review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Bad news for anyone wanting to film a full-length parody of a Lifetime Network movie- the makers of A Deadly Encounter have already done it, albeit unintentionally. All of the Lifetime tropes are there- a divorced mother in peril from a deranged stalker, an unreliable ex-husband (who, of course, cheated on her while they were married), and a police department that patronizingly dismisses her complaints, forcing her to Stand Up For Herself. Especially jaw-dropping is the scene where the heroine, after enduring a break-in and the attempted murder of her mother by her seemingly ubiquitous stalker, decides to relieve the stress by going shopping! Having seen first hand the harassment of a co-worker by some creep she met at church, I know stalking is not a joke, but it certainly is in this movie.
|
negative
|
Look no further, this is it, the worst movie ever made. There may be others that are tied, but there are none worse. There can't be.<br /><br />I found this movie on a clearance-sale laserdisc for $3.25, and thought no movie with those actors could possibly not be worth that price. Turns out it's worth triple that - as the minimum they should have paid me to watch it.<br /><br />I'm virtually certain that the girl in the picture on the cover of the package is not the girl in the movie, they substituted someone else, someone younger and cuter, to make it look more appealing. Whatever "plot" there was amounted to about three minutes of actual movie, the rest is filler. And I don't mean the kind of filler that you only realize is filler when it's over, or that is some kind of eye candy you don't mind having there, I mean filler that has you thinking about your shopping list. I think the "music" must have been made up by somebody with a friend who had a radio he listened to once. It's terrible.<br /><br />If there were a shot of a nice mountain, a river valley, a forest, anything, there would be something positive about this movie. There isn't. Even with the speeder button on the remote, even at top laserdisc speed, you can't get it over with fast enough.<br /><br />After years of thinking about commenting on movies, being tempted but not registering with IMDb, I finally cracked, because I had to do my part to push the user rating on this stinker down as far as possible.<br /><br />The guidelines ask that you "focus on the content and context". I can't. There isn't enough content to focus on, and that's exactly my point. Sometimes bad is just bad, and this movie would have to be much better than it is to aspire to being only that.
|
negative
|
This was a romantic, simple funny movie. I really enjoyed it and would definitely say to watch it and enjoy it, Will Smith was funny, fumbly, nervous, sweet and just a simple guy who got hit by Love. It was cute to see him fall for someone and be so nervous and lost as to what to do or say. It was great. He was great, funny as usual. Eva Mendes was better than i expected her to be as well, i thought there were moments in the movie where Will got the shaft, he was doing everything he could being a good guy and still getting treated bad. The ending was romantic and happy and it was great. I have seen it several times, and would watch it again. A funny, movie, something you don't see a lot of anymore. It had the old time feel with a fresh new look.
|
positive
|
This must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.<br /><br />The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.<br /><br />Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.<br /><br />Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?<br /><br />Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained. <br /><br />Awful film on the whole.
|
negative
|
From the beginning of this film,with it's "The Lost boys" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. "The Covenant" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really "directed" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed "artsy" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the "boys" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with "How about I make you my Whee-aytch!" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie "Stealth" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of "Charmed", and watch "The Lost boys" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch "The Covenant", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.
|
negative
|
Watching it now it's still as skanky and sexist as I remember. comes from a time when girls were "Dolly Birds" and basically men's playthings. It's hard to take in that it is from the Hammer studios and the fact it's available on DVD when good films are not. Our nations shame where the working class are portrayed as work shy layabouts or worse! Trouble is you can't help feeling nostalgic for a Clippie on a bus. Try to hold your stomach contents when you see Olive in a fluffy? Blue "saucy" nightie or something similar like Shirley Bassey used to wear for a concert in 1972. Warning this film shows the illegal practice of towing a motorcycle combo by a red double decker bus, which I've been informed is not a Routemaster but a Bristol.<br /><br />Look just don't bother watch something decent instead like Porridge or Dad's Army...or a fly crawling up a wall.
|
negative
|
You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.<br /><br />Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")<br /><br />This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...<br /><br />(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...<br /><br />In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.<br /><br />By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."
|
negative
|
I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances.
|
positive
|
"Hit and Run" is a shattering story starring the always wonderful Margaret Colin as a society lady who "has it all" until she hits a child with her car and leaves the scene. Hence the title. The tragedy is that she goes to call for help and returns, but is frightened away by angry passers-by who think the hitter abandoned the scene. This was made in the days when not everyone had a cell phone or there wouldn't be a story.<br /><br />Colin's guilt and anguish are palpable and cause her to act so strangely that a detective gets onto her right away. Her lies sink her deeper and deeper into a self-loathing hole, causing her to make a bad situation worse.<br /><br />This is a very thought-provoking story, and one can't help but to feel this lady's pain, wishing throughout that she would simply come clean.<br /><br />As a TV movie, thanks to Colin and a strong script, this is a well above average TV movie.
|
positive
|
This is definitely one of the weirder 70's movies out there, and it's most notable for kicking off a decade of Bigfoot hysteria. It is also notable for the little touches of insanity throughout the movie, especially when the dark, moody first half is replaced by a MUSICAL INTERLUDE of all things (as another user pointed out, one of the songs is dedicated to a character, Travis Crabtree, who paddles around in a canoe for a while, then... leaves, never to be seen again). Although it's painfully dated now, i's still a fun scary movie to show to kids, and anyone who enjoys either Bigfoot lore or 70's hillbilly culture is bound to get a kick out of this. My favorite part: a guy gets so scared that he jumps headfirst through a door (!?) and the narrator explains he went unconscious from "shock." Uh, I'd say breaking a door with his head is more likely why he went unconscious, but whatever.<br /><br />4/10 stars, or 7/10 if you like bad Americana.
|
negative
|
On one Thursday evening at 10:00pm, my local west coast ABC affiliate aired the pilot episode of "Northern Exposure". The ABC Network usually airs "Men In Trees" in that time slot but the program was preempted for a live sporting event.<br /><br />Despite both shows are set in Alaska and filmed on location in the Pacific Northwest (Exposure in Washington state, Trees in Vancouver, BC), re-watching "Northern Exposure" (as well as few episodes of "Sex and the City") reminds me how disappointed I am with the poorly conceived hybrid "Men in Trees". <br /><br />Anne Heche can be a good actress with the right material. Unfortunately her role as a writer who ends up in a small town in Alaska grates on my nerves. Perhaps because I feel that Heche is miscast, I am not convinced of her "fish-out-of-water" character.<br /><br />I also cannot help but feel that the supporting cast fits the typical quirky stereotypes. The hot-looking local, the kindly bar owner, the bush pilot, the local police officers, the dim but well-intentioned radio DJ, etc.<br /><br />The only stereotype that may have been broken was teddy bear and veteran "ER" actor Abraham Benrubi as the local bartender in love with two different women. Considering that one of the executive producers is filmmaker James Mangold, (his movies "Heavy" and "Cop Land" had lead characters who were large men) then I am not surprised why Benrubi was cast in a non-typical role.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can see why there are a lot of dedicated viewers who love "Men in Trees". It fits the quirky niche for television audiences. I wished the show could find its own voice instead of borrowing ideas from better shows.
|
negative
|
I generally love this type of movie. However, this time I found myself wanting to kick the screen. Since I can't do that, I will just complain about it. This was absolutely idiotic. The things that happen with the dead kids are very cool, but the alive people are absolute idiots. I am a grown man, pretty big, and I can defend myself well. However, I would not do half the stuff the little girl does in this movie. Also, the mother in this movie is reckless with her children, to the point of neglect. I wish I wasn't so angry about her and her actions because I would have otherwise enjoyed the flick. What a number she was, take my advise and fast forward through everything you see her do until the end. Also, is anyone else getting sick of watching movies that are filmed so dark. Anymore, one can hardly see what is being filmed. As an audience, we are impossibly involved with the actions on the screen. So then, why the hell can't we have night vision?
|
negative
|
For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It is a pity though, because this is easily the most original and clever animation I have witnessed in years.<br /><br />I don't hand out 10 points a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves all 10 points. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real deep storyline, with a spiritual message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a original twist that you can't often find in animated shows.<br /><br />The overall design is also something very different. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).<br /><br />If you are looking for a mind-twisting show, a show that takes on various subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something you should not miss. Once you begin watching, you are probably going to watch it to the end. One minor fact may be that the show takes on less material from the comic, but this is not too annoying. The only question remains though, where is the DVD?!
|
positive
|
This is definitely a stupid, bad-taste movie. Eddie Murphy stars in what is written like a sitcom. He is surrounded with his perfect family, full of good family values. If you're looking for politically correct entertainment, this movie is for you. But if you hate the idea of being the only one not to laugh at obscene gags in a movie-theater full of pop-corn addicts, just flee.
|
negative
|
This movie is a fantastic movie. Everything about it in my opinion was top notch from the acting to the directing. I know Mr. Garfield was blacklisted in the 1950's but the majority of his other films are on video if not DVD. That being the case,why isn't this one? A friend recorded it off of TCM for me but to have it on DVD would be great. For special features they could have say a Marine historian talk about the battle and if Mr. Schmid's wife or son are still alive they could be interviewed as well. Anyway this is a great movie and I highly recommend it.If it ever is put out hopefully it won't be colorized. Colorizing it would in my opinion just ruin the whole effect of the film. The battle scene was quite realistic as far as a 1945,film would go. Mr. Garfield did a superb job of portraying Mr. Schmid. Some actors might have been tempted to overact the part of Mr.Schmid's disability but I feel he got it just right. I sincerely hope they come out with this movie on DVD someday as a tribute to the courage of Al Schmid and all the other marines who sacrificed so much for us in World War Two.
|
positive
|
This adaptation positively butchers a classic which is beloved for its subtlety. Timothy Dalton has absolutely no conception of the different nuances of Rochester's character. I get the feeling he never even read the book, just sauntered on set in his too tight breeches and was handed a character summary that read "Grumpy, broody, murky past." He plays Rochester not as a character or as a real person but as an over the top grouch who never cracks a smile until after he gets engaged at which point he miraculously morphs into a pansy. There is no chemistry. The only feeling that this adaptation excited in me was incredulity and also sympathy for Charlotte Bronte who is most definitely turning in her grave. GO AND REREAD THE BOOK. ROCHESTER HAS A PERSONALITY. AND BY THE WAY: A "PASSIONATE" LOVE SCENE DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO EAT HER FACE.
|
negative
|
Started watching this but didn't believe in any of the characters. In particular the relationship between the bakery assistant and the waitress just didn't work for me at all. The scenes between the bakery owner and the assistant were nice but the rest was just very slow. It was a very superficial movie and it gave me the feeling that I was watching play rather than a film. The characters were very 'stagey' and the storyline was a lot like a stage farce. By the time the pyromaniac waylaid the assistant I was bored and didn't care what happened next and so I switched off. Glad I didn't pay to see it. Didn't laugh or even smile once. There seems to be a strange tendency for Americans to classify their films as 'comedy' when they are funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha. I have finally learned to avoid what Americans term dark comedies which usually turn out to be gruesome weird and unfunny. Now it looks like I will have to be a bit more discerning when they call a film romantic comedy as well. Maybe comedy means something different when applied to a film rather than a series in America. I don't understand why America can produce amazingly funny comedies like Two and a half men, Will and Grace, King of Queens but can't seem to produce really funny films without resorting to toilet humour. This film wasn't gross or anything. But it wasn't anything at all just one big yawn...
|
negative
|
This is so bad I don't know where to begin.<br /><br />The lead role is a good starting point. It is a supreme Mary Sue character that has few things in common with the original one from the book, who was (a bit) more credible. No, this one is invincible, infallible, indomitable, and insipid even beyond the overinflated standards that this "chicks with swords" era that our medias are spinning out of late. She is a twenty-something top-model, thin as a match yet rich, already a leader in her academic field, a kung-fu master, a natural sniper and seems to have enough authority to naturally trump anyone official like puny FBI agents. She is God.<br /><br />To balance it out, she is supposed to be socially awkward (due to her typically harsh upbringing that transformed her into a "Spock") which gives us some delighted moments where she wonders what is "Star Wars", or "American Idol", but yet when it's really important she can conveniently reveal herself as a top negotiator and diplomat, because she is so superior, ya know. To top it out, she is played by a wooden actress.<br /><br />The more talented Boreanaz serves as a faire-valoir token for this construct, acting as a bumbling comic-relief and house "Watson". In fact, everything in there is a pop-parody of better works like Sherlock Holmes, CSI and X-Files, from which it tries to emulate the sexual tension between main protagonists. It is however cheaper, as this is delivered with all the subtlety of an elbow poke in the ribs, but a million million poor factory girls will doubtlessly buy into it, hence the crazy rating this turkey gets.<br /><br />In fact, the lowest common denominator goes a long way in this sad puppy, resulting in titillating sex details from the legion of sidekicks that aim to pass it out as daring and trendy, while the overall tone of the show carries an obvious neo-conservative view on things.<br /><br />Story-wise, there's not much here to feast upon, as crimes (that always start out with some gruesome remains) are resolved using non-existent technology while the "squints", lovable but so wrong (the women less than the guys) goes on varied theories, all of them futile as the main character has it all from the start, and once it is established she goes out and then punch the guy, typically a real tough hombre, with a spin kick here and a slapper there. The end.
|
negative
|
i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge.
|
positive
|
I'm sorry, but even TJ Hooker's Adrian Zmed couldn't save this sequel. I went through half the movie thinking that this was a spoof of the original. Then came that wild and wacky motorcycle scene (notice that this is the only movie that Patricia Birch directs); and I sadly realized they were trying to be serious. I did get a kick out of the fact that the opposing gang, having lost their "wheels" due to their gambling habits in the original Grease, were forced to use motorcycles in the second movie. Being shamed by that putz character Carrington, I'd hate to see what they would resort to later: maybe Mopeds?<br /><br />I also never bought the hackneyed theme: hunky-Australian-boy-can't-fit-into-Outsiders-dominated-school-ergo-goes-for -tough-guy-with-stupid-biker-helmet-look. It was Disney story gone horribly awry.<br /><br />So, it looks like you CAN ruin a good thing by placing a bubble-gum smacking Michelle Pfeiffer in a musical. The only thing I took away from this movie was an idea of how many points out of ten to give it.
|
negative
|
When this showed at the Seattle Int'l Film Fest I was the only person standing and clapping and cheering. The rest of the crowd booed or was silent. It is a well played small film that reaches deep into the reality of a young gay man's humanity. It is about a real man; and does not play to the insipid hyper-buffed muscular "gay paositive" that passes for the genre of non-porn Gay cinema (and that is why so much of contemporary Gay genre movies are so dull). This movie is Intense Passsion and Great Tragedy. The acting and directing and cinematography is fantastic; it all keeps the film clastrophobic and tense and passionate. Don't miss this if you can find it.
|
positive
|
It takes a very special kind of person to make a movie that is so wretched, beguiling, disgusting and repulsive, but make it in a way that also makes it brilliant and the quintessence of personal cinematic liberation. Crispin Glover, in all of his "out there" antics and predispositions, truly made something that is unique. In a world that has become starkly partisan, this film seems to evade the standard lines of creativity and art and effectively startle everyone. <br /><br />Right off the bat, the film takes on a rather distant paradigm (if there really is a model at all) and initially shapes it with the likes of Shirley Temple in front of a swastika and naked women pleasuring a man with cerebral palsy. It's rather shocking stuff, but if you had the opportunity for the Q&A sessions after the screenings, it clearly opens up a bag of worms that leaves you wondering whether this is art or just the lowest common denominator. In either guise, you sense the tremor that this film will ultimately cause. It will never be accepted, not even by the supposed auteurs of the world who boringly speak about the human condition. You may not like it, but it is certainly something worth watching.
|
positive
|
This was a disappointing movie. Considering the material---army life is always good for a laugh---and the stars, this movie should have been a fall down laughfest. It was worth a couple of chuckles, at best. Steve Martin has been much funnier than this and it appears that Dan Ackroyd should stick to dramatic roles, where he might follow Robin Williams' lead and someday win an Oscar.
|
negative
|
This is a poor caricature of "Lonesome Dove" - and Larry McMurtry.<br /><br />I love your books, with "Lonesome Dove" among the top three. I have admired the way you view yourself, through your characters, with such unflinching honesty, balanced by never taking it all too seriously. I am, therefore, spoiled.<br /><br />Why have you come to this?<br /><br />"Comanche Moon" is not up to your standards. I see that you are credited with the screen-writing, but this is so unlike you, I prefer to think it is written by someone else.<br /><br />The dialogue makes me claustrophobic, wishing someone would break out with a naturally stated sentence. The part about 'genius' was agonizing. McCrae was unrecognizable - chiefly because of the inane words coming out of his mouth.<br /><br />Well, I miss Call, too.<br /><br />The most important missing factors are Gus and Call and the men they are: their matter-of-fact courage; the underlying vein comprised of ethics and honesty; their lack of self delusion. Hard men leading hard lives with a certain undeniable grace.<br /><br />Some blame has to attach to the labored direction here and throughout. All of the cast needed dialect AND dialogue coaching.<br /><br />While I try to imagine Robert Duvall as McCrae, speaking this same dialogue, it comes off better - but not much. It tries to sound cowboy-of-few-words shy, sly-grin witty, but doesn't half succeed...<br /><br />How can it be so different from "Lonesome Dove"? Can the writer have forgotten his characters? You have fooled some of the people, Mr. McMurtry - but not this one.
|
negative
|
This film is a classic seventies cop flick that for some reason has been sadly overlooked. It is basically French Connection meets Bullit.<br /><br />Roy Scheider plays the head of an elite group of detectives, known as the "Seven Ups" <br /><br />One of their men is discovered during an undercover op and is killed.<br /><br />Scheider and his team must find his killers. They become involved in a battle with the mob.<br /><br />The highlight of the film has to be the car chase, obviously included to cash in on the success of Bullit. However, this car chase outshines Bullitt due to its length, speed and sheer excitement.It's a breathtaking roller-coaster ride that ends rather unexpectedly and spectacularly. Don't miss this little gem !!
|
positive
|
I was privileged to have seen some snippets from Aardman's original run of this show in the UK. It was always fun and always funny. None of the charm has been lost in translation--it's as fresh as the people interviewed--whether some of it is scripted or not, as has been rumored, is beside the point. It's always entertaining.<br /><br />Aardman Animations shows great imagination in the characters used for each voice, the single aspect that I probably love most about the show and its concept (the hostility between the pandas, the porcupines discussing fear of needles, the painting ape). Regulars really grow on you as well, such as the horse and donkey teens from Maryland, most every married couple (the parrots, the insects, and the cats to name a few) and child-voiced character, and I've really come to dig the ferret! Monday's finally become a day to which to look forward.
|
positive
|
This is a very strange little short film that initially didn't impress me. From a purely aesthetic point of view, the animation here certainly ain't pretty--though after a while you notice that the simple and silly drawings do possess a certain odd charm. That's probably because with the script as screwy as this one, the animation works.<br /><br />The film shows an older couple sitting at the table playing Scrabble. At the same time they are fixated on this game or other bizarre pursuits (such as the husband's compulsion to saw things--even the chair and table)! And all of this stuff occurs as the television warns of pending atomic annihilation--Armageddon is definitely here! Naturally, the neighbors are screaming and running amok--during which time the couple obliviously continues with this idiotic game. Heck, even their cat knows the end is coming as the couple begin bickering about who may or may not have cheated--leading to a very surreal ending indeed!! The film deserves kudos for both being unique as well as very funny. While it did not win the Oscar, it was nominated for Best Animated Short--which it richly deserved.
|
positive
|
I saw Le Conseguenze Dell'Amore on the 2005 Rotterdam Filmfestival, It was the first of ten films I saw there.<br /><br />Le Conseguenze has left the most powerful impression of the ten films. From the first shot, you know the movie is going to be something special. The beautiful cinematography left me in awe of what can be done with a camera. The music is also on par with the visuals, complementing the colorful and stylish architecture-like images.<br /><br />Toni Servillo plays the main character in the film, Titta. He's a tax expert gone wrong who lives in a hotel. Every week, he brings a suitcase with money to a bank and the story plays around this.<br /><br />He is always very controlled and shows almost no emotion to anyone; Looks calculated and well-dressed. He has a habit of ignoring people who are of no significance to him. For example Sofia (played very nicely by Olivia Magnani), who works as a barmaid in the hotel where he lives. Although she's been working in the hotel for two years, he never greets her, even if she does greet him. On one day she confronts him with this and the next day he sits at the bar, instead of his usual spot at a window. From here the story really begins, and will unfold in a strong tale of love, sacrifice and the mafia.<br /><br />I won't spoil the rest of the film. See this film if you love stylish movies like ones from David Lynch, The Godfather, etc. Don't see this if you're an action-buff.
|
positive
|
I enjoy the show Surface very much. The show is very entertaining and it's a clean show. A Show like surface is interesting. It keeps my attention. It has compassion and suspense. I love all the cast members that are on the show. They are all very good choices. i think it is very important to have the right cast of Any show because thats what makes any show a success and of course the scenes and the show itself. Television has changed so much over the years. It has changed in good ways and in bad. I love to watch some comedy,action, suspense and romance. And scifi. But Surface is a show that I hope comes back for many seasons because it is a great show and its something that families can watch. My children are grown, but my husband and I enjoy watching these types of shows. I appreciate your time and letting me comment my opinion. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Paulette Blackwell
|
positive
|
Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it. <br /><br />Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 6 out of 10.
|
positive
|
I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.
|
negative
|
A chick flick that Guys still like - Yes! Wonderful. Now I can have fun, enjoy the company of my girl, and not feel like I can't wait until the movie ends! Light - but funny. Great stuff. What ever you do don't miss the DVD extras. This a great "blind date" file too. Will Smith does well in this - even though in is light acting - he pulls trough it all well. The movie is a little slow in pacing - don't expect too much action - the laughs are there - and so is the message - but the timing is a little slow. Use the low moments to whisper or kiss - it will pick up. The ending makes the feel good moments worth it. Most of all expect fun light hearted fare - and watch for some great upstaging by the supporting actors - they make the film. The plot twists are predictable - but it IS a date move, so get the refills of popcorn from the kitchen - and don't make her pause it. Count on more dates after this movie - she'll want o see what is next in line. Remember Hitch's advice!!! <br /><br />Enjoy.
|
positive
|
"Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.<br /><br />The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.<br /><br />((SPOILERS END HERE))<br /><br />What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.
|
positive
|
Three story lines and not enough tying them together, "Inside Man" was very jumpy and an incomplete attempt to be artistic and realistic. Though having its moments, the movie started off looking like a fast thriller which quickly grounded to a slow crawl, jumped quickly between highs and lows, and only barely picked up steam again near the last 20 minutes. I will give credit to Denzel Washington, he played his part extremely well with a full grasp of his human side and not just the typical "super-detective" with all the answers. Clive Owen also did quite well with his duality part as "evil genius" and "criminal mastermind" (both not the same in retrospect). Overall though, each person individually created a great sub-section. Yet, when the parts finally came together and everything counted, there was no sudden "ah-ha!" or summation of everything. It all ended up with very little of the energy it began with, with a lot of plot-holes, tons of questions, and as I said earlier, no where near Spike Lee's normal level. I have to completely disagree with the so-called "professional critics"... this is not the movie they play it up to be.
|
negative
|
This movie was very enjoyable, though you'll only like it if: - you hate going to the dentist but aren't afraid of a movie where one of them goes beserk - you love horror movies<br /><br />I particularly liked the fact that some care was given to explaining the brute actions of the main character. The fact that he's totally obsessed by cleanliness (especially in the mouth) and then catches his wives providing some oral pleasure to the mud-covered pool-man is a pretty believable reason to go overboard.<br /><br />Liked it. I give it an 8.
|
positive
|
There is a reason this went straight to video- the story is smarmy, Nick Cage plays Johnny in a sleazy way- sex in churches, and other scenes that border on tasteless(like the scene in the laundry room) taint this movie. Judge Reinhold as the cuckold is okay- but the movie itself with its themes of degradation and revenge are not well done. But it is a good film for trivia contests- because so few people saw it.
|
negative
|
I enjoyed this one, because I can relate to it. <br /><br />At one time in my life I was trying to make films, and experienced many of the same problems Mark Borchardt did in trying to make HIS film. And I also went through a protracted period of self-absorbed arrested development, where I refused to grow. But then, miraculously, I got married, and had kids. I realized that being a struggling filmmaker was, in all likelihood, not going to feed my family. So I got a decent job and did what I felt I needed to do to make that happen. That is what an mature, responsible adult does. <br /><br />Mark hasn't faced up to that reality as yet, and so, in that sense, he is a retarded adolescent. For this reason, there is a hopelessness about him. Like Don Quixote, he seems so inept and self-deluded that he doesn't realize how bad off he really is. The viewer feels a sense of superiority and pity for him and his circle. Mark has kids and an ex-wife and bills to pay, but the film depicts him caring basically only about pursuing his "artistic vision". <br /><br />Despite this, Mark comes across in the film as a likeable individual, surrounded by a very interesting family and group of friends. Unfortunately, Mark lacks many of the things necessary to be successful both in life and in a career: maturity, responsibility, education, knowledge, life experience, prioritization, financial clout, etc.. Yet he trudges on, much like Ed Wood, apparently without any semblance of a clue. <br /><br />I guess we are supposed to feel encouraged by the spectacle of the "never say die" attitude of this noble individual, struggling against the odds. And man, what odds there are! Kiefer Sutherland, Colin Hanks, Tori Spelling and Angelina Jolie are all offspring of big-time film or TV people; no doubt, they will all want to direct some day, if they aren't already. How much room is there for an independent like Mark? It's like watching a guy hit himself in the head with a board, over and over again. Come to think of it, that is pretty close to what happens to one of Mark's actors, with the kitchen cabinet door, in one of the funniest scenes I have ever seen in any movie.<br /><br />Despite these misgivings and seeming criticisms, I truly enjoyed this movie, and would heartily recommend it to anyone. Uncle Bill is amazing. I have a friend who met both Mike and Mark and he told me that, in real life, these guys are just exactly the way they appeared in the movie.
|
positive
|
This entertainingly tacky'n'trashy distaff "Death Wish" copy stars the exceptionally gorgeous and well-endowed brunette hottie supreme Karin Mani as Billie Clark, a top-notch martial arts fighter and one woman wrecking crew who opens up a gigantic ten gallon drum of ferocious chopsocky whup-a** on assorted no-count scuzzy muggers, rapists, drug dealers and street gang members after some nasty low-life criminals attack her beloved grand parents. The stunningly voluptuous Ms. Mani sinks her teeth into her feisty butt-stomping tough chick part with winningly spunky aplomb, beating jerky guys up with infectious glee and baring her smoking hot bod in a few utterly gratuitous, but much-appreciated nude scenes. Unfortunately, Mani possesses an extremely irritating chewing-on-marbles harsh and grating voice that's sheer murder on the ears (my favorite moment concerning Mani's dubious delivery of her dialogue occurs when she quips "Don't mess with girls in the park; that's not nice!" after clobbering a few detestable hooligans. The delectable Karin's sole subsequent film role was in "Avenging Angel," in which she does a truly eye-popping full-frontal nude scene, but doesn't have any lines.) The film's single most sensationally sleazy sequence transpires when Mani gets briefly incarcerated on a contempt of court charge and shows her considerably substantial stuff in a group prison shower scene. Of course, Mani's lascivious lesbian cell mate tries to seduce her only to have her unwanted advances rebuffed with a severe beatdown! Strangely enough, the lesbian forgives Mani and becomes her best buddy while she's behind bars. Given an extra galvanizing shot in the vigorously rough'n'ready arm by Edward Victor's punchy direction, a funky-rockin' score, endearingly crummy acting by a game (if lame) cast, a constant snappy pace, numerous pull-out-all-the-stops exciting fight scenes, and Howard Anderson III's gritty photography, this immensely enjoyable down'n'dirty exploitation swill is essential viewing for hardcore fans of blithely low-grade low-budget grindhouse cinema junk.
|
positive
|
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.<br /><br />All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.
|
negative
|
First of all I have to say that I'm a huge Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento fan. Although I have not seen absolutely all of their movies, I really enjoyed almost every one I did see. I really like giallos and I thought Argento was the master of this genre, after seeing films like "Tenebre" and "Phenomena". But after I saw "New York Ripper" by Fulci, I found out that he could do pretty good giallos besides his graphic zombie movies and even outdo Argento, on a certain level.<br /><br />I love Fulci's style, and yes I love gore, but this film I think, although it has a more developed plot and characters than his other films, is not his best one. What I don't like is that it can be confusing at times, especially at the end. And the fact that we go from one suspect, to another, and then another until we even suspect the retarded little girl for a moment, I think it goes too far. I know giallos are supposed to keep you guessing until the end, and the killer should be very hard to find, but this film plays a little too much with our minds. However I did like the scene when the witch is killed, I think it is very well done and gave me the chills. The acting is also pretty good and the photography is great.<br /><br />Although this is not a bad film, I think Lucio Fulci has made better films than this, and I think his best one is "The Beyond", a very different movie but a more atmospheric and visual experience.<br /><br />I give "Don't torture a duckling" a 7 out of 10.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
OK, I kinda like the idea of this movie. I'm in the age demographic, and I kinda identify with some of the stories. Even the sometimes tacky and meaningless dialogue seems semi-realistic, and in a different movie would have been forgivable.<br /><br />I'm trying as hard as possible not to trash this movie like the others did, but it's not that easy when the filmmakers weren't trying at all.<br /><br />The editing in this movie is terrible! Possibly the worst editing I've ever seen in a movie! There are things that you don't have to go to film school to learn, leaning good editing is not one of them, but identifying a bad one is.<br /><br />Also, the shot... Oh my God the shots, just awful! I can't even go into the details, but we sometimes just see random things popping up, and that, in conjunction with the editing will give you the most painful film viewing experience.<br /><br />This movie being made on low or no budget with 4 cast and crew is not an excuse also. I've seen short films on youtube with a lot more artistic integrity! Joe, Greta, I don't know what the heck you were thinking, but this movie is nothing but a masturbation of both your egos. You should be ashamed of yourselves! In conclusion, this movie is like what a really lazy amateur porn movie will be if it was filled with 3 or 4 lousy sex scenes separated by long boring conversations and one disgusting masturbation scene. If that's not your kind of thing, avoid this at all cost!
|
negative
|
If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.<br /><br />It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.<br /><br />Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.<br /><br />If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.<br /><br />There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.<br /><br />Even the characters are totally unbelievable!
|
negative
|
Uncle Fred Olen Ray once again gives us a little of his Retromedia "goodness" in the form of this soft-core Cinemax non-classic.<br /><br />A numb-nut pair are out looking at rocks when they come across a swirling vortex a "black hole" as the intelligent dolts put it. Pretty soon an attractive cave girl from one million years ago happens into out time-line and she beds her way into the future. Pretty soon her studly other half makes his way into the future as well and blazes a path through the beds of the future.<br /><br />Ray again delivers a passable (but barely) smut-fest that has horrible acting but some decent skin. Yeah it's barely titillating but heh! If worse comes to worse it will cure you insomnia.<br /><br />S10 reviews: 1/5 or 3/10
|
negative
|
I think I am some kind of Road Runner fan. I don't care how predictable it is, I laugh anyway. 'Beep, Beep' is predictable most of the time, although it is pretty ingenious at the same time as well. Of course the Road Runner is chased by the Coyote and of course the Coyote fails to catch the Road Runner with every new attempt. The plans the Coyote comes up with are very funny. You see exactly where it will go wrong and you will not disappointed. Well, one time you are sort of disappointed, what you think will happen does not, but it makes the joke even funnier.<br /><br />If you like the Road Runner shorts you will love this one. The predictable gags work and the animation is great and pretty original at times.
|
positive
|
I can't help but notice the negative reviews this movie has gotten. To be honest, I saw the preview for this movie, and the premise looked intrigued me. Yes, I rented it after reading others' comments. They are correct in that some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They are also correct that one of the best performances of this movie was that of Dr. Graves.<br /><br />Also interesting is Scott Clark, who plays Grant, the kid in the wheelchair. I identify with the character he played, perhaps because I am in a wheelchair.<br /><br />This movie is certainly worth your looking at.
|
positive
|
quite possibly one of (if not the) worst film ever conceived, cast and acted in the history of cinema. Who on God's green earth would ever think to cast Cameron Diaz and James Mardsen as a couple? She looked like his mother. God forgive me but I am just being honest. And that was the least of the many problems plaguing this horrible excuse for a film. It was a horrible statement against women but at least if you're gonna blame women for the problems of the world, tell a decent story not one with so many annoying loop holes and pathetic excuses for suspense and thrills. Everybody should get their money back who went to see it in theaters or bought the DVD.
|
negative
|
In this documentary we meet Roger, the rich manager of a factory in China that makes beads and other trinkets sold and traded at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Roger claims the factory girls love their work and are grateful for the opportunities it provides, but interviews with four of them tell quite another story. The girls' bleak lives are shown in stark contrast to the bizarre excesses of Mardi Gras itself. Filmmaker David Redmon should be lauded for getting excellent and rare footage of everyday life inside a Chinese factory compound, and for landing a revealing on-camera interview with the head of the U.S. company that imports and sells the beads. The movie is compellingly told and clearly serves its purpose as a window into what lies behind those ubiquitous "Made in China" labels.
|
positive
|
As a cinema fan White Noise was an utter disappointment, as a filmmaker the cinematography was pretty good, nicely lit, good camera work, reasonable direction. But as a film it just seamed as predictable as all the other 'so called' horror movies that the market has recently been flooded with. Although it did have a little bit of the 'chill factor' the whole concept of the E.V.O (Electronic Voice Phenomena) did'not seem believable. This movie did not explain the reasonings for certain occurrences but went ahead with them. The acting was far from mind blowing the main character portrayed no emotion, like many recent thriller/horror movies.<br /><br />Definitely not a movie I will be buying on DVD and would not recommend anyone rushes out to see it.
|
negative
|
A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping "executive vice-president." Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time!
|
positive
|
Good historical drama which is very educational and also very entertaining to people who like history.Very good acting and script.Not as sensual and sexy as it is sometimes marketed,be prepared to peek into the pioneer spirit and human ability to adjust.Very touching as well for the spiritually mature. Not for people who do not like to think......
|
positive
|
I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that "Scary Movie" although not a great movie was very good and funny. "Scary Movie 2" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.<br /><br />The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.<br /><br />Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.<br /><br />Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.<br /><br />Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.<br /><br />Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in "Scary Movie" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.<br /><br />The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.<br /><br />Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.<br /><br />But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.
|
negative
|
This P.of S. was highly recommended to me by two friends that have great<br /><br />(similar to mine) taste in films and have seen more than anyone I know.<br /><br />I have no idea what they saw in this movie. Sadistic,cruel and repulsive is fine in an entertaining movie,but this is a windbag effort trying to pass itself off as highbrow lowbrow movie making.Or is it lowbrow highbrow?<br /><br />The ancient generation gap cliché "no redeeming social value" comes to mind. Bill Pullman is trying,maybe a little to hard,and except for the kid the rest of the acting seems self-conscious and kinda lame.<br /><br />Save yourself from this and watch a double feature of "In Cold Blood" and "The Hitcher".<br /><br />As somebody said, this would never have been made if Jennifer Lynch was not the overrated David Lynch's daughter.
|
negative
|
After a brief prologue showing a masked man stalking and then slashing the throat of an older gentleman on a deserted, urban, turn of the century Australian street, we meet Julie (Rebecca Gibney) and Peter (John Adam) as they go out house hunting. They manage to get a loan for a fixer-upper on a posh Sydney street, but it turns out that physical disrepair is not the only problem with their new home. It just may be haunted.<br /><br />13 Gantry Row combines a memorable if somewhat clichéd story with good to average direction by Catherine Millar into a slightly above average shocker.<br /><br />The biggest flaws seem partially due to budget, but not wholly excusable to that hurdle. A crucial problem occurs at the beginning of the film. The opening "thriller scene" features some wonky editing. Freeze frames and series of stills are used to cover up the fact that there's not much action. Suspense should be created from staging, not fancy "fix it in the mix" techniques. There is great atmosphere in the scene from the location, the lighting, the fog and such, but the camera should be slowly following the killer and the victim, cutting back and forth from one to the other as we track down the street, showing their increasing proximity. The tracking and the cuts need to be slow. The attack needed to be longer, clearer and better blocked. As it stands, the scene has a strong "made for television" feel, and a low budget one at that.<br /><br />After this scene we move to the present and the flow of the film greatly improves. The story has a lot of similarities to The Amityville Horror (1979), though the budget forces a much subtler approach. Millar and scriptwriter Tony Morphett effectively create a lot of slyly creepy scenarios, often dramatic in nature instead of special effects-oriented, such as the mysterious man who arrives to take away the old slabs of iron, which had been bizarrely affixed to an interior wall.<br /><br />For some horror fans, the first section of the film might be a little heavy on realist drama. At least the first half hour of the film is primarily about Julie and Peter trying to arrange financing for the house and then trying to settle in. But Morphett writes fine, intelligent dialogue. The material is done well enough that it's often as suspenseful as the more traditional thriller aspects that arise later--especially if you've gone through similar travails while trying to buy your own house.<br /><br />Once they get settled and things begin to get weirder, even though the special effects often leave much to be desired, the ideas are good. The performances help create tension. There isn't an abundance of death and destruction in the film--there's more of an abundance of home repair nightmares. But neither menace is really the point.<br /><br />The point is human relationships. There are a number of character arcs that are very interesting. The house exists more as a metaphor and a catalyst for stress in a romantic relationship that can make it go sour and possibly destroy it. That it's in a posh neighborhood, and that the relationship is between two successful yuppies, shows that these problems do not only afflict those who can place blame with some external woe, such as money or health problems. Peter's character evolves from a striving corporate employee with "normal" work-based friendships to someone with more desperation as he becomes subversive, scheming to attain something more liberating and meaningful. At the same time, we learn just how shallow those professional friendships can be. Julie goes through an almost literal nervous breakdown, but finally finds liberation when she liberates herself from her failing romantic relationship.<br /><br />Although 13 Gantry Row never quite transcends its made-for-television clunkiness, as a TV movie, this is a pretty good one, with admirable ambitions. Anyone fond of haunted house films, psycho films or horror/thrillers with a bit more metaphorical depth should find plenty to enjoy. It certainly isn't worth spending $30 for a DVD (that was the price my local PBS station was asking for a copy of the film after they showed it (factoring in shipping and handling)), but it's worth a rental, and it's definitely worth watching for free.
|
positive
|
This might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh "movie", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, "Pledge This" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson.
|
negative
|
I like the good and evil battle. I liked Eddie in this movie better than any movie he has ever done. He wasn't The smart, cocky, know it all he usually plays. He shows heart and a more humble humor. The fact that it shows there are stranger things in Heaven and on earth than we can think of gives me hope.
|
positive
|
Thanks to Kevin Smith, a bunch of geeks are running around saying that Return of the Jedi isn't any good because it's actually fun to watch. And oh no! Muppets are involved! That makes it bad! Everyone liked Return of the Jedi until someone in a Kevin Smith movie made a negative comment about it. Now all of a sudden people people look at you like you have some kind of disease if you mention how much you like it. This movie is so much better than anything Kevin Smith ever even considered creating that it boggles my mind that the man would even think of denouncing it. This movie is good fun! It's just as awesome as I remember it being when I was six! Enjoy this movie for what it is and stop stealing Kevin Smith's opinions! His aren't correct!<br /><br />And that Ewok song at the end ruled! I bet you people don't even enjoy "Ewoks: Battle for Endor"!!!! I'm going to set you all on fire!
|
positive
|
This film is great! Being a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents..." I just knew I would love this film. And love it I do. I finally got round to buying a copy of this film early this year. However I was annoyed to find that it had been cut! So I'll keep looking at car boot sales for the original version.<br /><br />Anyway, the film is about Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmondson), who tries to impress his girlfriend (Dawn French) by claiming to be a drug dealer. However, Dennis is overheard bragging one night in the pub and nicked! So Dennis turns supergrass but the trouble is he doesn't know anything and starts to make up lies and dig himself into an even deeper hole! The irony of all this is that there is drug smuggling going on down in Devon.<br /><br />This film is not as funny as I expected but it is still a really good film with some good laughs and a great soundtrack. It also has the best scene ever in a British film (Robbie Coltrane's walk across the pier set to "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.<br /><br />So if you are a fan of "The Comic Strip Presents...", of any of the cast members, or a fan of British comedy see it A.S.A.P!!!
|
positive
|
I have a problem with the movie snobs who consider Americans to be uncouth semi - literates unable to appreciate the subtlety of the more sophisticated Europeans,les Francais,les Italiens...just about anybody from le continong to whom English is a foreign language.If the humour in "My Father the Hero" is different from that in "Mon Pere ce heros" it is because the French sense of humour is different from that of the American.Not better,not "more clever",just different. If you think it is crass for Hollywood to "borrow" from the French cinema just consider how much the French cinema has borrowed from Hollywood in the first place.Where would Belmondo and Delon have been without Bogart?Truffaut without Hitchcock?Jerry Lewis - not known for his subtle and cerebral style is idolised in France.Go figure........ Monsieur Depardieu is exceptionally good as the hapless divorced father of a precocious 14 year old daughter on holiday in the Bahamas together. Unbeknowst to him,she presents him to the other people at the hotel as her lover so as to make herself more interesting to a boy she has her eye on .Not surprisingly,complications ensue. There are "hommages" to "Green Card" and "Cyrano de Bergerac" amusingly inserted and M.Depardieu goes along with it all very good - naturedly. He does a good Maurice Chevaler impression with "Thank Heaven for little girls" which is in fact funny and rather poignant as his audience,all of whom believe him to be the lover of a 14 year old girl,get up and leave two - by - two as he warbles away,blissfully unaware of what is happening.When he turns round at the end of the song to acknowledge the expected applause the expression on his face is priceless. Without him the movie would be very average indeed.With his huge shambling figure dominating the screen it is a lot of fun.No pecs,no six pack - just a real proper human - type being.Formidable!
|
positive
|
This movie is probably my favorite movie of all time. Miriam Flynn is excellent as Bunny Packard. Zane Buzby as Delores is comic genius. The rest of the cast is amazing, and the film is really really funny. A definite satire of horror films, with a zany twist. If you enjoy a fun, comedy filled evening, then go and rent this classic. You'll laugh all the way through!
|
positive
|
This is the kind of movie which is loved by 50-year old schoolteachers and people who consider themselves aware in social issues - but really haven´t got a clue. The actors - I think all of them are amateurs - do their best, but the script is so full of cliches and stupidities that they can´t save it.<br /><br />Worst of all though is the scool cabaret that the kids are working on - brings back all your worst memories from acting classes in school. The lyric to one of the songs goes something like this in a fast-translation 2.30 in the morning: "I´m the dwarf of society, an emotionally crippled individual."<br /><br />Please!
|
negative
|
I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour.
|
positive
|
OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, "Sound's great! Original!" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin.
|
negative
|
The plot of the movie is pretty simple : a viral outbreak turned the population into flesh-eating zombies. Those who left became "hunters".<br /><br />Well, first of all, this IS NOT the worst zombie movie there is. Among the worst are "Zombiez" and the infamous "Zombie Lake".<br /><br />In fact i think, the idea for "Quick and the Undead" was very good, just executed poorly. Considering the budget they had to work with, this movie looks very good. I wasn't bored at all while watching it. Special Effects were solid, although they did use CGI once (fat zombie getting shot in the head), but everything else (gore, guts) was rather good. Acting is awful however. Our main guy looks like young Clint Eastwood, other "actors" are not even worth mentioning. As far as the plot goes, they didn't work enough on the development of the story.<br /><br />Bad : acting, low-budget. Good : special effects, idea for the movie.<br /><br />Overall, this flick deserves 4/10 from me. It's not as bad as people say. Imagine a ZOMBIE WESTERN, then watch this movie.
|
negative
|
What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?
|
negative
|
Reese Witherspooon's first movie. Loved it. The plot and the acting was top notch. You are emotionally involved with the characters. In my opinion, a must see.<br /><br />After watching this movie you will see why Reese Witherspoon's acting career has been so successful. <br /><br />The other cast members do a great job also. <br /><br />The movie flows extremely well. There is not a boring moment in the whole picture. The Man in the Moon's length is just right. <br /><br />As I said earlier, I think this movie was excellent. I have seen it numerous times, and have enjoyed every one of the viewings.
|
positive
|
I thought the whole movie played out beautifully with fresh images and interesting cinematography the whole way through it. The actors were on top of their character's backs in nearly perfect timing and looked great. The music was lush and well-thought-out. It even had a decent twist of an ending. So what's with everyone voting it down? The story wasn't entirely fresh (felt like a remnant of "Running Man" with the whole television show idea), but the attitude towards Christianity and Judaism about how the public picks their Messiah certainly sounded true enough. It made sense to follow this one man who was put before a modern crowd and to put him on a pedestal because of his opportunity.<br /><br />It's possible that Christians or other religious people pick this up because the movie has the word "God" in it, but that shows what the filmmakers were trying to do is to teach a possibility to people who maybe never saw the world like this, especially in the modern world where Christianity has been more and more accepted and forgotten about by some.<br /><br />I gave it a 7/10 stars here on IMDb. I thought every ounce of the movie was entertaining and original, for the most-part. Check it out if you're not too offended to see an entertaining film from Madrid, Spain, about possibilities of the coming modern Messiah to a TV near you.
|
positive
|
Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.<br /><br />Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.<br /><br />ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: [email protected]
|
positive
|
Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.<br /><br />I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.<br /><br />In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.<br /><br />In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.
|
negative
|
As a gamer, I can't say I like this film. Fact is, I down right hate it. I tried to watch it as open minded as possible, but when it gets down to it, it feels rather insulting to my social group.<br /><br />To me, there are several reasons why.<br /><br />1. The characters seem unnatural. I've met lots of players, of all different walks of life. I don't know any who act like any of the characters in the film. It's like the producers of the film have taken the worst aspects of the worst stereotypes and put them all into 5 people. Most gamers are rather social people, some with rather active lives.<br /><br />2. The style doesn't work. The mockumentary style is ill suited to the subject matter of the film. An actual documentary on gamers would actually work better. While it is good looking (I.E. cleanly put together), it isn't very good.<br /><br />3. The dialogue feels forced, unnatural. It also seems to lack any real world context. Gamers swear, I'll admit that, but we don't have Tourette's Syndrome.<br /><br />4. The humor is lacking. While self-deprecating humor is a mainstay of my group and several other groups I've encountered, this is less self-deprecation, and more like toilet humor. Likewise, a large part of gamer humor is full of in-jokes and anecdotes, not toilet humor. Most gamers would balk at and shun anybody who made such jokes.<br /><br />5. The biggest problem to me is basically this: Accuracy. I don't mean rules, but instead dynamics. Invariably, this film is going to be compared to the even lower budget films The Gamers and The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, both of which portray the players as actual people playing an actual game. The difference is, Gamers: The Movie presents a situation where you want to beat the players senseless vs. The Gamers, where you can say something like: "Huh, I know a guy like that... Yep, that's definitely like Gary."
|
negative
|
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.
|
negative
|
I'm originally from Brazil... the sad thing about this movie was the exploitation that was done to that boy. They told his life story and he never got one "centavo" (Brazilian cent) of that movie. Fernando is not the first and will not be the last to go through that life style in Brazil. Sad... but that is the world we live in. It's about making money not saving lives. Question is: Where is Fernando today? Most probably... dead. We tend to want to live in this "Disney filled fantasy bubbled life". When someone comes up to the plate to help... along comes the higher power and says: "What do I get from this? Where's my cut?" - I wish people's conscience would speak up!
|
positive
|
I went into Deathtrap expecting a well orchestrated and intriguing thriller; and while that's something like what this film is; I also can't help but think that it's just a poor man's Sleuth. The classic 1972 film is obviously an inspiration for this film; not particularly in terms of the plot, but certainly it's the case with the execution. The casting of Michael Caine in the central role just confirms it. The film is based on a play by Ira Levin (who previously wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives) and focuses on Sidney Bruhl; a playwright whose best days are behind him. After his latest play bombs, Sidney finds himself at a low; and this is not helped when a play named Deathtrap; written by an amateur he taught, arrives on his doorstep. Deathtrap is a guaranteed commercial success, and Sidney soon begins hatching a plot of his own; which involves inviting round the amateur scribe, killing him, and then passing Deathtrap off as his own work.<br /><br />Despite all of its clever twists and turns; Deathtrap falls down on one primary element, and that's the characters. The film fails to provide a single likable character, and it's very hard to care about the story when you're not rooting for any of the players. This is not helped by the acting. Michael Caine puts in a good and entertaining performance as you would expect, but nobody else does themselves proud. Christopher Reeve is awkward in his role, while Dyan Cannon somehow manages to make the only possibly likable character detestable with a frankly irritating performance. It's lucky then that the story is good; and it is just about good enough to save the film. The plot features plenty of twists and turns; some work better than others, but there's always enough going on to ensure that the film stays interesting. Director Sidney Lumet deserves some credit too as the style of the film is another huge plus. The central location is interesting in its own right, and the cinematography fits the film well. Overall, I have to admit that I did enjoy this film; but it could have been much, much better.
|
positive
|
Basic structure of a story: Beginning, Middle, End.<br /><br />Sometimes this structure is played with, and we get Memento or Irreversible and the story plays backwards. Sometimes it's just not linear, a la Pulp Fiction. Regardless, they all have a beginning, middle and end.<br /><br />This is the first film I have ever seen that doesn't have an end.<br /><br />Beginning: Girl's best friend is expelled.<br /><br />Middle: Girl needs to cope without best friend.<br /><br />End: Non existent.<br /><br />Not that having an end would've saved this film, but at least it would have been complete.<br /><br />It's an exercise in apathy; we get a party-mix of characters, and they all turn out to be duds. Boring, vain, vapid and pallid imitations of people.<br /><br />And here's the action within this film: NOTHING HAPPENS. Nothing at all happens. Mischa Barton tries to talk with a plummy English accent, Dominique Swain whines a lot and Brad Renfro receives a blow job from some old guy. End of movie.<br /><br />By the time the credits rolled, I had a horrible feeling that many prisoners must feel: periods of time, those precious minutes of our life, have just been wasted.<br /><br />The only passable point (and that is a very emphatic ONLY) is Brad Renfro. He acts well. Lacey Chabert I tend to like, but no luck here. Due to good work in other films, I will forgive Mischa Barton this travesty, but I hope all cast members were slapped in the face for their involvement.<br /><br />Please, I implore you. Avoid. Don't fool yourself into thinking "I'll make up my own mind". My sister told me to never see this, and I ignored her, wanting to make up my own mind. That was a bad decision.<br /><br />I have never hated a film. There are many I don't like, but I have never hated a film. Until I saw this.
|
negative
|
Do not watch this movie, or.. If you are really mad at anyone, you can give this as a birthdaypresent. This is the worst movies I have ever seen. Do NOT watch this. If you do, remember: That would be a self-destructive action. It is a shame that this is not voted lower.
|
negative
|
The viewer leaves wondering why he bothered to watch this one, or why, for that matter, anyone bothered to make it. There is no plot - just random scenes of ridiculous action. Mia Sara's shower scene appeals to the male libido, but that's not much reason to make a movie.
|
negative
|
I watched the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.<br /><br />I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.<br /><br />However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16/18.<br /><br />The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother/Daughter chemistry.<br /><br />Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.<br /><br />I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.<br /><br />To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.<br /><br />All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon.
|
negative
|
The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!<br /><br />To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.
|
negative
|
This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.<br /><br />This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.<br /><br />From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.<br /><br />To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".
|
negative
|
This is another fantasy favorite from Ralph Bakshi; after watching it on YouTube that is. Set in the distant past after the Ice Age, it is a prehistoric sword-and-sorcery quest between good and evil. Nekron, Lord of the realm of Ice and his mother Queen Juliana, has set their sights on conquest of the known world. When their glaciers destroy's the village of a man named Larn, he (Larn) vows to avenge his people and kill the Ice Lord. Meanwhile, the sub-human minions of Nekron and Juliana capture Firekeep's King Jarol's sultry daughter Princess Teegra; but she manages to escape, and eventually meets with Larn, who promises to escort her back to Firekeep; if the sub-humans don't find them first.<br /><br />This movie did very little box office (as did most of Ralph Bakshi's films), but has become a cult classic, partly for the quality of the art, a collaboration between Ralph Bakshi and the famed fantasy artist Frank Frazetta. Also, I have heard that the screenplay was written by Gerry Conway and Roy Thomas, the two men who had done Conan comic book stories, and the background painters included James Gurney, the illustrator of the Dinotopia novels; though admittedly I had never read Conan or Dinotopia. And also the painter Thomas Kinkade, noted for his artwork for figurines, music-boxes for The Bradford Exchange Company besides paintings. And like Bakshi's films The Lord of the Rings and American Pop, this movie was rotoscoped, but the process works better in this film than in the former.<br /><br />So overall, I think it's one of the best animated fantasy movies ever made, and an awesome collaboration between two great minds - Ralph Bakshi and Frank Frazetta. With plenty of fantasy, sexual innuendo, and thrilling adventure.
|
positive
|
I have a severe problem with this show, several actually. A simple list will suffice for now, I'll go into more depth later on: superficial characters, a laugh-track and boring humour.<br /><br />If you don't wish to look at the rest of this review and are only reading it so you can feel superior (as if you see anything in this show I didn't) to a frequently irked teen from Canada I'll summarize: Friends sucks, not only because it is unfunny but because it destroyed the TV audiences for new, good shows (Arrested Development, Dexter etc.). Friends is as much to blame for reality TV, "Two And A Half Men" and "The King Of Queens" as the television executives. Now then, on with the review.<br /><br />These characters have no soul, they are exactly the same in every way (outside of gender and hair colour). They react the same way in boring situations and are completely secure in their own bodies. Where is the conflict and the humour that comes with it? Why isn't Rachel storming out on Monica after Monica starts hanging out with Rachel's enemy? Why doesn't Joey contemplate suicide because nobody seems to take him seriously? Oh right, cause he's the dumb one and he's comfortable with that. This is the curse of having perfect characters: lasting conflict and (god forbid) personality becomes an impossibility.<br /><br />The laugh-track is the one thing that should have died out right after it was born. Any show that has one is almost certainly the opposite of funny. How can I make such a broad generalization? When a show that claims to be "comedy" requires laughter from someone BESIDES THE AUDIENCE it must mean that the audience would not laugh without it. Laughtracks destroy humour by preventing quick comebacks. Humour becomes a construct rather than a free flowing entity (see The Office, Arrested Development).<br /><br />This leads to my next point: the humour is boring. There is no way to make a perfect character anything more than slightly humorous (without a laugh-track apparently) simply because our everyday humour comes from recognition of our flaws. So what if Monica dated a 17 year old? She immediately recognizes that what she is doing isn't right and breaks up with him. There has to be some sort of conflict rather than an immediate solution. Maybe her mother finds out or one of her friends tries to get rid of him and ends up seducing him. That would be great, it would be like a custody battle! So now I've provided evidence for my position. Many of my friends love this show because they haven't heard of Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development, many of my friends hate this show because they recently started watching Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development. <br /><br />I have watched very little of "Friends" in my life, but I have watched enough to spot huge flaws that make the show, in my opinion, completely unwatchable. If you've read this far, thank you, and I hope you at least start watching some of the shows I have mentioned.
|
negative
|
'A comedy of biblical proportions!' Those masters of hyperbole, the movie-tag-line-writers, at it again; the sequel to 2003's Bruce Almighty, raises barely a chuckle. The only thing which raises my interest in this movie above total indifference is its dogmatic Christian undertones. Sorry, make that overtones.<br /><br />Steve Carrel, ignoring Jim Carrey's good sense to decline a role reprisal, plays Evan Baxter, the smug news anchor from Bruce Almighty, who has just been elected to congress. With a new life in Virginia and the stress of moving into a house the size of the Acropolis, the pressure of all the change takes its toll on his family. His wife (Lauren Graham), evidently airlifted in from Stepford, and three sons (Jimmy Bennett, Graham Phillips and Johnny Simmons), who do a stilted job of looking sad to a piano accompaniment, pray for the family to become closer, and almost out of guilt, so does Evan.<br /><br />In what must be the greatest shock of all time, God (Morgan Freeman) actually shows up, but does the whole pesky 'working in mysterious ways' thing all over the place by telling Evan to build a Noah-esquire ark in preparation for a great flood instead of just giving him a pool table or and X-box or something. And in true mischievous deity style, he also forces Evan to grow a beard, long hair and wear worn and tatty robes. Now, back in the day I'm sure razors were hard to come by so the beard was somewhat of an inevitability for Noah, but I'm almost certain it had nothing to do with spirituality. Same with the robes; a massive construction job is surely made all the more difficult by such impractical clothing. Couldn't God have conjured up a pair of steel toed boots and a hard hat for the poor guy? Apparently not.<br /><br />To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I find the idea that God is messing with us somewhat unsettling, and so does Evan who fights him every step of the way. And who wouldn't? God essentially gets him fired, drives away his loved ones, makes him a laughing stock and at one point actually threatens him. Of course God turns out to be right, and the rational, hard working family man who was getting on fine by himself is forced to eat a large slice of bittersweet humble pie. It's almost as if to be left alone by God, Evan had to tolerate and humour him. What kind of message is that? <br /><br />Evan Almighty does have a highly commendable environmental slant, with the underlying theme being that the Federal Government is blind to the damage being done to the world around us. It is also the first film ever to offset its carbon emissions and this should surely be considered a landmark achievement by a Hollywood studio. Were it not for the trite, condescending banner of American Christianity flying high above it, Evan Almighty could have been an inoffensive family movie, with a praiseworthy environmental record. But with its confused religious dogma and relentless 'blind faith' message, it ranks as one of the most repugnant movies of all time.
|
negative
|
I enjoyed the feel of the opening few minutes, but 20-minutes in I was liberally applying the fast-forward button. Far too many shots of Stewart (Michael Zelniker) walking from room to room, down hallways, through doors and down the street, and as many shots of him looking pensive and confused. Gave me the impression that the story had originally been meant as a short (20-30 minutes), and then stretched into a feature as a labour of love between director Grieve and star Zelniker (they co-wrote the screenplay).<br /><br />It might have been more entertaining if any of the characters had anything to say that I hadn't heard said in many other films before, or if the ending wasn't - disappointingly - the one I had predicted three minutes into the film (atypical for an independent/smaller studio film). At least its heart was in the right place - it wasn't your standard formulaic Hollywood manipulative nonsense.
|
negative
|
It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.<br /><br />It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.<br /><br />This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.<br /><br />I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance.
|
positive
|
I have to admit that when first saw Madonna performing Holiday on Top of the Pops many years ago I said to my wife "another American one hit wonder getting the whole thing wrong!!" Well she was wearing a fright wig and was appallingly dressed. I have never grown to love her the way my daughter does but I have to eat my words. I do like some of her stuff and sometimes enjoy her filmed concerts. This Confessions tour film is great,even if the music is not(and its not). I was impressed by the staging and concepts. Madonna's own performance was enhanced by the incredible dancers she chose to support her. My daughter was at the London gigs and was crazy about it. The lady (Madge) has proved my initial assessment of her so very wrong!!
|
positive
|
How does a movie become a Biblical epic? Simply by quoting a couple of Scriptures & using some names out of the Bible for your characters? The only thing that was Biblical about this epic was the names of the characters. Oh, I almost forgot the 3 kingdoms, Israel, Egypt & Sheba were also used. Where did King Vidor get the rest of his story from? It surely wasn't from the Bible. It was complete & utter nonsense. If you want to read about Solomon's reign as King in Israel then read 1 Kings 1-11 & 2 Chronicles 1-9. You will even come across Adonijah in 1 Kings 1 & 2. The Queen of Sheba, (who doesn't show up until King Solomon has been king for about 20 years or so, which by the way, is long after Adonijah & Joab had been dead) can be found in 1 Kings 10 & 2 Chronicles 9. One of the first thing Solomon does is make an affinity with Pharoah by taking his daughter.<br /><br />Yes, King Solomon did get involved with the worshipping of false gods & this is why the Kingdom was split after his death, not the Temple being destroyed by lightning. Also, I think Solomon was too busy marrying & providing temples to the false gods of his 700 wives & tending to his 300 concubines to be fighting Egypt, let alone a dead brother.<br /><br />Like I said this movie was utter nonsense. If you aren't gonna use the story in the Bible then call it something else. This could've just as easily been called Romeo & Juliet or Sid & Nancy.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
This film is in a dead tie with the original for worst film ever made. I think this one may be slightly worse, if anything. SPOILER ALERT!!! Here are these survivors on a ship that's been capsized for a long time. Improbable? No - IMPOSSIBLE. The whole premise is so laughable as to not be funny. There are some pretty big names in the film, and even they couldn't save this sorry thing. I find it truly a waste of good celluloid. After seeing this, I also unfortunately decided that it had been a waste of my time. Don't bother with this one. Or the original for that matter! I gave it a 2, mainly because they throw votes of 1 out.
|
negative
|
Really, really bad. How does a film this bad get made? I kept waiting for some redeeming plot point, interesting camera work, or at least some gratuitous nudity but I got nothing. I had just watched Cabin Fever and I thought it was an train wreck (except for the nudity and Pancakes) but it looks like genius compared to this dreck. The best script doctor in the world couldn't have saved this putrid pile of of stinking poo.<br /><br />The only thing going for this "film" is that it ended.<br /><br />I've got a headache just thinking about this movie and trying to write something. Ugh! I'm glad I only paid $5 for it and it will soon end up in a landfill.
|
negative
|
I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.<br /><br />This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.<br /><br />Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.<br /><br />I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.
|
negative
|
An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.<br /><br />My grade: D-<br /><br />DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment
|
negative
|
Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.<br /><br />Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more "artistic" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.<br /><br />You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.<br /><br />3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.
|
negative
|
Delightful Disney film with Angela Lansbury in fine form as a middle age spinster whose interest turns to witchcraft in World War 11 England.<br /><br />Lansbury was about age 51 at the time of the film and she is just ideal for the part. She is Jessica Fletcher again but this time it's for the benefit or children and for mother England during a time of great peril.<br /><br />The film follows the adventures of Miss Price (Lansbury) and David Tomlinson as the professor of witchcraft in trying to obtain certain information on sorcery. Those 3 little darlings sent to live with Price to escape the London bombings are just wonderful in this enchanting film for all of us regardless of age.<br /><br />Too bad that Tessie O'Shea, Roddy McDowall and Sam Jaffe are given so little to do in this endearing film.<br /><br />I really thought of the Ben Stiller film-"Night at the Museum," at the end of the film when the relics come to life to do battle with the Nazi invasion in the small British coastal town.
|
positive
|
One of the most charming and, for me at least, the most powerful elements of Anthony Minghella's enthralling Best Picture-winner "The English Patient" is that, in the mid 90s, when Hollywood was in the initial stage of having lost its nerve for grand new projects, a film was created that brought back tracesvery powerful tracesof the sweeping, wonderful majesty that crafted movies such as "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "The Ten Commandments" (1956). "The English Patient" contains very much of what made those films so powerful. It has that glorious feeling, a stretched running time that hardly seems long at all, and fascinating characters with pasts and stories.<br /><br />"The English Patient", based on a novel by the same name by Michael Ondaatje, is like "The Godfather: Part II" (1974) in the sense of how it's constructed. It's a blending of two stories: the past and the present and it all revolves around the titular character: an English patient in the post years of World War Two. Ralph Fiennes plays the English patient, who has been scarred for life by a plane crash, and being taken care of in an isolated church by a single nurse played marvelously by Juliette Binoche. Apart from bonding with her raspy-voiced, troubled patient, Binoche comes to learn about his past when a stranger (Willem Dafoe) arrives and the two men appear to know each other.<br /><br />That's just one of the two beautifully crafted stories that shape this film. The other one, told in flashback, is the patient's past, before he was scarred and dying in a bed. The story of the present mixed with the patient's past and his love affair that tragically changed his life forever.<br /><br />To be blunt, "The English Patient" is a love story blended with a sweeping epic sensation and it blends magnificently. What I really admired about the love story between Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas was how passionate, how obsessive, how enchanting it was shown on screen. Usually in love stories, such as Minghella's later "Cold Mountain" (2003), the romantic elements seem far more lustful than obsessive to me. Some of the love scenes feature elements that may tend to be associated more with lust than love, but still, because it is so well developed and not rushed and not exploited out of proportion, we can believe that there is a sure, true love between these characters. It reminded me a lot of "Vertigo" (1958) in how well the filmmakers and performers convinced us that these were two actual human beings who truly fell in love with each other.<br /><br />Performances all around were great. I was especially enthralled by the performance by Juliette Binoche, who took home the Oscar for her performance the following year. I also liked Willem Dafoe playing the sort of cynical, questionable character that he's always quintessential at playing. And of course I can't leave out Fiennes and Scott Thomas and their portrayals of two very passionate lovers.<br /><br />Despite my enormous enthusiasm for this epic, I would be dishonest if I were to describe it as a perfect film. There are two flaws that I cannot glance over. Number one, it is a little too long and the reason for this is my second complaint, there are a few unnecessary subplots. I was not enchanted or particularly interested with the second love story between Binoche and a bomb specialist played by Naveen Andrews. My research has led me to assume that this plot element comes from the original book and I'm sure it worked perfectly in there, but in the film, it just seems a little
distracting and the relationship between the two characters didn't fascinate me. I was far more interested by Fiennes character and his relationships with his two leading actresses.<br /><br />Nevertheless, these two flaws are easily forgivable even if they do slow things down a bit. Those put aside, "The English Patient" is an extraordinary achievement of film-making. To me, it was sort of like an insane mix up between "Casablanca" (1942) and "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962), two remarkable and better films, and this effective blend proved to be well worth my time. It is a real shame that Anthony Minghella has left us. For he was a truly gifted filmmaker. This is all the evidence anybody needs.
|
positive
|
After the success of Star Wars, there was a boost in interest in Sci-Fi movies. This was one of those cheap attempts to cash in quickly.<br /><br />A group of survivors from a spaceship land on a planet inhabited by stop-motion dinosaurs, where half of them are systematically killed off (the people not the dinosaurs). Porn-movie level acting. Cheap special effects, even for the time, although it looks like a lot of effort was put into them.<br /><br />Costumes were pure 1970's, as were the hairstyles. Ahh, the 70's. I expected a disco to break out at any minute.<br /><br />Nothing to really recommend in this film.
|
negative
|
I was amazed at the quality of this film, particularly after seeing pictures of the barely adult director - all 140(?) lbs of him! Truly, a boy directing a movie about a boy. I look forward to seeing more Luke Eberl films.<br /><br />I did think this one was a bit too long. There was too much time spent showing Connor being unsuccessful (and unwilling) to make a move on Owen. Caleb didn't try hard enough. Owen, being so young, could have easily become closer to Caleb and later decided it wasn't his preference. And Owen would still have learned the "valuable lesson" about corruption and politics. Instead, he didn't give himself a fair chance to learn about his sexuality. And what about poor Caleb? Owen could have been a good influence.<br /><br />Though the film intends to show Owen as a hero who overcomes perverted corruption, I felt sad for Owen. He was offered the opportunity to have some boy-boy fun with Caleb, who was extraordinarily beautiful. Owen didn't have to go along with the political perversion as offered. But he could have tried to have some fun with Caleb, and still walked away when he wanted. It was clear that Owen was in charge - no one forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. But he could have had more fun, and with a very hot boyfriend, at that.<br /><br />I hope Luke makes more movies where appealing young characters have more fun.
|
positive
|
Incident on and off a Mountain Road is Don Coscarelli's entry in Mick Garris' Masters of Horror series. Coscarelli is famous for being the man behind such cult gems as the Phantasm series and the irresistibly weird Bubba Ho-Tep; but he brings none of the qualities that made those films great to this TV episode. The plot is a run of the mill one that follows the routine idea of an innocent being chased by a madman. This time, it's a young woman driving down a mountain road. After a head on crash, she finds herself being stalked by a white faced maniac. The whole chase sequence is really ridiculous, with the young lady stopping every so often to set traps; only for the maniac to show up seconds later, and this is cut with scenes showing her with her husband - who just happens to have a wealth of information on how escape insane killers; with lines such as "expect the unexpected". The only real highlight for me was the presence of Phantasm's Tall Man, Angus Scrimm. Coscarelli tries his best to implement as much horror imagery as possible; with things such as a rotted corpse of a dead baby - but because it's all so silly on the whole, it's difficult to take this piece seriously. This is the first episode in the series, and the first that I've seen; I really hope they get better.
|
negative
|
In the first 20 minutes, every cliche possible was trotted out by the hack writer and director. There was the NTSB primary investigator with the tortured family life; the politically-tortured NTSB board member played by [I can kill ANY TV] Ted McGinley; the tortured father of a crash victim; and the torturing sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer.<br /><br />Hollywood still has no concept of the fragility of aircraft. The crashed plane was a 737 and it was mostly sitting on the ground like a hippo who decided to take a nap. The first third of the fuselage was intact, the rear half of the plane was intact and the debris field showed no wings or engines. Most of the people should have walked away in light of how many people survived that plane that got shredded in Iowa after it lost its hydraulics. Most of this TV plane wasn't even burned.<br /><br />It reminded me of the scene in "Air Force One" where the 747 hits the water and then skips along like it's made of inch-thick steel.<br /><br />The show was so bad it was impossible to watch. Even my wife, who is more accepting than I, was commenting on technical flaws. What had me stunned was how this POS could ever get made. Are the producers of these things so used to clichés that they can't even recognize them? Somebody read this script and said: Yes, I want to spend a million bucks making this real. I wish I was the guy's next appointment. I have title to a wonderful bridge in New York that I'd sell cheap.
|
negative
|
Well, if you are one of those Katana's film-nuts (just like me) you sure will appreciate this metaphysical Katana swinging blood spitting samurai action flick.<br /><br />Starring Tadanobu Asano (Vital, Barren Illusion) & Ryu Daisuke (Kagemusha). This samurai war between Heiki's clan versus Genji's clan touch the zenith in the final showdown at Gojo bridge. The body-count is countless.<br /><br />Demons, magic swords, Shinto priests versus Buddhist monks and the beautiful visions provided by maestro Sogo Ishii will do the rest.<br /><br />A good Japanese flick for a rainy summer night.
|
positive
|
If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!
|
negative
|
Student Seduction finds Saved By The Bell Alumni Elizabeth Berkley on the other side of the desk and attracting the attention of young and hunky Corey Sevier. Speaking for myself I can truthfully say that no teachers save one ever did anything for me hormonally back when I was a student. That was a Ms. Diaz who was a music teacher in Junior High School. Even as a young gay kid, I could see what she was doing to the rest of the class. She was the only teacher I had who in any way could have been played by Elizabeth Berkley.<br /><br />Corey being the hotty he is, is also used to having his own way with women whether they agree or not. The fact that he comes from rich parents reinforces that belief. He's flunking chemistry which is what Berkley teaches and to keep his GPA up she agrees to tutor, but believe no more. <br /><br />So when he attempts a rape and gets no for an answer it's damaging to his ego. When Berkley goes out of channels and reports the crime to the police, the cops who are keeping in mind the cases of Pamela Smart and Mary Kay LeTourneau just don't believe here. Sevier's parents have the wherewithal to get a good publicity spin on this for their boy.<br /><br />Student Seduction which is a misnomer of a title if there ever was one is trash all the way. After the beating that Berkley took for Showgirls this TV film was not an upward career move.
|
negative
|
Some sciencey people go down in a cave for some reason and there's some sort of creature that's killing them.<br /><br />I usually give a more detailed plot, but I wasn't paying too much attention to this. Overall, it was dull and the only time you'll be really paying attention is during the action scenes, which the director did wonderful on.<br /><br />The acting is alright, but the characters are so dull and forgettable they blend in your mind. You'll forget who lived and who died for 2 reasons: 1. The kills are boring 2. The characters are boring.<br /><br />The ending might have shocked me more if I knew who was who.<br /><br />So you're looking for a creatures-in-cave movie? Check out The Descent instead.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.