review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Late one night on a desolate road, in an empty saloon Martin Sheen spins a yarn for Robert Carradine of Hopalong Cassidy and friends tracking a group of murderous cattle rustlers, who've killed a few men and kidnapped Cassidy's girl.<br /><br />Writer/director Christopher Coppola May have incurred the wrath of William Boyd purists by daring to make a modern low budget film featuring their beloved Hoppy, but I'm glad he did it! No character should be so tied to an an actor that no one else ever be allowed to play him or her again!<br /><br />I thought it was good fun and an interesting updating of the classic programmers of the thirties and forties. Though guilty of some bad acting, this is earnest enough and unpretentious, making it hard for me to dislike.<br /><br />The whole production is a bit odd though, but I really enjoyed the scenes between Sheen and Carridine. The fact that we're watching a story within a story makes the oddness and exaggerations more palatable.
|
positive
|
Two years before he wrote and directed "Arthur", Steve Gordon had a minor hit with his screenplay for this crackpot comedic vehicle for Henry Winkler, then TV's "The Fonz". A 1950s college thespian (and all-around jerk) woos a co-ed and gets married without any employment prospects on the horizon; to make ends meet, he turns to the flamboyant world of wrestling, eventually becoming a "Gorgeous George"-like celebrity. Turning likable Winkler into an obnoxious goof-off probably sounded like an interesting idea at the time (and a sure way to separate him from his television alter-ego), but the jokes and situations are often wrong-headed and mean, staged rather sloppily by director Carl Reiner. Particularly crude is a wincing bit involving Hervé Villechaize (of "Fantasy Island") putting the moves on Polly Holliday (Flo from "Alice"). As Henry's beloved, Kim Darby looks a little out of her element--particularly when surrounded by all these TV hams--rendering the romance aspect of the script inconsequential. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
The movie has started, the wheels spin, your car has entered a race against the Fox.... You're behind you can't get in front, you figure, "if i go out, i'm taking you with me..." You smash into the cars parked on the side of the road, you turn to hit Fox but your aim is bad.... Bang, you've gone up the back of a VW, and smash you've landed in a reservoir. Your car lights on fire. You could get out if you wanted, but the shame of losing has taken you... BANG! Your car blows up, everyone looks on in despair, some crying... The sound of a siren tells you the cops are coming. Everyone gets in their cars and bolts, leaving you to burn. The charred remains of the cars frame sits there, haunting the on lookers... You're dead.<br /><br />This is one of the scenes; actually its the first scene in the movie. There are many more like it. As you enter the cockpit of the Fox in his pimped out V8 ford, Terry Serio in his crazy GTHO, and many others in this blast from the past.... JOHN CLARKS masterpiece, "RUNNING ON EMPTY" "-He'll win at any cost-"
|
positive
|
I happened to watch this movie by chance some days ago while flipping channels. My expectations were not very high but it was an interesting movie.In 'A Guy Thing', Jason Lee plays Paul, a straight-laced, Seattle-based fellow who is about to marry his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) and settle down to an unchallenging life of middle-class domesticity. We first meet Paul at his bachelor party, where he professes no desire to engage in any of the normal bachelor party type activities his (surprisingly few) buddies encourage, in case he's a bit naughty and gets into hot bother with his soon to be trouble and strife. Of course, the next thing Paul knows, it's the morning after the night before, he's in bed with a naked hula dancer, and his mother-in-law phones to inform him that Karen is on her way over. Oh, and the hula dancer is Karen's cousin Becky (Julia Stiles).<br /><br />From this small acorn of potential trouble grows a mighty oak of frenetic misfortune, as Paul scrabbles from misadventure to misadventure, trying to cover up what he's done whilst keeping up the appearance of being a dutiful, family-oriented good guy, who's super-excited about his forthcoming nuptials. His efforts to ensure Karen remains none the wiser about any potential wrong-doing on his part ironically forces Paul closer and closer to the fun-loving Becky, forcing him to question whether he really wants the life that seems to have been mapped out for him. The movie contains the right mix of comedy and romance. Definitely worth a watch.
|
positive
|
'Shock Corridor (1963)' was my first film from Samuel Fuller, and there I was impressed with the director's astute blending of B-movie and big-budget aesthetics, even if the story itself was pure schlock. 'Pickup on South Street (1953)' was released a decade earlier in Fuller's career, obviously produced on a larger budget from a big-name studio, Twentieth Century-Fox. Nevertheless, the visuals are still notable in that there's a somewhat raw, naturalistic element to the photography, not unlike Dassin's 'The Night and the City (1950)' and Kazan's 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' {the latter was also shot by cinematographer Joe McDonald}. In some scenes, Fuller shoves the camera so close to his actors' faces that they're out of focus, bluntly registering the intimate thoughts, emotions and brief inflections that are communicated through that most revealing of facial features, the eye. Though (unexpectedly) prone to melodrama, and with just a hint of anti-Communist propaganda, 'Pickup on South Street' is a strong film noir that succeeds most outstandingly in its evocation of setting the underground of New York City.<br /><br />When just-out-of-prison pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) snags the purse of a woman on the subway (Jean Peters), he pockets more than he'd originally bargained for. The woman, Candy, and her cowardly ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley) had been smuggling top-secret information to the Communists, and McKoy has unexpectedly retrieved an important roll of micro-film. Will he turn in the MacGuffin to the proper authorities, or sell it to the highest bidder? If 'Pickup on South Street' has a flaw, it's that the story seems designed solely to bolster an anti-Communist agenda, reeking of propaganda like nothing since WWII {Dwight Taylor, who supplied the story, also notably wrote 'The Thin Man Goes Home (1944),' the only propagandistic movie of the series}. For no apparent reason, every identifiable character even the smugly self-serving Skip McCoy eventually becomes a self-sacrificing patriot, the transformation predictable from the outset. In traditional film noir, the unapologetic criminal always gets his comeuppance, the rational punishment for his sins, but apparently not when they've served their country; patriotism wipes the slate clean.<br /><br />Richard Widmark, an actor who I'm really beginning to like, plays the haughty pickpocket with composure, though always with that hint of ill-ease that suggests he's biting off more than he can chew. The opening scene on the train is the film's finest, as McCoy breathlessly and silently fishes around in his victim's hand bag, recalling Bresson's 'Pickpocket (1959).' Thelma Ritter is terrific as a tired street-woman who'll peddle information to anybody willing to pay for it (though, of course, she draws the line at Commies). Jean Peters is well-cast as the trashy dame passing information to the other side, playing the role almost completely devoid of glamour; Fuller reportedly cast the actress on the observation that she had the slightly bow-legged strut of a prostitute. Nevertheless, Peters must suffer a contrived love affair with Widmark that really brings down the film's attempts at realism. Fascinatingly, upon its release, 'Pickup on South Street' was promptly condemned as Communist propaganda by the FBI, and the Communist Party condemned it for being the exact opposite. Go figure.
|
positive
|
I have never seen the 1973, older highly rated version. I am a Nicholas Cage fan (by the way, fine acting as usual). This movie probably took all of five minutes to hammer out the whole plot (I can see it being done on a cocktail napkin at a dinner party), if you can't figure out the ending of this drool in the first thirty minutes you will probably find this movie entertaining. This is, of late, the terrible rut that Hollywood seems to have dug for itself with the horror/mystery/thriller genre, unable to give the audience enough credit and write a fresh, smart, and tantalizing screenplay, they dish out some creepy music and throw in a couple of things to make you jump a little and then send the final print off to your local theater. At least, it didn't have the jiggling hand-held camera syndrome.
|
negative
|
the worst movie i have ever seen i didn't even watch it all i just fast forwarded it to Burt's bits and then the end!!! he is the only reason to watch this!! i have to admit to owning a copy as i am a HUGE Burt fan (stop laughing) and needed it for my collection i wouldn't care when this movie came out i had a nightmare renting ti as my local store only had 2 copies and fans of all the various stars always beat me there, imagine my disappointment when i sat down and watched this movie!! THERE ARE JUST NO REDEEMING QUALITIES ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! Absolutely NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO LIKE ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! this movie became a running joke between myself and a mate Burt's worst!! Rob Lowe's worst WORST HOUR AND A HALF OF MY LIFE
|
negative
|
Much like Orson Welles thirty years earlier,Mike Sarne was given "the biggest train set in the world"to play with,but unfortunately lacked the ability to do anything more than watch his train set become a train wreck that is still spoken of with shock and a strange sort of awe. Despite post - modern interpretations purporting somehow to see it as a gay or even feminist tract,the fact of the matter is that it was a major disaster in 1970 and remains one today.How anyone given the resources at Mr Sarne's disposal could have screwed up so royally remains a closely - guarded secret.Only Michael Cimino ever came close with the political and artistic Armageddon that constitutes "Heaven's Gate".Both films appeared to be ego trips for their respective directors but at least Mr Cimino had made one of the great movies of the 1970s before squandering the studio's largesse,whereas Mr Sarne had only the rather fey "Joanna" in his locker. Furthermore,"Heaven's Gate" could boast some memorable and well - handled set - pieces where,tragically,"Myra Breckinridge"s cupboard was bare. Simply put,it is overwhelmingly the worst example of biting the hand that feeds in the history of Hollywood.
|
negative
|
If you want to watch a film that is oddly shot, oddly lit, weird stories of these men (and one woman) who enjoy beating the crap out of each other, if you want to enjoy a story that goes nowhere of these two guys, one a boxer and the other a gay man, then you should watch this film.<br /><br />After watching this film, I almost felt as badly bruised up and cut up, like the director (of the film) himself beat the hell out of me.<br /><br />This is a movie where one is not meant to watch for plot or for great acting, this is a film to gawk at in horror and wonder. A lot like watching an airplane crash or a train wreck.<br /><br />If you want to watch a great movie, a good movie, a "B" movie, or even a mediocre movie, this movie is not it.<br /><br />A warning to all who watch this film, please don't eat beforehand. You might want to puke by the end of the film.
|
negative
|
This movie (with the alternate title "Martial Law 3" for some reason) introduced me to Jeff Wincott for the first time. And it was a great introduction. Although I had never heard of him before, he seemed to be an excellent fighter. The action scenes in this movie are GREAT! There are lots of them too, by the way. The recruit fight at the Peacekeepers HQ is especially good. There's just something about one single guy beating the crap out of a bunch of people that's really fun. And for the rest of the cast: Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for the villain. Roles like this fits her (but others don't). Matthias Hues also did a good job, as always. He's a great fighter and macho-like character, and was a good rival for Wincott in this movie.
|
positive
|
While it may not be his most laugh-packed film, MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE stands as one of Charley Chase's most satisfying farce comedies, twenty minutes of clever sight gags, nicely choreographed physical comedy, and amusing quips (rendered via title card, of course) all based on a wacky and wildly implausible premise. We're told up top that this is "a story of homely people-- a wife with a face that would stop a clock --and her husband with a face that would start it again." Soon we meet buck-toothed Charley Moose and his wife Vivien, who has an enormous nose. But there's no point in discussing plausibility when our plot hinges on such a patently unbelievable series of interconnected coincidences: i.e., first, that Charley would have his overbite corrected the very day his wife would have her nose fixed, second, that each spouse would keep their respective cosmetic surgeries secret from the other, and third, that when bumping into each other in public afterward, Charley and Vivien wouldn't recognize each other. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? Multiple stretches is more like it. Clearly, we're in the world of farce here and just have to roll with the silly plot twists, so as long as you can relax and forget about plausibility you're likely to enjoy this short.<br /><br />MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE gets off to a leisurely start as the various complications of the story are established, but things pick up once Charley and Vivien have "met" and made a date to attend a party together at the home of Charley's dentist. They each rush home excitedly, enter separately and are at first unaware of each other's presence. (Mr. & Mrs. Moose appear to be quite wealthy, incidentally, as they live in a mansion the size of a luxury hotel.) There follows a beautifully timed sequence somewhat reminiscent of Buster Keaton's THE NAVIGATOR in which husband and wife dash about the house without ever quite meeting up face-to-face. And once they arrive at the party the comedy really kicks into high gear as Charley is forced to dance with gawky wallflower Gale Henry. Henry, an estimable player in her own right who starred in many short comedies dating back to 1914, is hilarious as the dance partner who brings great vigor but little grace to her dancing. There's also an elegant cinematic touch during this sequence, when the camera pans down to show us only the shoes of Charley, Gale, Vivien and Vivien's dance partner, yet we're able to follow precisely what's happening between the principles by watching their feet.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Charley and Vivien the party they're attending is raided, and from there on the complications multiply when they manage to escape the police dragnet and return home. When Charley realizes that his newly-prettified wife was attempting to step out with another man he resolves to each her a lesson . . . while conveniently forgetting, of course, that he was attempting to do the very same thing. The last few minutes of this film offer some of Chase's funniest physical comedy, capped with a good sight gag for the punchline. MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE leaves the viewer with a warm glow, and surely ranks with the most amusing comedies produced by the prolific, sadly underrated Charley Chase.
|
positive
|
I was hoping that Pulp would be a interesting movie, but was profoundly disappointed.<br /><br />Pulp has very little storyline, and what there is never holds your interest. It was a real struggle to keep watching it. When its over you say to you self "huh? that's it?!?". This is one where you think after watching it - why did they ever bother?<br /><br />Its too bad since Michael Caine is a good actor. I was also hoping to see the great Lizabeth Scott in this, but she only appears on screen for a total of perhaps one minute. Scott is one of the all time great film noir femme fatale girls and this was her last film.<br /><br />Oh well...
|
negative
|
I first heard of Begotten when a girlfriend of mine picked it up in a "cult classics" section of my local video retailer. She knew I liked obscure artsy movies so I rented it and brought it home. It sat on my TV for a couple of days and then I put it in the VCR just before going to bed. I thought that maybe I'll see what it's like first then devote more time to it the next day. What followed was that it actually woke me up. I sat through the entire film and loved it. After I went through the closing credits I watched it again. Only after you see the closing credits do you get an idea of who is who. After you know that you can watch it again with renewed appreciation. Don't listen to the people that tear this movie apart. It's not for everyone. If you're someone that doesn't like reading subtitles than this movie isn't for you (not that there are subtitles, there's no dialog at all). If you're someone that actually owns Rush Hour 2 then this movie isn't for you.<br /><br />This movie is truly original and inspiring. It does what other movies have never done. It looks like nothing else and is bolder than just about everything out there - from 1989 to the current date. You can tell that everyone involved in the making of this movie truly love the art of what they do and understand what can be captured in cinema form.<br /><br />If you're looking to be "entertained" then the movie isn't for you. However, it is pure escapism in some extreme way and in film form. It's like someone attached wires to my head and taped one of my worst nightmares. But this nightmare makes sense if you really sit and watch the images, dissect the action of the actors, and don't sit there noodling your guitar passively but watch and not blink.<br /><br />People compare it to Eraserhead but Begotten is so much more. I'm not joking when I say it is my favorite movie. It's an important film, visually stimulating, mechanically inspiring, and hypnotic. One review I read about it is very true though, "no one will get through Begotten without being marked."
|
positive
|
Flatliners left quite a noticeable impression in my head. The story is quick paced and leaves you constantly absorbed and at many times quite tense. Its about five remarkable student doctors (notably Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon) among whom, one of them has devised the mechanism of remaining dead (or getting flat-lined)for a few seconds and then coming back to life.<br /><br />The procedure is quite 'complex' involving a plethora of medical knick-knacks - injections, electric blankets, oxygen masks and a variety of esoteric medical terms. I strongly suspect doctors coined all these words so that they never need to get layed off. But funnily they follow the KISS (Original version for engineers: Keep It Simple, stupid) (Extended version for doctors: Keep it Stupid, Simple) philosophy as well. At the risk of getting euthanized by some revenge-taking doctor reader, let me continue.<br /><br />So the first guy who gets flat-lined hopes to find the answers to life which philosophy and religion cannot convincingly answer. He hopes to get it answered (and become famous) through applied science. He flat-lines for around two minutes and then comes back into our world left quite shaken. During death, he has a vision of an incident, when he was young, which left the strongest impression on his life. He killed another boy when he was kid, by accident, and he still feels responsible for it.<br /><br />With the success of the first flat-liner, the others follow suit each of them extending their flat-line time further and further to test the limits of how long one can remain dead and experience life after death.<br /><br />Meanwhile monsters from the past and future, keep coming back to haunt them after their flat-line experience. The first flat-liner is haunted by a young kid who tortures him when he is alone. The second who camera-ed all the women he took to bed, sees television sets all over playing his videos. The third is haunted by a young girl who he teased in school. The fourth is haunted by her suicide-dead father, for whom she feels responsible.<br /><br />All of them are driven insane by these haunting and obsessions and think that the past seems to want to take revenge on them. The main focus on getting flat-lined is that your entire life passes through your eyes, at the moment of 'dying', whatever stage that is, and you are left mostly with the strongest impressions of life in your mind. Since they didn't die these strong impressions have somehow resurfaced and have become the focus of their lives.<br /><br />All of them somehow come to terms with (and extinguish) their past demons. All of them except the first one who realizes the only way he can move on through life is getting flat-lined AGAIN. During this flat-line session, he sees himself getting flat-lined the first time and also sees the boy he killed, trying to kill him this time round. The boy kills him this time for a few minutes and in doing so has sought revenge. For a few minutes in the movie one is left wondering if he gets to come back. Thankfully (because most of us like happy endings) the boy absolves him of his past and he comes back to life again.
|
positive
|
A shaky hand-held camera was used, presumably to give the film a documentary look, but the effect was so exaggerated that I started to get motion-sickness just from watching it. It looked like someone with cerebral palsy was holding the camera (no offense meant to CP sufferers, but I don't think you would expect to get much work as a cinematographer!) The camera work was so nauseating, and so distracting, that my wife and I considered it unwatchable and gave up on it after 10 minutes of torture. I checked back a while later (it was showing on TV), and it hadn't gotten any better. I suggest giving this one a miss unless you need to get rid of any bad sushi you may have eaten!
|
negative
|
I first saw this movie when it was released in the U.S. in 1984. I have seen it many, many times since. What strikes me about the film is the incorporation of the art of the rehearsal into the lives of the characters and visa versa. Throughout the movie the two intertwine and at times one is never too sure if one is watching the lives of the characters or a scene from a rehearsal. This continues up to the climax of the film. All these years later my friends and I still love to debate whether or not "Carmen" is really stabbed at the end. From the reactions of the other characters, to the stylized murder, it is open to debate. The passion of the dance, the quality of the acting, the love of art, and the brilliance of the performances all combine to create a superb movie that, once again, blends and twists the line between life and art.
|
positive
|
Along with virtually every Republic Picture ever made, "Murder in the Music Hall" seems to have undeservably faded into oblivion. A shame, because this lusciously produced, expertly directed and written, and crafty mystery-suspense item spins an enticing whodunnit thriller against the setting of Radio City Music Hall. A murder in one of the building's posh penthouse apartments casts suspicion on the luscious Rockettes--among them, Vera Ralston (who besides giving an appealing performance of subtlety and vulnerablity, provides a few dazzling ice-skating production numbers), Helen Walker, Ann Rutherford, Julie Bishop, and several other delectable B-movie starlets of the '40s. Tall, blond and handsome William Marshall (usually cast in musicals) hunts down the killer as the complex and increasingly creepy plot unfolds, against the swankiest settings you'll ever see in a film noir. The ending is as much of a surprise as is this sadly forgotten, classy murder mystery. Well-worth restoring and reviving on cable-TV, VHS or DVD. Republic sank a hefty budget in this Grade-A production, and "Murder in the Music Hall" is as slick, unnerving, and immensely enjoyable as any of the major studios' films of its era. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Pay attention to the rhapsodic song composed by the victim just before his death. Then, amidst the showgirls' incessant chattering in their dressing rooms, try to pinpoint the one humming that fatal melody. You'll discover who the killer is just as William Marshall does. Grand fun, the kind of movie they truly don't make anymore, and what a loss--both to movie-goers and actors alike.
|
positive
|
I gave this movie a rating of 1 because it is by far, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This movie was made in 2003 and I've seen movies made in the 60's with better special effects. I wish I could go into detail, but words can't describe how crappy this movie was. I could have done better with a home video camera and $20! I pray that Chuck Norris never makes a movie again. Now If you think I'm downing this movie because it has a Christian theme, you're wrong. I like the fact that IL' Chuck decided to make a movie that at least attempted to make God look good, but why would he make poor viewers like me suffer through such a crappy movie? This whole film can be summed up in 3 words: RE DAMN DICULOUS.
|
negative
|
i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!<br /><br />come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...<br /><br />by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!<br /><br />10/10*
|
positive
|
A new wrestling show paves way for the most feared wrestler ever imaginable, the giant Zeus. Network President Brell does everything in his power to draw WWF champion Rip into the squared circle to face off against Zeus for the championship of the 'Battle of the Tough Guys'. But Zeus is unlike any competitor Rip has ever faced.<br /><br />Normally I would give Hogan some leeway as a wrestler crossing over into a movie role, however this film didn't ask the Hulkster to make very much of a stretch, it simply asked Hogan to play himself, which he failed at miserably. 'Tiny' Lister made a good effort as the mighty Zeus, but even his work left the film lacking something, namely acting!<br /><br />Watch this movie, if you so desire, with a grain of salt and a sense of humor, otherwise you will probably have to turn it off a little over ten minutes in.
|
negative
|
I saw this film first on my way home from Paris to Newark aboard Air France in August 1996. The film itself I believe is quite a masterpiece. It's the kind of film that people should be making. I still think Daniel Auteuil is one of the sexiest actors around. In this French film, he plays a divorced father and businessman who has lost his zest for life until he across a Down Syndrome man who lives in an institution with other Down Syndrome patients. The actors including the actor who actually has Down Syndrome create a believable friendship and relationship between these two unlikely men. Daniel's life and ours changes forever with the Down Syndrome man. He realizes that life is not just work and not play but for the living and loving and that's what life should be all about. The ending is kind of silly though but I still think it's one of my favorite movies. It's enough to bring a tear to your eye.
|
positive
|
So this guy goes into a psychiatrist's office for his first appointment. After the paperwork is done, the psychiatrist says "I'm going to show you ink blots. Tell me what you see in them." "Well, says the patient," looking at the first one, "I see a man and a woman having sex." On seeing the second one, he says "I see two women having sex." On seeing the third, he says "I see two men having sex." On seeing the next one, he says "I see two men and two women having sex." The psychiatrist puts down the the inkblots. "So," he says, "We'll start by discussing your monomania." "MY monomania?" says the guy. "And you with all these dirty pictures!" That's how this movie strikes me.
|
negative
|
Without a doubt, the WORST movie I have ever seen in my life. There was nothing entertaining about this film. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but it actually made me cry at the thought of losing the $4.75 admission price.
|
negative
|
How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.<br /><br />All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.<br /><br />How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.<br /><br />1/10
|
negative
|
"Midnight Clear" has a great premise. A group of over-educated, overly bright GI's are sent out by incompetent leaders on a vague mission to patrol around an isolated farm house on the eve of the Battle of the Bulge. The GI's encounter a group of battle-weary German regulars, and it becomes clear that they don't want to fight anymore.<br /><br />Therein lies the problem. It's really pretty simple. If the Germans want to surrender, they do so and that's the end of the movie. If the Germans want to fight, they do so and that's also the end of the movie. So instead of doing either the GI's and Germans play games with each other, even throwing snowballs at one point. Interesting for one or two scenes, but it soon becomes very annoying. After all, these are GERMANS. The enemy. Nothing in this film makes me think they should not be either taken prisoner or shot. The film does noting to make them more human. In fact, much of what the German characters did made ME want to shoot them, including one scene where the German officer refuses to deal with a Jew or to surrender to a mere enlisted man! Why should I care about such characters? Just shoot them and let's move on to the Battle of the Bulge. It's much more interesting, anyway.<br /><br />One good scene: The GI's are returning from a recon of the German position, where they had the Germans in their sights but did not fire. While walking across a clearing, they realize a group of Germans have their Mausers leveled at them. The Germans are about 100 yards away. The GIs then do something I've NEVER seen any GI's do in any Sillywood movie. They throw down their rifles and throw up their hands! Unusual as this may be in films, it is an entirely sensible reaction to having a rifle aimed at you from that distance. Though it seems far, in reality it's point-blank range for those rifles. I'll lay odds that someone working on this film was a cruffler!
|
negative
|
Being a huge street fighter fan and thoroughly enjoying the previous film, Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie, I was really looking forward to this one!<br /><br />However, it seemed that the film had no real sense of direction or purpose. Most of the characters I could not associate with and it just lacked the intense action that made the other mentioned street fighter film so superior.<br /><br />There are some good points however, the Animation is superb!!!
|
negative
|
I've read all the complimentary posts on this muddled semi-noir and am puzzled at the high regard for what seems, in the cruel light of 2007, a very sloppy late-RKO assembly-line product. All that endless documentary footage of fish, waves, fish, waves has little to do with the central conflict and just pads the running time. The editing is downright careless: Scenes just end, and are followed by other scenes that have little to do with what preceded them. The dialog bears the stilted traces of the Odets origins: high-flown metaphors that never could have come from the limited imaginations of these workaday people. But what's really surprising is how horribly overacted the triangle is, on all sides. I love Stanwyck, but she snarls and contorts and lashes out wildly -- an undisciplined performance several notches below her standard. Douglas, overplaying at being lovable, then goes onto a would-be murderous rampage and is similarly hammy, as is Ryan, snarling and shouting most unnaturally. The less interesting second couple at least provides recognizable human behavior: Keith Andes, whose character is kind of a Neanderthal by today's standards, nevertheless is smooth and persuasive as Stanwyck's (much younger, one presumes) brother, and Marilyn Monroe, as his girlfriend, is natural and unaffected. On Monterey's windswept coast (and all that Monterey footage, while largely irrelevant, is interesting as a document of what the town looked like), amid all the overheated hysteria, these two are islands of sanity. A final point, and a spoiler: Perhaps the Breen Office mandated it, but does anybody believe the happy ending for a second? Stanwyck may temporarily have regressed into being an obedient wifey, but I give the marriage a month.
|
negative
|
As powerful as the true story of Phoolan is, this book this film is based on came out before she herself was released from Prison and had the chance to tell it. <br /><br />It is allegedly based on her diaries but she is illiterate. How does that work? <br /><br />That said, some areas of he film are accurate and the acting isn't bad, with some sensitivity being shown. <br /><br />Really though this story needs to be old in a TV series. Far to much happens to cram into a couple of hours. <br /><br />Read her autobiography. Highly recommended. It is a fantastic story.
|
negative
|
I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).<br /><br />If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.<br /><br />I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.<br /><br />It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.<br /><br />Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.
|
negative
|
At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter.
|
negative
|
Skip all the subjective "this is a great film" reviews and read the IMDB trailer or the back the KINO videobox (which includes both versions of this flick) which I'll paraphrase: "To the tune of sci-fi score by George Antheil, the camera goes on a sleepwalk through B-Movie hell, all photographed by Will Thompson (who did 'Plan 9 from outer space' & 'Maniac')." You don't know whether to laugh AT the film or WITH it. So if you like self-produced B or C-grade noir-wannabe actors and effects with pretensions of surrealism, this could be for you! Otherwise, get a copy of "Screamplay", a modern low-budget expressionist masterpiece.
|
negative
|
Everyone has a first love, and though it is hard to define that feeling when you're younger, it is there, aching inside you. That is what Malaysian filmmaker Yasmin Ahmad aims to prove in her fourth feature, a movie where that most complex of emotions is recounted in a deceptively simple, straightforward fashion.<br /><br />Such an approach is especially convenient in this case, as the love story at the film's core involves two twelve-year olds, and would therefore make any attempts at "deeper" analysis seem contrived and pretentious. That they don't is also testament to the astounding performances given by the leading non-actors, Sharifah Aryana and Mohd Syafie Naswip. The former plays Orked (already seen as an adult character in Ahmad's previous picture, Gubra), a lively, almost rebellious girl who, perhaps influenced by her "British" upbringing (her mother studied in England), despises playing with dolls, preferring to play violent sports with the boys. Then one day she meets Mukhsin (Naswip), who has come to spend the holidays at his aunt's house, and all of a sudden she changes her habits: goodbye fistfights, hello bike-riding and tree-climbing. But what does this mean? Are they just friends, or is something more implied, something neither of them is yet ready to understand, let alone accept?<br /><br />Given the young age of the protagonists, answering those questions borders on impossible, and so, like in several "smaller" films (Lost in Translation comes to mind), there is no real closure, a choice that leaves a bittersweet, but ultimately satisfying aftertaste: the naturalistic, unfiltered acting (especially Aryana's) gets to the heart almost immediately, and a strong supporting cast (Orked's family most of all) helps keeping the minimalistic narrative fun and seducing. The down-to-earth approach isn't always that effective (the hilarious subplot regarding an adulterous neighbor is dropped way too early), and it is hard to justify the bizarre Pulp Fiction reference at the start of the feature, but the emotional strength of the teenage romance is enough to make this an interesting piece of independent Asian cinema.
|
positive
|
This film opened to poor showings in the first few weeks. Then Meena Kumari died and it just brought the crowds rolling in. Songs on All India Radio, especially Inhi LogoN ne were played so often that I was sick of them at the time, despite recognising their beauty! <br /><br />Yes, it did take all those years to make. This was because the marriage was a very unhappy one and Kamal Amrohi also had difficulty finding the money to make the film; looking at the sumptous sets and costumes, not surprising!! Not only does Meena Kumari age and fall ill but listen carefully to Lata's voice. Inhi logoN ne has her 50's younger voice while songs that were re-recorded like Chalo dildar chalo show clear development. I only wish someone would find the Ghulam Mohammad songs that weren't included in the film, because of changing fashions that called for fewer though slightly songs and publish them. Lata in a recent interview (2007) rated Ghulam Mohammad as one of the best composers she had ever worked with, apart from Madan Mohan (a great personal friend). Notice also that you hardly see the actors at all in the Chalo dildar songs, very unusual. There is only a brief shot of Raj Kumar from the middle distance and you only see the back of the supposed Meena Kumari. Kamal Amrohi made a virtue out of necessity and focused on the stars and moon. Any other film, this song would have had close-ups of both of them.<br /><br />As for this being the finest film ever, I would beg to differ. It means you have missed a lot of Indian cinema, in no particular order, films like Barsaat (old), Devdas (older versions), Bandini, Do Bigha Zameen, Garam Hava, Dastak, Guddi, Aan, Pyasa, Kagaz ke Phool, Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam, Kabuliwallah, Abhimaan, Guide, Sujatha, Bombay ka Babu, Daag, Parineeta (old), Umrao Jaan, etc. etc. And if you valued music more than story the list would simply grow with beautiful scores from Barsat Ki Raat to Naya Daur, Teesri Manzil, Mahal, Aag, Jugnu, Anand, Mera Naam Joker: the list is really endless!<br /><br />So enjoy Pakeezah but don't miss out on any of the above...
|
positive
|
This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time, Rowan Atkinson is simply a genius!, and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review!. I can't begin to tell you how much i love Mr. Bean he's the man, and what amazes me, is how he gets out of these incredibly difficult situations, and he is always so creative,plus Robyn Driscoll also deserves accolades!, he is also a genius!. My favorite bit that he has done is the Amazing Adventures of Mr. Bean and while all the rest of them are amazing, this remains my true favorite, plus i wish the show didn't stop so soon!. Each episode is brilliantly written, and they were all masterfully directed, plus Each episode is a classic in my eyes!. This show is incredibly popular, and i can definitely see why, as it's quite possibly the funniest show ever. The character actors all played there roles really well, especially Robyn Driscoll and Matilda Ziegler (as Irma). This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time Rowan Atkinso is simply put a genius and an incredibly talented comedian (possibly the best!), and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review f you haven't seen this show , drop what your doing right now and go check it out, you will not regret it trust me it's one of the best T.V shows ever!,and i will continue to watch the show over and over again, i never tire of it!, Mr. Bean Rules!. ***** out of 5
|
positive
|
A couple of days ago I saw the awesome "House of Sand and Fog" and I was impressed with the amazing performance of Ben Kingsley in the lead role. I decided to see "Ray", trying to understand how and why Ben Kingsley did not win the Oscar of Best Lead Actor. After watching Jamie Foxx in the role of Ray Charles, I agree with the Academy: he really deserved to be awarded. I like Ray Charles, I was not his fan, but it is amazing the resemblance of Jamie Foxx with him. The film is completely supported by Jamie Foxx, who participates of most of the shootings, and his movements on stage looks like as if he was a reincarnation of Ray Charles. With regard to the story, I saw the extended version on DVD, too long but also very pleasant, with many beautiful songs and scenes showing mainly a junkie Ray Charles. My greatest surprise was to find that Ray Charles was heroine addicted, and how he treated his own family. The presentation of his childhood through fragmented flashbacks was the boring part of the movie. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ray"
|
positive
|
I enjoyed the film and would suggest to anyone just out for a good time. Don't take the film all too seriously because remember it's Disney and it's rated G. It's good clean fun although some parts may be recognised by adults but children would never notice, particularly the "triangle" between Cruella, Le Pelt, and Cruella's faithful valet Alonso. Glenn Close is fantastic and really has made Cruella her own and is believably terrifying even when she is "cured" of her fur loving ways, she can instill fear in the audience with her shrills that literally shake the theater. (I even found myself jumping in my seat when she catches you by surprise with her 'bipolarity' as the dog loving Ella.) All in all I will go see it again in theaters, I found myself enjoying it so much.
|
positive
|
This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.
|
negative
|
The first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.<br /><br />When I realized this was supposed to be an "epic" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.<br /><br />Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear "Che" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of "Lawrence" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.<br /><br />Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.<br /><br />He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.<br /><br />Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.<br /><br />Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful Life.
|
negative
|
Wow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the "Zombie Indians" arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian. <br /><br />This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.
|
negative
|
This is one of t.v.'s greatest mini-series! It comes to life almost as well as the book did. Also the cast was outstanding to play the roles. I'd recommend this movie series for anyone who likes the Civil War or the history leading up to it.
|
positive
|
I remember seeing the trailer for this movie when it was first released and it looked pretty cool. I never got the chance to see it though. When I went to Blockbuster to rent some videos, I figured I should watch it. After all I did love "Silence of the Lambs" and "Se7en", and if you enjoyed those movies, you might get a kick out of "The Cell". The whole story concept is very interesting. Going physically into the mind of a killer, I can't imagine the world they live in. The acting is actually pretty decent. Jennifer Lopez is the only one I have to say that wasn't that great, but she does a believable job. I would recommend for a scary thriller.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
This movie could have been 15 minutes long if it weren't for all the bickering between son and father. Very predictable. Both Male "stars" need a good slap in the face! Would you like some cheese with that "whine?" Two chuckles...and a headache. I can understand why the mother left her hubby after 47 years...I don't know how she lasted that long! The first 5 minutes made me want to turn the movie off wishing I had never paid the $3.99 to watch it! The movie didn't flow well and was painfully long. I kept watching my watch hoping time would fly faster...It didn't. The script had so much repetition that it had to be easy for the writer to fill space. On a positive note...the scenery was pretty, fall being my favorite season. The car, the 40 Ford was also quite nice. This movie gets an D- rating approaching an F
|
negative
|
I would have given it a one instead of a two, but I suppose it COULD have been worse. I guess the acting isn't all that bad, but the plot lacks anything even remotely close to interesting. It is a terrible movie!! TERRIBLE! Complete waste of time! I strongly suggest you do not watch this movie.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
negative
|
Thomas Vinterbergs "De Største Helte" is yet another road movie without the most important element of a film: a good story. The characters are not very original and not particularly interesting. Especially Thomas Bo Larsen is a pain in the neck, playing the same role he has played in the past few years and which he repeated in "Festen" - it seems as if he thinks acting = being angry and screaming at other people! The film doesn't make much too sense and isn't very funny either - although it tries hard to be "kooky" and "weird". If you're going to make a road movie, why not add something original to the genre?!
|
negative
|
Those of the "Instant Gratification" era of horror films will no doubt complain about this film's pace and lack of gratuitous effects and body count. The fact is, "The Empty Acre" is a good a example of how independent horror films should be done.<br /><br />If you avoid the indie racks because you are tired of annoying teens or twenty somethings getting killed by some baddie whose back-story could have come off the back of a Count Chocula box, "The Empty Acre" is the movie for you.<br /><br />Set in the decaying remnants of the rural American dream, "The Empty Acre" is the tale of a young couple struggling with the disappearance of their six-month-old baby. As the couple's weak relationship falls apart, a larger story plays out in the background. At night, a shapeless dark mass seethes from a sun baked barren acre on their farm and seemingly devours anything in its path, leaving no sign that it was ever there.<br /><br />The film is loaded with enigmatic characters and visual clues as to what is happening, and ends with a well executed ending that resonates with just enough left over questions to validate the writer/director's faith in an intellectual audience.<br /><br />There seems to be a sub-text concerning the death of the American dream, but I would hardly call the film an allegory. Riveting, well acted, and technically astute, "The Empty Acre" is a fantastic little indie that thinking horror fans should love.
|
positive
|
At the beginning of this film, which I found myself watching on IFC in the wee hours of the morning, I was filled with a sense of claustrophobia and general discomfort. The feeling of being trapped with no way to escape was so powerful that I didn't know if I wanted to continue watching...although it didn't really seem to me that I had much of a choice, so compelling was the situation.<br /><br />Gradually, though, that feeling of discomfort waned (although it never really disappeared entirely), and I felt drawn into Tessa & Bobby's predicaments, and really just hoping against hope that they might get back together.<br /><br />Really just a moving, powerful story fit snugly into a tiny package. I had no idea that Sarah Polley had anything to do with it until perusing her trivia, so now I love it even more.<br /><br />I definitely recommend it. ...If your lucky enough to catch it on the Independent Film Channel sometime, or wily enough to figure out some other way to view it.
|
positive
|
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting much going into this film viewing in my Japenese film class, but this film really blew me away. The director does a wonderful job following through with the title of his film, truly portraying a picture of madness. I think the fact that this film is silent adds to the resemblance of madness, helping the viewer experience the characters inner world rather than the world outside his mind. This film just added to my feelings about foreign silent films vs. American, in that the foreign films work much more to exercise your mind and make you think rather than going for the fluffy film always with the happy ending, exercising the imagination very little.
|
positive
|
Clint Eastwood scores big in this thriller from 1993.Teamed with an absolute master of edge of your seat suspense,Wolfgang Peterson, Eastwood delivers as only he can.Also,John Malkovich goes on my list of most effective screen villains in the history of cinema as the demented assassin.As for Rene Russo as Clint's love interest,I think Kirk Douglas said it best when he said,referring to his own career,"I keep getting older,and my leading ladies keep getting younger".This film is a very effective thriller with enough plot twists and surprises to keep you going.Eastwood and Peterson should team together more often. Top notch movie.
|
positive
|
Dramatic ? Yes......Historically accurate ? Not Quite !.... This movie twists the Bibles details of the deluge by placing Lot meeting Noah during the building of the Ark. Fascinating time travel for Lot made in part by NBC !....being Lot had not been born until 2136 BCE, 234 years AFTER the floodwater's (2370BCE)....Thats like having George Bush meet with William Shakepeare ! And whats with this guy floating around selling items & nicknack's to Noah ? <br /><br />You can make a movie based on historical facts dramatic, but don't twist it around placing people where they weren't....especially when it comes to Gods Word.
|
negative
|
The plot for a movie such of this is a giveaway. How can you go wrong with a gay plot line and all the colors and music of India - a story like this writes itself. I'll watch most anything, but this was unwatchable. The sad thing is, the white folks are the most colorful in the film. Vanessa was a riot with a mouth like a sailor, and Jack was great eye candy, but everyone else was so boring. Saeed Jeffrey, who was exceptional in My Beautiful Landrette, did what he could but the story was so boring. The saving grace was really the background music, which made it OK to laugh at the film, instead of with the film, or not at all. There are many other better gay movies, ethnic movies, just plain movies. I give a lot of low budget movies a pass, but this shouldn't have been made, or should have been made by someone else.
|
negative
|
I watched this film last night, i though i would rent a horror/scary film from blockbusters and i got this one out. The opening scenes were so long winded, the conversations between characters seemed not to lead anywhere. <br /><br />The story line seemed so poor to me, she gave him HIV and then she goes to meet someone else but she is killed by the man she infected ( i think she may have been doing it for a long time to different people) Then when he dumps the body it just happened to be the man she was going to meet, was in the forest and saw him dumping the body. Then he chased them ( did he ever finish burying the body??) and they got into a car and he somehow found them from a different direction they came from and killed the bloke. <br /><br />I think the severed head was the only good thing in the film as it was quite realistic. and then when the woman ran she happened to fall over in front of him so he could stab her with a spade!! AND THEN IT FINISHED!! <br /><br />What a relief, It was the most pointless film i have ever watched...please steer well clear of it, it is just so poorly made, i counted only 5 different people in it, and the scene where he kills her is so unrealistic and they only swear in it and thats it!! Thats it from me...<br /><br />STEER WELL CLEAR!!
|
negative
|
This was so bad, I want God to give me an extra two hours of life having had to sit through it.<br /><br />First off, the acting was uniformly bad. There was barely a plot, unless "Shaggy dog story with a guy in a rain poncho and skeleton mask instead of a dog" counts.<br /><br />The editing was was all over the place, and the slow-mo shots of the "gore" (red corn syrup flying through the air--doubtless flung using a spoon) got irritating after the tenth time, and infuriating after the hundredth time.<br /><br />I like Michael Rooker. He's done some good work. This was not good. This was less than good. And by that, I mean that it sucked. Hard.<br /><br />For god's sake, don't watch this movie.
|
negative
|
After getting hooked on the mini series, "North & South," I could hardly wait for the continuation, "North & South II." Then years later, along came Book III, "HEAVEN & HELL - NORTH & SOUTH - BOOK III." FINALLY, the last installment came for the on-going saga of the Maine and Hazard families. I was so enraptured by this series that I taped each part off of TV and then managed to get family and friends hooked and I watched it AGAIN, each time someone new wanted to see them. My tapes are old and I crave this trilogy on DVD. If you missed Book III, you didn't get full satisfaction and you don't know how it all turned out. Do yourself a favor and demand this set on DVD!
|
positive
|
this movie was so gay like its a mom and son cat that have sex, they also get scared of little kitty cats. they get set on fire by them. the mom cat alien thing kills a guy by stabbing him in the back with an ear of corn? they are bullet proof. invisible. and what not. the star of the movie, Clovis, is the cops cat, Clovis leads the cops to find the mom alien, and after the mom kills the cops, Clovis kills the mom by eating her head then she catches on fire. this movie sucks. it was way way more funny than it was scary, it wasn't even scaryt at all. the girl hits the alien on the head with a camera, it knoks him out. she then goes and hugs her. the then grabs her and begins to rape her. once again, Clovis comes to the rescue
|
negative
|
I know this movie isn't for everyone, and I won't push my opinions on you, but what I have to say is the truth about how many people feel about this movie...It was the best I have ever seen!!! It was soooooooooooooooooo funny, and even though it wasn't the scariest movie I had ever seen, it kept me on the edge of my seat, because I didn't know what was gonna happen next. If you like funny scary movies, you have got to see this one!
|
positive
|
Despite its flaws, I enjoyed "Cigarette Burns", John Carpenter's Season One episode in the Masters of Horror series. Yes, the story seemed like a cheap cross between IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS and 8MM, but it was still quite good for the budget and time constraints given to it. With "Pro-Life", however, the low budget and time constraints definitely show more than anything else. There is solid directing as always from Carpenter yet there is a quality to the writing and whole production itself that gives the feeling it was made in a total and complete rush. The script isn't always clear, the message fuzzy, and the story is full of plot holes once you look back on them. Maybe had Carpenter re-written the script, it could have been a worthwhile episode. Instead, it's a mess that only hardcore Carpenter fans will find the slightest enjoyment in. Definitely the worst Carpenter has ever done. 2/10
|
negative
|
Mindless dribble about the second coming of Christ in the form of a hippie and albino looking Sandra Locke. You have no idea what's happening on the screen with the irritating theme song "Suzanne" being played over and over throughout the movie until when "The Second Coming of Suzanne" is over you already know it by hard no matter how hard you try to forget the whole thing.<br /><br />This off-the-wall armature movie maker Logan,Jared Martin, is out to make the movie of the century but is so rude and obnoxious that none in the banking world is willing to finance his project. Planning to go on his own Logan then spots this couple at a seaside café and is fascinated with the young woman Suzanne, Sandra Locke, who reminds him of someone he knew in another life: Jesus Christ.<br /><br />With Logan's assistant and all around gofer Clavius, Richard Dreyfuss,somehow getting a $740,000.00 loan from the bank to finance Logan's masterpiece he starts to work on Suzanne by flattering her about her talent as an actress in order to get her interested to be in his film. This leads to Suzanne not only leaving her boyfriend artist Simon, Paul Sand, but later Simon being so depressed and feeling all alone takes a gun to his mouth and blows his brains out.<br /><br />The movie also has two somewhat unrelated sub-plots in it that has to do with a young autistic girl Dorothy, Kari Avalos, who's cured of her autism by Suzanne after everyone else, at the psychiatric hospital that she was committed to,failed. It's not really known what exactly Suzanne was doing at the hospital but she seemed to be some kind of orderly or volunteer there; was this supposed to show us in the audience that she, like Jesus, could miraculously heal the sick?<br /><br />There's also this newspaper columnist and big time businessman tycoon Jackson Sinclair, Gene Barry, who seems to be either going through a very difficult mid-life crisis or has seen a biblical-like vision that changed his life forever. Sinclair had been searching for the meaning of life as well as what it's all about all through the movie and wanted to know why there's all this suffering in the world, like this movie that he's in, and seemed to have found the answer when he first laid his eyes on Suzanne. Sinclair also got some sense knocked into his head when his private chauffeur David, Mark Rasmusser, who's gotten sick and tired of his weird and crazy hallucinations almost running him off a cliff in a kamikaze like drive along the Pacific Coast.<br /><br />The movie "The Second Coming of Suzanne" goes on with a number of unrelated sequences, probably to fill or pad in some time by it's director and film editor, and then goes to it's final scene in a Christ-like crucification on a hill as Logan has all the cameras rolling. It turns out that the crazed Logan got so carried away with his masterpiece as he tried to replicate, on the helpless and tied up Suzanne, the actual crucification of Jesus Christ some 2,000 years ago.<br /><br />Hard to sit through and almost impossible to follow "The Second Coming of Suzanne" puts you through the same kind torture that Suzanne is put through by Logan and the makers of the film. The movie tries to be arty but that's just an excuse to cover up it's brainless and non-existent storyline and even worse the terrible and amateurish acting by everyone in it.
|
negative
|
It is fitting that the title character in Sydney White is defined from the beginning of the film by her awkwardness because the film, like the character, tends to begin every scene with a well-meant but inappropriate statement, then backtracks inadvertently making it worse and leaving the viewer in total confusion.<br /><br />This scenario gets old quick. Now imagine a hour and a half of this, throw on the most predictable storyline imaginable; add some vague Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs references and Amanda Bynes blinking in wide-eyed puzzlement and you have Sydney White...for more of my review http://www.helium.com/items/1433421-sydney-white-review
|
negative
|
Four porn stars romping through the Irish woods sounds like a film to watch. We have Ginger Lynn Allen, Chasey Lain, Taylor Hayes, and Jenna Jameson all together in one film. Are you licking your lips? Well the mutant creatures who resulted from centuries of inbreeding were certainly licking their lips as they feasted on the entrails of their victims.<br /><br />Yes, there was some flesh exposed - far too little considering the cast - but, it was soon ripped open to expose dinner for these creatures. There was definitely some action that probably has not been seen before, and more than one person lost their head in the situation.<br /><br />Unfortunately, director Christian Viel did not show much promise and I am not likely to watch his later efforts.
|
negative
|
I watched this hoping to find out something I didn`t know about modern history`s most infamous man and couldn`t help thinking that history has been rewritten in HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL . Hitler was so obsessed with his niece that he threatened to have one of her admirer`s shot . Hitler turned up with a gun in his hand to arrest Ernst Rohm . Forgive me for asking but haven`t the writers confused Adolph Hitler with Tony Montana from SCARFACE ? That`s bad enough but what really offended me was that there`s entire chunks of historical context missing in this mini series . Germany lost the first world war and the allied powers made Germany pay a heavy price for doing so. It was this economic environment that led the German people to have someone - anyone - to restore their pride and that`s why they turned to Nazism . The German humiliation of the 1920s caused by the allied powers seems to be entirely missing therefore there is no way that HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL can be taken seriously as a historical document, and I haven`t even mentioned that Himmler and Goering are conspicous by their absence <br /><br />There is one positive point about the mini series and that`s Robert Carlyle in the title role . Okay some of his mannerisms are wrong and his voice is a little too loud ( Archive recordings show that Hitler had a soft seductive voice ) but Carlyle is a charismatic actor and he does manage to communicate Hitler`s own charisma on screen . Comments in the British press that Carlyle resembles the synth player from Sparks more than Adolph Hitler are unfounded and he gives one of the better interpretations of Hitler.<br /><br />I liked the performance by Robert Carlyle but I hated everything else about this mini series and wondered why on earth it was made in the first place . There`s nothing to recommend it to serious history fans
|
negative
|
All I could think while watching this movie was: "Will it ever end?!" It was unbearably boring to watch. I was wishing I could just turn it off, but I wanted to do this review justice so I fought the good fight and withstood the torture of watching this movie all the way through so that you, the good reader, need not bear that pain also.<br /><br />This movie sounds like it has a great premise if you read the premise on paper. However, the actual movie does not deliver on this premise at all.<br /><br />The opening scene features a mineshaft in the early 1900's, where they are forcing kids to carry dynamite into the tunnels that aren't big enough for the adults to fit into. This seems to be setting up the premise for an interesting movie. But after 4 minutes, it becomes clear that is not the case. The adults who committed these crimes are never punished; there is no consequences shown in the movie for their actions. The opening scene is way better than, and completely irrelevant to, the rest of the movie. The last time an opening scene misrepresented a movie so grievously was the opening scene of 28 Days Later which was the only good scene in *that* whole movie. Wicked Little Things/Zombies (a movie so crappy they changed the title to try to disguise it's crappiness and sell it again) is exactly the same in this regard. The opening scene is the only watchable scene in the whole movie.<br /><br />Instead, the movie flashes forward to present-day. A single mother and her two bratty, foul-mouthed kids. Right here is when it would have been wise to press the STOP button and never go near the movie again.<br /><br />In the first hour, the zombie kids are barely even seen. They get maybe 3 minutes of screen-time, total. All they do is kill a pig, that's it. The rest of the hour is spent showing the dumb mother and her dumb kids buy things at the local store, wander around the forest, and have inane conversations with each other. The dumb teenage daughter goes and hangs out with some other idiot teenagers and smokes weed with them.<br /><br />There would be no reason to care at all if the zombie kids dispatched anyone in this movie. Every single character is both dumb & annoying, with no redeeming qualities at all. Not to mention one-dimensional and clichéd.<br /><br />This movie would have been *vastly improved* if the mother and her dumb kids were dispatched in the first 10 minutes by the zombie kids, as they were driving up to their new house, then the end credits rolled. That right there would instantly change the score from 1/10, to 10/10. Honestly! When the dumb mother takes her eyes off the road and almost crashes into a pedestrian on the road, her daughter scolds her: "You almost killed us, mom!" Of course, anyone with common sense knows that if the mom had hit the pedestrian, it would be the pedestrian who would be dead --- not the people safely encased *inside* the car. I guess this line was put into the movie to show firsthand that the utter stupidity of the main characters knows no bounds, and runs in the family.<br /><br />Wicked Little Things/Zombies runs for 1 hour and 34 minutes, but it definitely felt like 5 hours or more to me. Trying to not fall asleep was a tremendous challenge. It's not until over an hour has passed into the 1 hour and 34 minutes that the zombie children actually bother to kill any person. Then the scene shows the dumb teenagers drinking beer and making out in a car and saying lines like, "If you ever wanna get in my pants again, you better start the car and get my ass out of here right now." Seriously, that's verbatim from the movie. The teenagers are so clichéd, one-dimensional, badly-acted, dumb & annoying that when the zombie kids finally get around to hacking 3 of them up 1 hour and 5 minutes into the movie, it feels like a cause for celebration. Of course the "Princess" dumb weed-smoking foul-mouthed beer-drinking loser daughter of the main mother character gets away scott-free. What a buzzkill that was! She was on the screen longer than the others and hence the most annoying of the 4 of them, and most deserving of a pickaxe to the head. All the more reason why she should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, as aforementioned. To still keep her around past 1 hour and 5 minutes though, is totally inexcusable.<br /><br />The reason for this of course is that feature length movies need to be padded to at least 1 hour and 30 minutes. So by keeping her alive long-past when she should be, they have an extra 27 minutes to pad the movie with her and her mother running through the woods. By 1 hour and 22 minutes in, it's the *second* time in the movie where the annoying daughter is trapped in a vehicle where the engine won't start whilst the zombie kids are coming to get her.<br /><br />The zombie kids are completely generic. Never say anything. No character development at all for any of them.<br /><br />In the end, all 3 of the annoying, idiotic main characters live. Which in my opinion, is the filmmakers' way of giving a final flipping the bird gesture to the viewing audience. In my opinion, the filmmakers surely know that they have bamboozled anyone who has had the great misfortune to watch the whole movie. Why not rub their faces in it by not even giving them the satisfaction of seeing any of the 3 main characters who should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, die.<br /><br />Avoid Wicked Little Things/Zombies like the Bubonic Plague.
|
negative
|
28 years before 9/11, there was another 9/11 which represented a key date in the history of Chile, South America and the whole world. This was the date in 1973 when a bloody coup in Chile deposed Salvador Allende the first Marxist president elected democratically anywhere in the world and put an end to the Chilean experiment of a democratic transition from capitalism to socialism. Allende committed suicide when the armed forces attacked the presidential palace.<br /><br />Unfortunately this film is too biased and too nostalgic towards the time of Allende's rule to be an objective rendition of the man and of his place in history. The times were troubled and Allende was a disputed figure in the history of his country and of the whole world. True, he was democratically elected, but his policies plunged Chile into economic crisis. He was deposed by a coup and a right-wing dictatorship followed with repression and flagrant human rights abuses, but he was also an ally of Castro who saw in his policies another way of making revolution. We'll never know if his tentative to build a socialist yet democratic society would have succeeded. The authors of the movie take a completely pro-Allende position, there is no opinion or point of view trying to explain the other side, to answer questions like why did the middle class oppose him, or how his democratic views could go together with supporting or being supported by Castro. The tone of the commentaries is nostalgic and apologetic, almost propagandistic. People who want to get a better understanding of this episode of the history need to wait for a more balanced and objective film or book in the future.
|
negative
|
Only the chosen ones will appreciate the quality of the story and character design of this movie. Superior ancients that dwell in the lands of lore far beyond any average human creature's understanding. This movie pulls the adventure genre into a unique centrifugal magical force of fantasy unto thee mystical crystals of chalice. Stories come and go, but the idea for a good story is to think positive, not negative thoughts. To create a good versus evil battle like never before. Embracing an impounding shimmering process that keeps imagination glowing in one dimension and out the other. Striking a quick flash of energy that transports a human to another world.
|
positive
|
Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by "Carnival of Souls".The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash.
|
negative
|
SNL is pretty funny but people who say this is like watching a Short skit on SNL is a little dumb minded. It's NOTHING like SNL, it's just a stupid piece of crap.<br /><br />Andy Samberg tries to act like Jon Heder but fails. Although Jon Heder is only funny in Napoleon Dynamite Andy tries his hardest and people think he's funny.<br /><br />Only funny people in the movie were Danny McBride and Bill Hader. The only part that was decently funny with Andy was the pool part.<br /><br />They could have made the "Quiet place" a lot better if they didn't make the falling scene 3 freaking minutes.<br /><br />The part where he's pronouncing his H's more is retarded. They try going with it too long and half the time it looks like Andy is laughing while he acts...he's a horrible actor and doesn't deserve to be in a movie.<br /><br />This movie is a joke and is for the simple minded people with the brain of a 10 year old level of comedy. Which is about half the United States.
|
negative
|
Imagine a film the complete opposite of Lawrence of Arabia, instead of having an all male cast, it has an all female cast. Instead of being set in the barren deserts of Arabia, it is set in the bulging metropolis of New York City. And instead of it being one of the greatest films ever made, it is one of the most pointless, boring and forgettable.<br /><br />The film concerns Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a perfect wife and mother, the envy of all others in her high society Manhatten social circle. She is painted as a women bearing the weight of the world on her shoulders, despite the fact she needs a live in nanny and housekeeper to cope with her one child. But I don't want to be too hard on her, Mary does all this whilst taking a liassez-faire attitude towards the fashion designing job her father has given her. This idyllic lifestyle cannot last forever though and things start to crash in a very real way.<br /><br />Mary's husband is cheating on her and her father fires her for not working hard enough. She is quite naturally upset and breaks down a little.<br /><br />Mary needs to bounce back though, for the sake of her impressionable young daughter and for herself. She does this through rehab, hair straightening and designing her own line of clothes; though amazingly for this kind of film, not a montage. Mary succeeds; her daughter loves her, her mother loves her, her friends love her and her husband decides he loves her now. She decides to take her cheating husband back after realising it was her fault he cheated, as she didn't dote on him enough.<br /><br />The films one saving grace is that it doesn't go down the "all men are evil" route.
|
negative
|
There are a few spoilers in this comment!!<br /><br />Contrary to the comments I just read by nativetex4u and a few others, I really liked the movie and would love to see it as a weekly series.<br /><br />I am a Judson Mills fan but also a huge Chuck Norris fan and while I'll admit that a few of the action scenes may have stretched the line a little, the storyline fit right in with other weekly series that are currently being aired.<br /><br />The opening fifteen minutes with Deke running from the bad guys after blowing up their missiles was very action packed. I do fail to see how that many "professionals" weren't able to hit a moving target, but the action was definitely there and Deke, being the hero, had to survive.<br /><br />As for the comment about needing to "get the movie in the can to fill the time slot after the playoffs." This movie was not originally scheduled by CBS for a January airing and filming was completed in May of 2001, a good 4 months before the terrorist attacks against the U.S.<br /><br />If the writer of the comment had been paying attention to the movie instead of trying to avoid it, maybe they would have realized the plot of the story: Rashid, a Bin Laden like character, planned to set off a nuclear device in the United States. The President's Man was called in to locate and eliminate the problem.<br /><br />Perhaps the writer should actually WATCH the movie before attempting to comment on it.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
well, what can i say. WHAT THE F**K? There really isn't much to say about this, really. The only way you would like this is if u, like me, like bad bad horror to laugh at.<br /><br />ACTING- VERY UNCONVINCING! Just watch the last scene with the main actresses running! Rip-off of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE! but in a bad way! Just awful!<br /><br />Gore- Really not believable. In one scene they use one of those knives which have a chunk cut out of them which fit over a body part etc. By using this,with the addition of red ketchup, its supposed 2 look real, although it really doesn't.<br /><br />Plot- predictable 'kids get lost in woods on camping weekend' movie ripped off from Friday the 13th.<br /><br />Killer Quality- scary mask if you're scared of clowns, kinda unbelievable that someone would chose this as their costume however. The director obviously realised all the good costumes had been used in all the other horror-camp movies out there.<br /><br />TOTAL- 3/10 */***** p.s- stay away from CAMP BLOOD II, that one made this look like LORD OF THE RINGS.
|
negative
|
I cry at a lot of movies. Call me sentimental. Call me one of those viewers who always likes to see a happy ending. This movie, though it has a sad ending, was great! Of all of the actors that I would love to have lunch with, it would be Sidney Poitier. His acting, along with John Cassavetes and Jack Warden (of 12 Angry Men fame)is stellar. His character, who befriends a man on the run (Cassavetes) and helps him out in every way possible is incredible.<br /><br />This is another one of those forgotten noirs made during the end of the noirish era. It is well done, has a superb cast, extremely talented acting, and great cinematography. It is a film worth watching over and over again. I highly recommend this one! This is just another truly great film done by Mr. Poitier and should be sold on DVD. Even though I cried, kudos to such great art!
|
positive
|
I think if they made ANY MONEY make a complete turd bomb like this one. The I need to get into the movie industry. I wiped my ass on a piece of toilet paper and made a better script once. Watch when the guy is running through the tunnel, they used the same 30 feet of tunnel OVER and OVER and OVER again and never even changed the location of the stupid HANGING light.<br /><br />I think if i get the THRILL of meeting the director of this GEM of a MOVIE, I think i will pick a fight with him and start it by deficating on his LOAFERS<br /><br />I think I need to puke now
|
negative
|
For starters I have always been a fan of the Batman cartoons because the theme is so universal, 'that everyone alive has an alter-ego'. This is true in the Mystery of Batwoman. While the overall story is good I'm disappointed that they haven't really done much for the franchise with this.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, you are trying to find out who the identity of Batwoman is, unfortunately you can find out by easily looking at the cast of credits posted on this website (so if you haven't seen it already don't go there). I was sort of disappointed that they didn't make the movie longer. 75 minutes is way too short for any movie. The secret identity of batwoman also comes far too early in the movie, sort of midway, and becomes anti-climatic afterward because you know the good guys will always win and that the new character known as Batwoman will disappear after the movie is over.<br /><br />I'm also not too sure about the new animation style used in this movie. I love the sleek new characters but there should be some more detail where detail is called for. Some parts of the animation look so awkward and rigid that it grabs your attention right away diverting your attention away from the storyline. I also didn't really like the bright atmosphere used in most of the scenes, it sort of loses its dark and gothic feel which is Batman. Similarly we should've gotten to know more about batwoman's personality so that we can build the same deep compassionate feeling that we do with Bruce Wayne. Also I think the fight with Bane should have been done better. In typical children's fashion the bad guy meets his demise too easily either by tripping, falling, getting electricuted or doing something dumb that works against them. Come to think of it there wasn't even one drop of blood spilled in this movie either.<br /><br />Bottom line, its a good entertaining flick and I recommend anyone who's a Batman fan to watch it. It has good storyline, universal appeal and even great acting to top it off. I just wish that they could have delivered more permanent change to the story by making Batwoman stay to make things more interesting. Not just introduce her and then kick her off once she's done. I'd also like to see someone else figure out the mystery for a change finally. To have some other than Batman solve the mystery and fill him in later with the details.<br /><br />I hope there are more animated movies to come and look forward to the time when we will actually be able to see the breakup between Bruce Wayne and Barbra Gordan. He's been stringing her along forever and doesn't even like her and I can't believe that she was dumb enough to fall in love with someone 20 years older. I also want to see the time when Tim Drake leaves because he is getting sick of the old man. In short I want to see all of the things that led the characters to where they will be in Batman Beyond. Otherwise the same repeated formula will just end it faster than if they just decided to move on with the story.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Uzumaki has a very unique story and I will never look at spirals the same way again. Not really spine tingling horror, this film has a dark morose, acid trip feel to it. During certain parts, was it just me or did you see vortex visuals? The camera shots are interesting and the movie lets your imagination run wild. The bizarre supernatural feel of this film draws you in just as the title suggests. Acting is done well and the town setting itself seems wrong with to begin with.<br /><br />This may take a few viewings for it to sink in. A great trippy film.
|
positive
|
If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.<br /><br />I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?
|
negative
|
Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.<br /><br />The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as "What do you do for a living?" in response "I kill zombies" and "I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier." The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.<br /><br />Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.<br /><br />Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.
|
negative
|
David Aames is a rich good-looking guy who lives in New York City. When his 'sleeping partner' Julie Gianni gets very jealous after David falls for Spanish beauty Sofia, she gets David into her car and tells him that he's the only guy she loves and wants to be with, but seeing as he's in love with Sofia, she decides to commit suicide with David in the car with her, by driving off a bridge. David survives the crash, but is left with a disfigured face. He is then charged with the murder of Julie. The thing is, David doesn't know what's real and what's not as he keeps having these strange dreams (Most of which are actually nightmares.) and flashbacks, some of which just don't make sense to him. Everything will soon come back to him though as he's begins to find out the truth.<br /><br />Well, there's an all star cast here, including Tom Cruise, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Kurt Russell, Jason Lee and Noah Taylor who all give good performances in the movie. In the movie they all put off different things about there characters, like happiness, sadness, angry, etc. really well. There's also a cameo in the movie from the brilliant, Steven Spielberg.<br /><br />Vanilla Sky is a well made, different, interesting and original movie which will leave you talking about it a lot after it's finished. It's not just a thriller, but it's a real psychological thriller. The trailer for the movie is really good, but the movie is so different from what it might be made out to be. It's been directed very well and there were a couple of really great scenes here too. All in all, an enjoyable movie which should be really be paid attention too. They are sure making a lot of "Are they dead, if not who is dead" movies recently.
|
positive
|
Never Been Kissed gives Drew Barrymore the chance to do something that maybe 70% of us would like to do. Go back to high school and make some necessary corrections. Actually the first time for me was bad enough and at my age I doubt I could pull it off the way Drew does.<br /><br />Of course the reason could also be that once we leave high school it's like leaving a cocoon and we have to deal with the great big unfriendly world out there. I've known a few in my life who would go back and stay if they could. In fact there is a Law and Order episode which explores the dark side of this same situation. A girl looking young enough to pull it off, goes through high school at least three times and kills the person who stumbles on her secret.<br /><br />With Drew though it's an assignment. She's a copy editor for the Chicago Sun Times who yearns to be a reporter. Publisher Garry Marshall who plays the part like Donald Trump took over the Sun Times gets this brilliant idea and just sees in Barrymore a young enough looking person to pull off the masquerade. <br /><br />High School the first time was bad enough. Drew was not the most popular then and she's not doing better the second time around. That is until brother David Arquette also goes back to school and helps her over the rough patches.<br /><br />Of course this raises a whole lot of issues for Drew, peer pressure from two sources, job and school. What's a girl to do?<br /><br />Never Been Kissed is a light and charming comedy which to its credit skips over the opportunity to be crassly exploitive and gives us some good entertainment. Drew is very funny and sweet and her performance in moments of stress for her character moves nicely into pathos. Michael Vartan as her English teacher is the kind I wish there were more of in the education field and Leelee Sobieski and Jessica Alba play a pair of the empty headed cool kids that Drew tries so desperately to hook up with.<br /><br />Still it doesn't inspire me to return to Midwood High School.
|
positive
|
I sort of liked this movie, not a good one, but not the worst ever made. Though, everyone else says it is one o the worst movies ever created, I thought it was okay. There are a lot of immature jokes. It wants to be funny sometimes, but fails.<br /><br />The story is OKAY. It may be a little hard to follow for the younger audiences, though.<br /><br />The acting is pretty bad. Jamie Kennedy is a horrible actor at most times. At some times, it is even laughable. Alan Cumming is probably the best actor in here. He is funny when he is supposed to be, but some of his lines are god awful.<br /><br />Oh, and the main bad thing about this movie that I hated was Tim Avery's voice when he is possessed by the mask. The voice is HORRIBLE. Also, the scenes that he is in are so unfunny, that they are almost unbearable. I am sure they could have cut him out, and it wouldn't affect the movie at all.<br /><br />Overall, you can live without seeing this. It is a nice movie to watch if you have nothing else to watch, though. They definitely could have gone without making the sequel, but it is a decent effort. 4/10
|
negative
|
I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.<br /><br />This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.<br /><br />The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.<br /><br />But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.<br /><br />If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.<br /><br />Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.
|
negative
|
Jerk hazer Mike(David Zelina playing this college frat man as one major bastard you want to see die right away)and his college cronies leave hypoglycemic diabetic Sam(Caleb Roehrig)hanging on a wooden cross along with this scarecrow which is a legendary ghost story. They get PO'd at Sam who essentially goes into shock and aims a swinging punch at Mike that lands across his girlfriend Patty(Kristina Sheldon)instead so leaving the poor guy hanging is his punishment. Somehow, Sam's soul "emerges" with the inanimate scarecrow who comes from the cross to destroy everyone who left the poor guy there to rot. Mike and the gang send the uninitiated dorks back to bring Sam down but they are the first to receive a swinging blade across their throats. Mike and his posse head for the beach to gulp booze, play volleyball & bicker until the scarecrow arrives to end their little soirée. Sam's substitute brother Jack(Matthew Linhardt)is supposed to look out for him, but decides to sleep with new love-interest Beth(Samantha Aisling)instead. So when he receives a cell-phone message from Mike concerning how they left Sam hanging on the cross while they were off at the beach taking in the sun and sand, Jack is frenzied with fear. Beth's estranged father is a doctor and he agrees to see after Sam's condition after they cut the nearly dead young man down taking him to emergency hospital. Returning to the beach to confront Mike because of his negligence(..not to mention Jack's promise to coach Ramsey, played by UFC fighter Ken Shamrock, regarding no hazing), Jack and Beth will face the same straw-stuffed assassin that is bumping off the others. Coach Ramsey, who was part of a past hazing incident that went awry causing killer-scarecrow-mischief, has to confront some demons himself as he informs the survivors of the group about what they are up against.<br /><br />Babes, boobs, and blood..this flick follows the basic slasher guidelines. Yet, this flick also carries the typical slasher traits of corny characters, acting, dialogue and overall plot. The flick shows signs of it's low budget particularly in the violence as most of the real action takes place off-screen instead of showing it happening up, close & personal. What appears on screen is mostly the aftermath of the killer's vengeance:one fellow holding his guts, another with a stake(holding up the group's volleyball net) plunged through his chest, blood spatter after a woman gets hit over the head presumably with a large rock, one chick laying dead after the scarecrow hit her with the SUV, etc. There is also some dubbing problems where it's clear the sounds of their voices often don't match the movements of their lips..particularly the unintentionally hilarious sequence where Ed(Travis Parker), wannabe rock star, is singing to his buddies a horrible song they all seem quite impressed with.
|
negative
|
Looks as if the Robocop writer has been wholesale looting The Vindicator. This is a very solid horror/action movie about a man set up in an accident to be used in cruel experiment. Anyone who have seen Robocop knows the story. Watch out for Pam Grier as a bitchy and darn good looking assassin. This highly effective, violent and bloody horror movie may not be to everyones liking, but this Canadian outing is well worth seeking out for anyone who is fan of the genre. 8/10
|
positive
|
I had high hopes for this production, being one of my favourite works.<br /><br />Indeed, a lot of it is reasonable: Helen Baxendale is not a bad Lady Macbeth, but lacks the devilry which the original character is infused with. Many of the minor characters do well, and the Scottish settings are superb.<br /><br />The big disappointment to me is Jason Connery in the title role: he seems to be reading his lines off a cue card with the wrong glasses - surely for the first time, as well. He can do so much better. Any production when compared to the sublime Ian McKellen (Macbeth 1979)who to my mind gave the gold standard performance, is going to struggle to be appreciated, but I actually fell asleep and had to rewind this one before I could get through it - hardly a great sign.<br /><br />Honestly, one to Avoid.
|
negative
|
In reply to "State of Confusion" The dogs injuries do seem to disappear rather abruptly, but that may have only been an error in continuity. But, as for the kids trying to build a plane out of junk, it's just a simple matter of imagination. These are two very young kids who have extremely active imaginations and they must rely on those imaginations to keep themselves from being exposed to the reality of the level of abuse that goes on in their home from their stepfather. As for the stepfather, it's very interesting that the director chose to no show his face. That makes him seem more monstrous. If you show his face, then that character becomes a person and not just this "monster" who is terrorizing the childhood of these two innocent children. By showing only the concequences of his abuse and not focusing scenes on the abuse itself, the children then become the main focus of the movie. This film has no loose ends, but runs just as a father's tale to his children would. It has embelleshments. This is a fine American classic.
|
positive
|
I loved "The Curse of Frankenstein" so much that I rushed out to get "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of "If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.<br /><br />Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the "creature", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.<br /><br />Also, there are virtually no "horror" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of "letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few "horrific" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.<br /><br />On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did "Curse" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.<br /><br />The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch "The Curse of Frankenstein" and see a truly great Hammer horror film.
|
negative
|
When great director/actor combinations are talked about the team of J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson is not usually mentioned. Probably because the output of nine joint ventures between the two of them runs the gamut from the really good action entertainment to the mediocre. Unfortunately Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects falls in the latter. <br /><br />That's sad because Kinjite could have been a whole lot better. But for the life of me I don't understand why it was necessary to make the father of the missing Japanese girl, a guy used to getting some cheap jollies because the romance in his marriage has run out. That might have been good for another film altogether, but it served no purpose here.<br /><br />A straightforward cop drama with Charles Bronson as a vice cop who's seen a bit too much in his line of work and has a strong prejudice against orientals. That part could also have used a little explaining as well. But he's going to have to overcome it if he and patient partner Perry Lopez are going to locate a captured Japanese school girl.<br /><br />Bronson's time in the vice squad have told him exactly where to look for the kidnapper. A stylish, murderous pimp played by Jaime Fernandez is the guy and he and Bronson have some history. In fact in the film's best scene, Bronson made him eat an expensive rolex watch and set his car on fire.<br /><br />At one point Fernandez happens to spot Bronson and Lopez in an all night delicatessen and this being after his rolex snack, he sprays the place with an Uzi killing everyone, but Bronson and Lopez. I really think that little incident would have had more than a couple vice cops from the LAPD after Fernandez. But that's another terribly big hole in the plot.<br /><br />Still there is a very rough justice in the end for Fernandez. I wish the whole film had been better though. This was the last film of the Bronson-Thompson team and J. Lee Thompson's last as a director. He should have gone out with something better.
|
negative
|
Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing
|
negative
|
A movie that makes you want to throw yourself on a sword. I've seen schlock in my time but after viewing the wretched mess I don't think I can ever watch a another movie again. May God pity the souls who made this.<br /><br />Premise- Ex-Army quiet stud, underwear model type character (well acted actually) goes looking for the girl who sent him a Xmas card while serving in the military. Lands in with her cabin living-granola type family who are right-wing loggers. Family takes to him and it takes 2 hours of our time for the chick to see he's a better catch than her liberal looking ,french wine drinking, porsche driving, loud cell phone talking, lazy, city slicking, Jewish looking fiancé.<br /><br />The Bad- 1d characters, 1d themes. Being beat over the head with the Pro-Military theme. Ed Asner.<br /><br />The Good- commercial breaks were long. Peter Jason. It ended.
|
negative
|
Made me wish my own happy birds could talk. Tisk tisk on the reviewer who dissed the movie. A sweet story that people of all ages will enjoy. Paulie is a lovable little treasure. He has quite a few clever lines that truly made me laugh. I especially loved the dance sequences during his showbiz stint. You can forgive the obvious clichés as you cheer him on in his quest to be reunited with Marie. A charming movie featuring two strong characters who genuinely befriend the little parrot separated from his young owner. Would have liked to have seen more of the woman who becomes blind and must abandon their mutual journey. I liked her artistic and poetic inspirations, a shame she could not share Paulie's reunion. Bless Paulie in his new home, at last with Marie, perhaps joined by the nice young man who helped him defeat the antagonists to complete his journey.
|
positive
|
I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE.
|
negative
|
The only reason to give this movie even a single star is how much the ending made me laugh. I had high hopes as I usually love bad campy holiday horror movies, but this just didn't qualify. It's really just a bad attempt at showing a character slide slowly into insanity, which again, isn't a bad plot, but is done poorly here. There are some scenes (such as the ending) which are not intended to be funny, but actually made me laugh out loud. There were a couple of times when I thought the movie would actually go in an interesting direction, but it never fulfills what it could and should be. In my opinion, if you are looking for a Christmas slasher flick, try Silent Night, Deadly Night.
|
negative
|
So Angela has grown up and gotten therapy and an operation to turn her into a real life daughter, rather than the son that she was born, and now holds a job as - wait for it - a camp counselor! How appropriate, right? I know, I love it. Anyway, the first sequel to the Sleepaway Camp franchise obeys all the rules of horror sequels - more blood, more imaginative killings (which aren't imaginative, but still more so than the original), more nudity, a more elaborate plot, and generally worse than the original. <br /><br />It is entertaining in the same way as the original was, in that the characters and wardrobes are so goofy and so authentically 80's that you can't help getting a good laugh. At one point, a guy asks Angela out, and she says "I'll call you," and then quickly walks away. The guy says to himself, "How is she gonna call me? I don't have a phone!" and then he sniffs his armpits, wondering what turned her off (it's the hair, dude!!).<br /><br />It is a well-known fact that in 80s slasher movies, the murdered teenagers were more often than not being punished by their killer for some kind of bad behavior, usually for being too promiscuous. When I first started getting into horror movies and saw the Friday the 13th movies for the first time in the mid 90s, I didn't realize this. I learned it in a film class a year or two later and was amazed that their was some method to the madness. I was pretty impressed, not only that the movies were passing on some kind of message, albeit a morbid one, but that there was actually some thought put into it.<br /><br />But not in this movie! At one point just before Angela kills one of her victims, she says "Let this be a lesson to you. Say no to drugs!" Real subtle screen writing there, guys. Then again, the dialogue is the most entertaining thing in the movie. Angela (who, by the way, went through all that therapy and those operations and all that trouble to clean up her past and reinvent herself as a normal and well-developed person and then changed her name from Angela to, umm, Angela), says at one point, "I don't like being the wicked witch of the west, but I know what happens when things get out of control." (People start getting killed...by me! HA!)<br /><br />Then later, she demands that one of the counselors, Mare, make an apology, to which the girl replies, "I'd rather die!" Sorry, Mare, but you really walked into that one...<br /><br />Two years ago I was a camp counselor at a sleepaway camp similar to the one portrayed in this movie (except the camp that I taught at had more than three kids to the 15 or 20 counselors and it also had rules, which the one in the movie doesn't). This made me notice the myriad of discrepancies in the movie from what camp life is really like. <br /><br />That's okay though, you can hardly make a movie like this with a lot of 9 year olds running around, although there were some 10 or 11 year old kids killed in this movie. I hadn't seen that kind of thing much before. <br /><br />Definitely bad taste, even for a cheesy 80s slasher movie....
|
negative
|
This film (like Astaire's ROYAL WEDDING - which was shown after it on Turner Classic Network last night) is famous for a single musical sequence that has gained a place in Gene Kelly's record: Like Fred Astaire dancing with a clothing rack and later dancing around a room's walls and ceiling, this film had Gene Kelly dancing in a cartoon sequence with Jerry Mouse. The sequence is nicely done. What is forgotten is that Kelly is telling the story behind the cartoon sequence to Dean Stockwell and his fellow child students at school during a break in the day, and sets the stage for the sequence by having Stockwell and the others shut their eyes and imagine a pastoral type of background. Kelly even changes the navy blues he actually wears into a white "Pomeranian" navy uniform with blue stripes on it. Jerry Mouse does more than dance with Gene. He actually talks - a first that he did not repeat for many decades. He also finally puts Tom Cat into his proper place - Tom briefly appears as King Jerry's butler, trying to cheer him with a platter of cheeses.<br /><br />But the sequence of the cartoon with Kelly took about seven minutes of the movie. Far more of this peculiar film is taken up with Kelly's story of the lost four day furlough in Hollywood, and how Kelly ends up meeting Katherine Grayson and (with Frank Sinatra) stalking Jose Iturbi at the MGM film studio, the Hollywood Bowl, and Iturbi's own home. Except that the two sailors mean no harm this film could have been quite disturbing.<br /><br />Kelly has saved Sinatra's life in the Pacific, and is getting a medal as a result. They are both among the crewmen back in California who are getting a four day leave. But the script writers (to propel what would be a short film - Kelly has plans to spend four days having sex with one "Lola", an unseen good time girl in Hollywood) saddle Gene with Frank. <br /><br />It seems Frank is one of those idiots that appear in film after film of the movie factories (particularly musical comedies) who are socially underdeveloped and in need of "instruction" about meeting girls (or guys if the characters are women). Frank insists that Gene help "teach him" how to get a girl. Just then a policeman takes them to headquarters to help the cops with a little boy (Stockwell) who insists on joining the navy (and won't give the cops his real name and address). When a protesting Kelly is able to get this information out of Stockwell by asking him some straight questions (which the cops could not ask), they insist Kelly take the boy home to his aunt (Grayson). Still protesting, Kelly gets saddled with increasingly complicated problems (mostly due to Sinatra's simplistic soul view of things). He misses seeing Lola the next day by sleeping late - Sinatra felt he looked so peaceful sleeping he did not wake him up. He keeps getting dragged back to Grayson's house, as Sinatra feels she is the right woman for himself, but needs Kelly to train him in love making.<br /><br />I suppose my presentation of the plot may annoy fans of ANCHORS AWEIGH, but I find this kind of story irritating. While the singing and dancing and concert music of Kelly, Sinatra, Grayson, and Iturbi are first rate, it is annoying to have to take the idiocies of someone like Sinatra's character seriously. In the real world Kelly would have beaten the hell out of him at the start for following him at the beginning of the four day furlough - what right has he to insist (as Sinatra does) that someone who saves their life should assist him on learning how to date? That kind of crap always ruins the total affects of a musical for me - unless the musical numbers are so superior as to make me forget this type of nonsense.<br /><br />The stalking of Iturbi is likewise annoying. Kelly tries to get Grayson to like Sinatra when he says Sinatra can get her a meeting with Jose Iturbi to audition her singing ability. For much of the rest of the picture Sinatra and Kelly try to do that, and keep floundering (at one point - for no really good reason - Grayson herself ruins Kelly's attempt to get an interview at MGM with Iturbi). It is only sheer luck (that Iturbi feels sorry for an embarrassed Grayson) that she does give him an audition of her talent. <br /><br />Kelly, by the way, ends up with Grayson. Sinatra's conscience at not being able to help her see Iturbi makes him ashamed of his bothering her (but not pulling Kelly into it, oddly enough) and he meanwhile accidentally stumbles into meeting a waitress (Pamela Britton) from his native Brooklyn. And naturally, without any assistance from Kelly, Sinatra and Britton fall in love. Ah,"consistency"! Thy name is not "screenwriting" necessarily!
|
positive
|
This is a top finnish film this year,although Tango Kabaree comes close.The Director Lampela made couple of years back another nice little film called Rakastin epätoivoista naista (I was in love with a desperate woman).Joki is truly true-to-life beautiful film of one saturday afternoon in a little village/town.The actors are maybe not so handsome or beautiful but they do act beautifully.I certainly do hope that many of them get JUSSI statue (finnish OSCAR) next spring.I think this film could make it abroad as well.
|
positive
|
I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.<br /><br />This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.<br /><br />I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.<br /><br />OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.<br /><br />Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.<br /><br />Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please!
|
positive
|
This has just been broadcast on BBC and I am absolutely delighted to have seen it. As the credits rolled, the cast alone made certain that I would give it a go. After just five minutes I was completely immersed in this beautiful film.<br /><br />Yes it was formulaic and predictable, but that somehow added to it's charm. The flashbacks to the forties were wonderfully placed and captured a feeling equalled in few productions.<br /><br />A real feel-good film, punctuated throughout with outstanding music. When it's released, I'll buy it!
|
positive
|
I didn't read the book "Scarlett" and when I watched this mini series I enjoyed it very much and thought it didn't need to be compared to GWTW. The story may differ from the book, but who cares its a movie. Even in the credits its based on the book, its not the book. The film is clearly under appreciated with the reviews that other people write but can't even spell the main characters names right.<br /><br /> The acting in Scarlett I thought was superb. Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton were excellent. They took the characters and gave them there touch. Now as far as other people go by, they compare them to the great Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable. They obviously did fantastic, but the leads in this film are completely different people who have there own acting methods and shouldn't be pressured of what people have to say. If you wanted certain actors to do well then you should have directed the film, I'm sure that other actors would not do as well as these with the chemistry and cleverness they brought to these roles. The supporting cast stood out with there grandness, and Jean Smart steals the scenes that shes in with her comedy genius.<br /><br /> The locations in the film were very beautiful and it was just grand to see Scarlett go to all those places in the film as she causes trouble and other things. Also the scene in which Scarlett talks to her dad's grave it was very dramatic and I thought from then on that there were two GREAT actresses who brought Scarlett O'Hara to life. Not just Vivian Leigh but also Joanne Whalley.<br /><br />The film and the book may differ, but you must not take to heart that this is a sequel to one of the best films ever made otherwise you will think that this has to be like Gone With the Wind and you will not like this film. But this is an under rated classic that is unlike GWTW, its its own movie. Also keep in mind that "Tomorrow is another day"...
|
positive
|
This proves just how awful the WB Network was in the last few years of its existence. As a homeschooler, I of course deplore this show for its ridiculous, fantasy land, obscure & unfunny stereotypes about the kids being "weird hippies who are so smart they're alienated from the super-cool high school students". Sorry TV writers, the world as viewed from inside your ass (containing your heads apparently when you wrote this show)is NOT the world we talented people see with our eyes as we live in a little thing called reality. As for those who actually liked this show...please, dear sweet Jesus PLEASE rethink the statement that you actually liked this crap over a very long walk. The acting is even more hollow, phony and wooden than the stereotypes the whole show was built around. Thank you WB for doing the right thing and putting this horse out of its beginning-to-end misery. This show never, ever should've even had the privilege of being made, no less having so much as eight awful episodes. I really hope that these actors eventually got a clue and stopped playing roles in garbage TV shows like this as soon as this show ended.
|
negative
|
I really like this movie. Bozz is an ultra-cool, not to be intimidated soldier who does not want to go to war. His persona is similar in a way to Yossarian in Catch-22, Joseph Heller's classic novel about men and war. This film, however, is not set in a war zone, but in a pre-war combat prep training. This wonderful film is all about the sickening realization that the Vietnam war was a mistake and those men who were pegged to be sacrificed for a losing cause.<br /><br />Colin Farrell is brilliant as Bozz, a soldier who showed as much genuine love and compassion for his fellow soldier as he did disdain and irreverence for the establishment that was trying to kill him. Bozz is totally cool and non-plussed, testing and tweaking his military superiors, getting their goat at every opportunity. He is a Jesus Christ figure with a psychology degree, "saving" his fellow soldiers and showing the ones in genuine need, the way out of this man's army.<br /><br />The acting and action is crisp and believable and as a "Sleeper", Tigerland goes down with Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket as one of the top three Vietnam films in my opinion.<br /><br />FIVE STARS, a top pick.
|
positive
|
While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here.
|
positive
|
I love the so-called "blaxploitation" films and have seen dozens. Some, such as COTTON COMES TO HARLEM, SHAFT and HAMMER have excellent production values and are very entertaining, while many others are very cheap and silly, but still entertaining, such as BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH or COFFEY. However, DOLEMITE manages something rare for the genre--it's just cheap and silly and not the least bit entertaining! It's like blaxploitation made for very, very stupid people.<br /><br />Years ago, I saw a takeoff on the Dolemite films on "Mad TV" and unfortunately, the real DOLEMITE isn't any better. Like the parody, the acting is just atrocious. Rudy Ray Moore has all the charm and charisma of a piece of balsa wood. He can barely read his lines and his "karate" is a joke--with his kicks obviously missing the target again and again. As for the rest of the actors, many might be even worse. My favorite was the FBI guy who couldn't even remember his lines and really struggled to get them out--yet they didn't even bother to re-film these scenes! In fact, so much of it was inept that I had a hard time figuring out whether the film was intended as a joke.<br /><br />If you think that despite horrible acting and action that there is something worth seeing about this film, you're wrong. Even for the perverts out there hoping to see some skin, will be disappointed. The naked women in the film really do look like hard-luck prostitutes and there's nothing remotely sexy about their sagging bodies. I think looking at old people naked--REEEAALLY old people naked--is no worse than looking at these "ladies". And as for Rudy Ray, he has "man boobs". No Black super-hero or anti-hero should look that bad naked!! For goodness sakes, put on your clothes people and come up with a script that doesn't look like it was written by winos!!!<br /><br />FYI--Apparently, there are actually sequels to this film!! I can't imagine watching them, so you'll just have to find someone else to review them. I have watched PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE and ROBOT MONSTER, but I just don't think I can bring myself to see another Dolemite film--they are that bad!
|
negative
|
This movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who "discovered" Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.<br /><br />I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green "satan" on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary movie.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.