guy, he gave me a few cheap laughs here and there. I think this film could have really been something special instead it became what every other horror nowadays are! Just boring and well not worth the money.<br /><br />if you are looking for a cheap scare here and there, or a mindless gore fest (which is limited, hardly any in fact) by all means give it a go, but for all you serious horror watchers look somewhere else, much better films out there.
|
negative
|
This movie is intelligent. That is, more than most other movies, it transcends the least common denominator - stupid people will probably not appreciate it. The story also relies heavily on dialogue. It has some parallels to Lost in Translation, although Before Sunrise is much brighter, somehow less abstract, and simply a lot better.<br /><br />The script, the characters and even the slightly surreal atmosphere feel totally realistic. The actors play absolutely brilliantly. Rarely have I seen a movie where the script and the acting has melted this perfectly together.<br /><br />The dialogue moves into very personal issues, with the risk of becoming a little over the top. It does, however, stay on the right side almost all the time, although I found a few moments a little awkward and embarrassing. Balancing on this fine line demands outrageously talented actors. Sometimes, it yields great results, and overall this movie is simply stupendous! Only very, very rarely is "love" in films depicted in a way that I find trustworthy and realistic. Every time that is achieved, the result is fantastic. I think the stunning and apparently timeless beauty of the female lead actress helped quite a bit in this respect. She still looks stunning in this film, 12 years after.<br /><br />This is simply a gem of a movie that you can't miss. One of the best movies I have seen from the 1990s!
|
positive
|
I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be<br /><br />considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary<br /><br />movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the "Candy bar! Candy bar!" scene.)
|
positive
|
I went to see this 3 nights ago here in Cork, Ireland. It was the world premiere of it, in the tiny cinema in the Triskel Arts Centre as part of the Cork Film Festival.<br /><br />I found "Strange Fruit" to be an excellent movie. It is a bit rough around the edges, but for a low-budget movie that is to be expected! In general the acting (particularly from the main lead Kent Faulcon) is wonderful, the cinematography and direction excellent, and the script hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, with some nice set-ups and witty dialogue.<br /><br />The ending was a bit sudden, with no conclusion given to characters and events once the finale came to its gripping end ... but perhaps that's what the filmmakers were going for? It certainly did make the movie more unsettling. I did like the fact that the main character never came to terms with his mother on screen: it leaves you wondering whether or not he ever will, as in real-life sometimes these things are never settled. This was a good choice, to leave it unresolved rather than sentimentally wrapping it up!<br /><br />Taut and suspenseful throughout, "Strange Fruit" is a hugely ambitious debut and I have high hopes for what the writer/director Kyle Schickner will unleash next. He - and his colleagues - are a talent worth watching.<br /><br />I hope "Strange Fruit" gets a wider release soon, as more people deserve to see this movie, an above-average thriller with some original and insightful twists on homophobia and racism in America's Deep South.<br /><br />Highly Recommended: 7/10
|
negative
|
This is one great show, that it makes me wonder why it got pulled off the air so many times. But I believe its now here to stay! This show cant compare to any other, Before Simpsons was pretty "on the edge" and than came Family Guy, and they are stretching it out to go off the "edge". The things this show gets away with is incredible. Totally work the watch! If you like the Simpsons you will LOVE Family guy!
|
positive
|
Pat O'Brien portrays Knute Rockne, the All-American Notre Dame football coach. No doubt, this film will be considerably more appealing to those interested in some aspect of "Knute Rockne All-American Notre Dame Football" - probably, it's most interesting to serious followers of football and/or Notre Dame football. You will see some good documentary-style film footage.<br /><br />Otherwise, it's difficult to recommend this as a FILM. It's not much more than an historical document. You'll "know" the end is near when Gale Page gets a chill - and, don't blink or you'll miss Ronald Reagan doing, of all things, "Camille"! <br /><br />*** Knute Rockne - All-American (1940) Lloyd Bacon ~ Pat O'Brien, Gale Page, Ronald Reagan
|
negative
|
The Simpsons of course started off with Christmas special "Simpson's Roasting On An Open Fire" which had basic drawings and not laugh out loud jokes, but this episode has probably the first laugh out loud joke in it and from here the show just gets better and better. This episode centers around Bart who in this episode swaps on a test from Martin and gets into a school for the highly gifted, this leading to Bart mending his friendship with his Dad and losing all of his mates. The Episode is very humorous and shows what was to become the greatest show ever to come out. Overall fans of the show will love this episode as it features the character's exactly as they became 20 years later. So watch this episode in a pack of Season 1 and enjoy early Simpson's doing what it was meant to, Making people laugh. I rate this episode 73%.
|
positive
|
Ah WINTER KILLS , based on the novel by Richard Condon which deals with a conspiracy that killed the president of the United States 20 years ago . I knew Condon also wrote THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE which dealt with a similar theme and was looking forward to seeing an intelligent thriller<br /><br />WINTER KILLS left me cold . It's not a thriller - It's a piece of worthless crap , possibly the worst movie I've seen this month and boy have I seen a lot of bad movies in June . The problem lies in both the direction and the script and seeing as William Richert was responsible for both then he should be blamed entirely for this unfunny farce <br /><br />There's two things wrong with this movie . First off is the way everything is presented in a totally over the top manner . It's not as OTT as say something like that James Bond movie with David Niven and Peter Sellers but everything has a farcial edge to it with actors completely mugging their performances . This might have been justified if there was entertainment value to the movie but there's none . As a satire it's very silly , so silly that it becomes almost unwatchable . Secondly the scenes seem to have been cut so much that they're rendered senseless . Take for example a scene where the hero is confronting a loopy militia leader called Dawson . Dawson tells the hero he has 30 seconds start then it cuts to the hero being on board a plane . The scenes begin and end with no rhyme nor reason<br /><br />A dire movie that's an ordeal to sit through
|
negative
|
At last, a great film that doesn't have to be edited for profanity or sex! It's a fun film that the whole family can enjoy. Willis is great, as always. "Rusty" was delightful. Just enough action to keep interest going.
|
positive
|
I had always heard about this great mini-series, but viewed it for the first time this week, July of 2007. I can see why it started the careers of so many young actors. The story is intriguing and gives wonderful insights into the period before and during the Civil War. I cared about the characters and how their lives evolved during this period. Some of them were stereotypes, but they still helped me see how people thought during the 1800's. Many historical facts were thrown into the story and it was interesting to see history books come to life. The costumes and sets were gorgeous! I thoroughly enjoyed watching both parts I and II. Part III is a disappointment.
|
positive
|
One of the many Merrie Melodies cartoons that entertained American moviegoers during WWII, Bob Clampett's "An Itch in Time" portrays a hobo flea settling on Elmer Fudd's dog. The little guy turns into a real sadist while making a home on the dog's back, but Elmer warns the dog: "One more scwatch and I'll give you a bath!" Meanwhile, the flea is setting up dynamite on the dog!* And that's not the end! I noticed that in one scene, Elmer is reading a comic book featuring Bugs Bunny and Porky Pig. Obviously, Elmer and Bugs frequently co-starred but Elmer never co-starred with Porky (unless you count the very short "Any Bonds Today?"). But to me, the thought of Elmer reading about these other famous characters from his same genre stresses the metaphysical nature of his world, as though he knew of their existence within his universe even though they don't appear in this cartoon.<br /><br />Of course, I'm probably going too far in my analysis. I'm sure that the cartoon was intended as pure entertainment, and it certainly entertains. As for the "I might get to like this" line, it sounds as though that was something that the censors wouldn't have allowed but somehow missed; I, for one, don't actually know what it was supposed to sound like. Was it something sexual? As for the end, had I thought that I'd seen everything, I would have been tempted to look for more, rather than do what the cat did (although it was a neat trick).<br /><br />*The guys behind these cartoons sure had a thing for TNT, didn't they?
|
positive
|
Despite Disney's best efforts, this is a rather enjoyable movie about following your dreams. I was surprised that it didn't strike me as over-sentimental; this movie played fair. Dennis Quaid was very, very good in the role, which is saying something for a sports movie. I can't recall how many sports movies have had little quirks that bother me; here, everybody looks the part. This movie is surprisingly good, and I predict that it will do surprising business as it is a G-rated movie that doesn't require the viewer to stop thinking. Ebert to the contrary, this movie is a success.
|
positive
|
Superb editing, outstanding acting, especially by Epatha Merkerson, and highly enjoyable musical soundtrack. This film reaches back to the 40's to comment on the racial lifestyle differences and some effect of desegregation while it weaves the true story of a truly admirable and fantastic lady.<br /><br />The actor portraying the young Terrence Howard character does a wonderful job reflecting the life and times of his upbringing in the small upstate New York town. The audience laughed, cried, and erupted in applause for the film and its director. <br /><br />Soon to be shown on HBO (Feb 7, I believe) - fire up the TIVO and enjoy a great story!
|
positive
|
There's nothing really to dislike about "The Odd Couple," and it's no surprise that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau make a hugely winning comedic team. But there's something so underdeveloped about Neil Simon's adaptation of his hit stage play as to make it seem more like a skit on a sketch comedy show than a full-bodied film. I have not seen the play, but have to assume that the screen version is fairly faithful, since Simon wrote it, so the defects cannot be blamed on a stage-to-screen adaptation. There are some interesting ideas in this story--two recently divorced men who fall immediately into traditional married roles when they become roommates because neither knows any differently--that Simon never fully fleshes out. Still, there are many worse ways to kill a couple of hours.
|
positive
|
Despite its New York setting & New York characters, 'Summer in the City' is not an American movie, it is better than that. What is most unusual is the mixing of styles and genres. Director Niami's shows a deft touch in combining comedy with tragedy, pathos with drama.<br /><br />The secret of Niami's success appears to be a smorgasboard of great characters - each could have their own film built around them - and then filling them out with beautifully realized performances from one of the most wonderfully eclectic casts one would struggle to find in the same country let alone in the same movie, ranging from Bai Ling to Ornella Muti, Robert Burke to Peter Stormare who here reveals that he has a lot more in him than the bad guy stereotypes he plays in Hollywood pictures. Even Sandra Bernhard is funny here !<br /><br />An added bonus, cream on the substantial cake, is John Cale's soundtrack.
|
positive
|
We are taken to a convenience store where Nick is looking at coins in his hand figuring if he can get the special, a 69 cents 20 ounce cup of coffee that comes with a free pastry. He decides to go for the larger size, which of course is more expensive plus it doesn't qualify him for the cake. He tries to argue with the Indian clerk at the register, who keeps her ground. With her it's a matter of principle. Well, Nick gets irritated not getting his own way and proceeds to kill her. <br /><br />The tone of the story is set from the start. The people we are about to meet are not nice guys. There are Nick, his girlfriend, Dallas, and their partner Billy Hill. They are drug dealers. Nick decides to visit Casey, his friend, and former partner in crime, in Houston. He wants to do one more transaction and then go to Paris with the profits from selling the drugs he is bringing. What he doesn't realize is that Casey has gone straight. He is an architect, married to Christine, and wants to adopt a baby.<br /><br />Casey doesn't appreciate his former friend bringing drugs into the house. He decides to get rid of the stuff by flushing them down the kitchen drain. The untimely arrival of Ice, a pizza delivery man, takes Casey by surprise. This man has been sent to kill him, but before that, Casey brings out some weed to share with Ice, who has a talent for rapping.<br /><br />It is at this point that Dr. Jarvis, the man from the adopting agency, arrives. Casey's application shows a two year gap that he can't justify. Jarvis begins to doubt about the prospective father. At this time, Dallas makes an entrance. She is a woman that asks questions point blank, like when she demands to know whether Jarvis enjoys watching porn. Jarvis, who is aroused ends up leaving in a huff. Dallas has decided to seduce Casey at all costs. There is a surprise in store as Billy Hill enters the picture and he doesn't like what he sees, shooting Dallas in the process. Billy Hill has also come to off Casey, but he is overpowered.<br /><br />Casey gets the visit of Kasarov who wants to get his money from Nick; in his absence, he'll take it from Casey. Kasarov gives a deadline and Casey makes up his mind to outsmart all these low lives. He has all the parties come to his house at an appointed hour and the different factions will take care of themselves. In the end, Casey has a better plan that includes taking Christine for a stay in Paris.<br /><br />Never having heard about "Thursday" we were drawn into it because of the talent in it. Skip Woods directed his own material. This seems to be a film with good intentions. At times the film remember others of the same genre, not a sin by any shape, or form, which seems to be the main objection of the negative comments left here in the IMDb site. For starters, "Thursday" shows a witty Skip Woods that has gone to write other films, notably, "Swordfish". The screenplay is divided in chapters with suggestive titles, pertaining to the action. Denis Lenoir does wonders with the mostly interior photography. <br /><br />Thomas Jane makes an excellent contribution to the film with his Casey. Although hard to imagine, he has beat the odds and made something out of himself. This actor, seen recently in the television series "Hung", is one of the actors we don't tire of watching. A dark haired Aaron Eckhart is a welcome addition to any film. He is a greasy criminal that shows no redeeming qualities, or anything close to remorse and doesn't hesitate to involve his former friend in his scheme. James LeGros has nothing to do. Same goes for Paulina Porizkova, a gorgeous creature that is only a distraction, or an afterthought to add a sexy angle. We enjoyed Glenn Plummer, who appears as Ice. He does a mean audition on the telephone. Michael Jeter and Mickey Rourke also appear.
|
positive
|
Kane is a killer named Jacob Goodnight, he lives in this burned down old hotel, where eight teen convicts go to do some cleaning. Most of them die except for 3 of them. In my case it wasn't the best writing or the best ever. I still thought that the killing scenes were really well done. Like when the one girl go eaten by the hungry dogs. The best had to be when he shoved the cell phone down the Blonde Girl's mouth. Kane was a seriously great horror movie actor, he had this serious look the entire movie and it would never change. That was his only look the entire movie. Great action and killing scenes, I don't think I could give it a full 10 out of 10, but 6 seems good.
|
positive
|
As an English teacher, I appreciate films that do more than tell a story. Good films, like good literature, cause one to think, reflect and predict. This film made me do all three. Mr. Jansen takes risks and uses foreshadowing, symbolism and interesting turning points for many of his characters. I also likes the fact that despite the choices the characters make in the film, their choices do not seem as adolescent or felonious as other films I have seen. The acting is pretty good and the actors seem to share a good chemistry with each other. Excellent soundtrack, with songs you don't hear on the radio. It is a reconciling with life/spontaneous road trip film that deserves more than just a second glance.
|
positive
|
Let me start by saying that there's really no reason to watch this movie. I only sat through it because I was trying to kill some time before going to work.<br /><br />Basically, it's your typical sophomoric "comedy" aimed at the teenage set. There's nothing remarkable about it other than the complete ridiculousness of the story, not to mention that there are plot holes big enough to sail a Carnival cruise-liner through. Obviously this isn't supposed to be a realistic movie, it's supposed to be funny. Sadly, it mostly fails on that count as well. I must admit that I laughed a few times, but mainly in a "holy sh*t, I can't believe how stupid this is" kind of way.<br /><br />If you never see this movie you're not missing a thing.
|
negative
|
Gloria Swanson (as Leila Porter) is an understandably bored wife. Workaholic husband Elliott Dexter (as James Denby Porter) has "lost his romance" along with his waistline; he also smokes cigars in bed, eats onions, and snores. He can barely remember his own anniversary - which is attended by caddish Lew Cody (as Schuyler Van Sutphen); the younger man eyes Ms. Swanson's voluptuous figure, and flirts unabashedly. Soon, Swanson is drawn to Mr. Cody. Then, Mr. Dexter decides to try and get her back. Who will win? <br /><br />The three principals are fine, with Swanson most impressive in the pivotal role as the woman torn. Julia Faye grabs supporting honors as Cody's other interest, "Toodles"; off-screen, she tempted director Cecil B. DeMille. The DeMille touch is evident; especially in an imaginary sequence wherein Cody promises Swanson... "Pleasure
Wealth
Love
" <br /><br />******* Don't Change Your Husband (1/26/19) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Gloria Swanson, Elliott Dexter, Lew Cody
|
positive
|
o m g!!! did you ever think they would make a movie about it?? well i knew they would, but i didn't know when!! and now its here at last!!! when i received it yesterday through the post i put it into my (wicked) stereo that plays dvds and instantly had this huuuuuuuuuuge grin on my face as cloud appeared (looking well....gorgeous!!) and they followed by all the other fascinating characters from final fantasy the game! including tifa and aeris, my favourites....(they are pretty too in this) the graphics knocked me out!!!! they were truly amazing. so real down to the last hair!!! the story line is OK bit confusing, especially as my version of the film was in Japanese, but of course - being a long time final fantasy fanatic - i did not mind a bit - i just read the subtitles!!! all the characters talk the way they would do in the game, and reno and rude are still ridiculous. the dragon scene is wicked too. just looks SO good!!! anyway.... the graphics were, amazing....the storyline , fantastic....and the basic idea of even having a ff7 film.......genius!!!
|
positive
|
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
|
negative
|
All the pro comments about this movie claim that the movie is balanced. That is their main justification to give a high rate to the movie. But a movie is not balanced when the main perpetrator analyzed is given the last world in every single subject. The director herself admitted to this at the first San Francisco film festival showing. She justified it by saying that she couldn't waste the chance of having access to Fujimori. That might be true but by showing so much of Fujimori's take on the issues makes the movie clearly pro-Fujimori and unbalanced. I dare any of the other commentators to prove this wrong Tips 1: claiming Harvard professors, intellectuals, and Latin American Diplomats agree with you does not help your argument (use logic). Tip 2: disagreeing with the director doesn't help your argument either (The director says she thinks Fujimori is charismatic and patriotic and therefore she portrayed him that way)
|
negative
|
This has to be one of the worst movies of all time. The graphics were horrendous, the acting was b-movie and the effects were just plain Nintendo 64 qualified. You would think that they would put a little more effort into it. Of course, it is a Scifi channel movie so you have to expect it to be low rate, but this one takes the cake. Hell, I'm still laughing. So, as a shake-your-head in disbelief movie, this one does well. <br /><br />Although it appears to have some 'known' actors and actresses in this, it is difficult for me to believe that they did not realize that the quality of this movie was worth their time and effort. <br /><br />The graphics might have been good in the '60's or even early '70's but come on, this is 2009! I wont give spoilers out, let's just say that if you have played "Jurassic Park" on the Nintendo 64 you will be very familiar with what you see in this film<br /><br />It is definitely not worth the 2 hours it took to sit through the thing
|
negative
|
This film, originally released at Christmas, 1940, was long thought lost. A very poor copy has resurfaced and made into a CD, now for sale. Don't buy it! The film is unspeakably terrible. The casting is poor, the script is awful, and the directing is dreadful.<br /><br />Picture Roland Young singing and dancing. And that was the highlight.<br /><br />Perhaps this movie was lost deliberately.
|
negative
|
I have seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths that this piece of trash lowers itself to. This movie made me angrier and angrier as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is just too confusing to be enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters ("The highway belongs to me...ME!"), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the "plot", but still you'll leave this movie feeling alone and taken advantage of, like a puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road. Blech.
|
negative
|
This movie is a window on the world of Britain in 1973 - a world of holiday camps, fags and birds. I was actually at Pontins Prestatyn while this was being filmed, so it's fascinating to see where I holidayed as a kid, and what a world we have left behind. The 'plot', such as it is, concerns Stan and Jack's attempts to turn a job at a holiday camp(25 quid a week!) into an opportunity for chasing young women and winding up Blakey. They are joined by the rest of Stan's family and some laughs are to be had from Arthur (Michael Robbins) and Olive's (Anna Karen) persistent chuntering, as well as the sheer oddness of Blakey, but the idea that young women would see anything desirable in brilliantined Stan (Reg Varney) or lecherous Jack (Bob Grant) is just risible. Harmless enough in its time, now it's just a curio from a bygone age.
|
negative
|
This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, "I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.<br /><br />Don't waste your time people. Trust me.<br /><br />My rating: 0/5.0
|
negative
|
Unfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.
|
negative
|
I loved the blood and gore. The kind of violence is what Alien and Predator movies are about which is no one is spared. This truly answers the question of how it would be like if aliens were on Earth. The answer to that is simple. We are screwed. The effects were beautiful. How ever there are some real problems with it.<br /><br />1) The acting was horrible on the part of the Human characters side witch almost put me to sleep because of how dry and boring it was which really interrupted the flow of the movie and was very annoying. The writers could have done SOOOOOOO much better. The good part was the Alien and Predator acting which I thought was done very well for the most part.<br /><br />2) The size of the Predator ship was much smaller then how it was in the first AvP movie. This I scratched my head on <br /><br />3) Predators having their mask on while still in the ship. This upset people and I cant understand why. Its not a plot hole like most people make it to be. So I say to you people calm the hell down. Its no big deal. If it will make you feel better, remember, they did have face-hugger's on bored in storage so that could be a good reason why.<br /><br />4) Predator firing its plasma caster inside the ship. I thought that was rather stupid on the Predators part. But then I began to think if it was a younger Predator that panicked.<br /><br />5)The hunter and his son almost instantly arriving at the crash site after it fell several miles away. At least they didn't bore us by showing them run through the woods for 30 min. so be happy about that.<br /><br />6) Why did only one Predator go? I thought this was odd. But then I thought that it was because he thought it was only one Predalien that he was dealing with and not an outbreak.<br /><br />7) Why didn't the Predators in the ship self destruct? Well if people were paying attention one did, but he was killed before he could completely activate it.<br /><br />8) The unlimited blue melting goo. I thought that was rather dumb.<br /><br />9) Predator hiding evidence with the goo but skins a cop. That was also dumb.<br /><br />10) The black out. Well come on people, an Alien and Pred did fight it out at a power station.<br /><br />11) Predalien being half face-hugger/queen. This really ticked me off. I am an Alien and Pred fanatic. I know for a fact that Aliens DO NOT DO THAT!! Just like they don't give birth like a human does like they showed in Alien4!! Out of all the comics, games, books, and the movies 1,2, and 3, CLEARLY shows their behavior. They need a queen to lay eggs, the eggs hatch into face-hugger's, face-hugger's infect host, the parasite pops out and kills host and grows into a drone if it infects a human, a Predalien with a Predator, and Runner with any kind of four legged animal. And then after living for years upon years then they molt into a Preatorian (a mini me queen that does not lay eggs) I can go on and on but I wont. But that scene alone nearly ruined the movie for me. If the directors are smart they would go back and edit that by making a face hugger infecting the pregnant women.<br /><br />Any way if you are going to see this movie, just go see it for the Aliens and Predators. And when the scene comes up where the Predalin infects that pregnant women... Close your eyes so you don't have to see that insult to the Alien and Pred universe.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.